Then how am I, standing here, wondering if I exist?

Half an hour ago, I was asked to wait in a room that looked stale. Musty odour and grim walls. They mostly covered the damp spots with more white chalk. The chairs of the room were made to quickly get up from.

The chairs of these waiting rooms will always be slightly uncomfortable because eventually everyone has somewhere to be; yet sometimes one must sit a little while longer, fidgeting and adjusting till those chairs are a little less uncomfortable and just a little more familiar. Sometimes, the bleakness of the waiting room will start mirroring some of the colours that shine from passing by moments and sitting on that chair, one will still find something to wait for.

I had slouched down on the chair and my head rested on the white chalked walls. I had all the documents and some more (just in case) that would be necessary to prove my existence. A clerk passed by in an equally pasty white shirt and I hastily screamed, “excuse me, sir, excuse me, hello!” Nothing.

Maybe he was in a hurry to get somewhere.

I didn’t really have anywhere to be but even if I did I was wondering if I had anything to contribute at all because if I didn’t even have a say here then who else will listen? What else am I good for? Is anyone there?

Maybe if I sit really still then I could convince myself that I was part of the walls behind me and then none of this would matter.

Or

What if I scream into the waiting room void and then all the ricocheting thoughts could become audible and finally I am heard. Finally I don’t exist only in my head but somewhere in the long list of people who exist?

Because this is the one thing that is guaranteed, right? Something that is almost promised. Something that people say is a fundamental duty that should be practiced by all.

Across the country right now there are so many people whose existence is questioned. No matter what proof they have, it does nothing. They can sit, wait, scream, and show their entire life as proof and yet they would be pushed to a sideline. Pushed to silence. Reduced to a discrepency and justified as a human error.

To be in a community, to feel human, to feel like your voice matters is so crucial to feeling like this existence is worth it, yet in a process of choosing a representative who will voice the voices, many have been silenced.

Everyone wants to be heard. Everyone wants to feel seen. Everyone wants someone who cares to represent them. But in a world when it is easier to be careless then giving effort to facilitate a change, people are choosing the former without batting an eye to the consequences.

Because the consequences are none when there are no more voices that need to be heard. If I don’t really exist then do I need to be represented?

In a floral printed peach nightdress, eyes lined with dark kajal, Charulata held up her thread necklace; a turmeric tied at its centre. “My guru came to visit me yesterday, so I wore this when I went to see her,” she said. A resident of the Greater Chennai Corporation’s (GCC) THOZHI Trust (Transgender) home, Charulata received the necklace from her Jammat naik, the Tamil Nadu adoptive mother she found safety with after fleeing Kerala.

The Jammat family system has provided safety and security to transgender women in Tamil Nadu for decades. “When I first came here, I didn’t have any family so they (police) could do anything with me. They can charge any sort of fine against me. I was all alone. But then my mother here adopted me,” Charulata explained.

Adoption into a Jammat family comes with shelter, food, clothes and basic necessities, but also strict terms: each Jammat family controls a designated area, sending its members out for begging and sex work, with earnings pooled and distributed among elders. Monthly targets are set for each Transgender woman; failing to meet them, or defying the hierarchy, results in heavy fines. “There is good and bad in everything, but for newcomers this is the only option, they instantly have a community. And once they are ready for surgery, the Jammat pays for it too,” she said.

Charulata had fled Kerala because of her brother’s abuse, and found that Tamil Nadu offered something her home state didn’t. “In Kerala, there isn’t even a proper name for the transgender community. In Tamil Nadu, they are recognised and have a certain space in society — the socio-geographical and cultural context plays a huge part in how people are treated,” she noted.

According to a 2018 study by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), 96% of transgender persons are forced into low-paid or undignified work, resorting to begging and sex work. The same study finds that 99% face social rejection on multiple fronts—by their families, and by the state, which denies shelter to those engaged in sex work or beggary.

At the Thozhi Trust home, GCC rules prohibit shelter to Transgender women engaged in begging or sex work, so Charulata left her Jammat family, which too requires paying a fine. The home offers free shelter, but little else; work remains scarce. Despite being educated and holding a stake in family property, she has no income, and occasionally finds herself reconsidering the Jammat family as her only viable safety net.

Shelters are located in closed off places. “They have given us a house with free cost, but the location is such that there is nothing there and it is a rowdy area which is unsafe. Who will want to live like that?” said Sabita, an activist working at Sahodaran, an NGO for transgender welfare.

Oviya, 29, a resident at THOZI home, worked 11 years as a sex worker with the Jammat family in India’s oldest red-light district, Kamathipura, in Maharashtra. Sex workers who voluntarily get clients without a third party involved are considered to be working legally in Kamathipura. Oviya believed her work was legally authorized due to regular checks from police and medical authorities. However, considering she was 16 at the time, and her income was going to the Jammat family, she would not have been legally protected. Now, she is not connected to the Jammat family.

“The customers would not stop coming, day or night, so our work lasted 24 hours.”

A native of Kerala, Oviya’s parents “gave” her to the Jammat family in Tamil Nadu, at the age of 16, because of her gender identity. The family was “too big” and so she was transferred to Kamathipura. Language barriers didn’t allow her to beg in the trains of Mumbai, and so they (Jammat family) gave her sex work to do.

Many years later, Oviya approached Sahodaran, in Chennai and sought help. Her parents were notified and came with Sahodaran’s team to bring her back to Chennai. Oviya filed a case against her parents for selling her into sex work as a minor, which was taken up at the Madras High Court. She won, and got 2.5 crores worth of property and 7 companies under her name. But she is still unable to access them.

Legislations like Inheritance and Marital laws, do not explicitly recognize transgender persons thus creating legal ambiguity in the application of legal awards like right to property and ownership.

Before coming out, Charulata worked as a psychiatrist under the name Dr. Subramanyan Anand—the identity her voter ID and Aadhaar card still carry. “When I came out, I was denied work. I need to be Subramanyan Anand to work as a counsellor, psychiatry counsellor because I deal with psychiatric patients. As a transgender, the doctor’s claim is like this.

How can I deal with a psychiatric patient? How will they accept? The patients. How will the patients accept? How will the patients accept a transgender? They can’t. That’s why I just quit my job, and I was wandering all around, end up here (Chennai). When I came here, the police found me sleeping at the Central railway station. My brother had filed a Habeaus Corpus case.” It was a ploy to bring her back to Kerala, where he held her in a room for two days.

She has deliberately kept her documentation unchanged: being officially recognised as transgender would be a hindrance to her inheritance rights. “Accessibility is our issue. Legal heirship, marriage, jobs, even mental health. Nothing is covered. It is there on paper as black and white but not in application,” she said.

‘Garima Greh’, or ‘Houses of Dignity’, are shelter homes established under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, providing basic facilities like food, medical care, and recreation. To be eligible, one must be “abandoned” or “preferably living below the poverty line,” aged between 18-60, and unemployed. There are 18 Garima Grehs across the country, with just one in Tamil Nadu.

Ramya Eswaran, project manager of the Chennai Garima Greh, says they haven’t received funding since 2023. “This is the case for all 18 shelters. They keep saying we will get it soon. We received the funding for 2023–24 only this year.” The backlog is currently being borne by Jeeva Rangaraj, Founder and Director of the Transgender Rights Association, which runs the shelter.

These homes provide skills training and even employ some people seeking shelter, but they restrict those living there from going outside the home. “I had some privileges. I had an education. I know my way around. But not everybody has that advantage. This place is meant for everybody. So, the majority of the community, they are still begging or in sex work. And, if you want to give a dignified life, you want to do something life-changing for them, the first thing you need to do is cut off all those things,” says Sayukta, a transgender woman who has been living at Garima Greh for about 5 months now.

Sayukta had rented a house from a friend for three years, but the rent kept rising until she lost all her savings. Left stranded, she tried hostels, PGs, and NGOs. “Many are still conservative and wouldn’t let a trans woman in.” Private housing for transgender persons exists, but sparsely, with fewer beds and comes with the condition that residents seek work through the organisation running it, making it inaccessible to freelancers like Sayukta.

Born2Win Social Welfare Trust, a transgender-persons, led organisation, offers education and employment to its members and shelter residents. “We have 12,000 transgender persons employed by us at present,” says Shweta, Born2Win’s founder.

This figure is itself a contradiction. The 2011 census recognised only 22,364 transgender persons, while multiple NGOs put the current estimate closer to 5 lakhs. This discrepancy, and the absence of any formal census since, gives the government little impetus to establish more shelter homes.

According to Election Commission data, Tamil Nadu had 9,464 third gender electors on its rolls before the Special Intensive Revision exercise—a number that dropped to 7,617 out of a total 5,67,07,380 electors. When asked about the over 2,000 deletions, Thiru. V. Sridhar, Additional CEO & Additional Secretary to the Government’s Chief Electoral Office, said, “A lot of them have either died or migrated to another district.” The discrepancy only deepens.

The enrollment process itself is a barrier. “A voter ID is like a stretch. There are a lot of small steps, actually battles, that we have to fight first. Get a state Transgender card, then a national Transgender card, change your Aadhar as well. The voter ID is like the final step,” says Sayukta. Many transgender persons remain listed under their previous names and gender identities in the voter rolls.

V. Sridhar noted that the government ran campaigns to enrol transgender persons, but those interviewed cited a lack of awareness as a major reason for low numbers—an awareness gap that persists despite initiatives, largely because of how lower-ranking officials treat transgender persons directly.

Sarvesh, who currently resides and works at Garima Greh was verbally harassed when he went to get his Transgender card in July 2025. Sarvesh was in the process of transitioning when he went to the office, the worker there told him that he had never seen Transgender men, only Transgender women. The worker assumed Sarvesh was a “tomboyish girl” because “I was wearing a shirt and pants and I hadn’t cut my hair yet.”.

The worker asked Sarvesh for sexual favours. “I felt like I didn’t want to try again. I don’t need this card at all.”

Sarvesh did go back, and was forced to face the same worker. This time, he took a transgender woman he knew, who had contacts, because he had to “prove his identity.”

Even before the 2026 amendment came in, transgender persons have had to prove themselves time and time again. Only this time, this act makes it compulsory for them to be proven, in front of a medical board. A medical board that shall hold the power to decide someone’s gender identity.

“They only care what is between our legs, not what we have between our ears,” states Sayukta.

Like most of the rights mentioned above, medical rights and accessibility continue to remain only words on paper for transgenders seeking surgery. Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital provides for free gender-affirming surgeries and yet most individuals prefer to get their surgery done through private hospitals solely due to accessibility issues faced in the government services. Consultations in the transgender clinic in the hospital are only available on Fridays from 9am-2pm.

“If you go for surgery to a government facility then it can take a minimum of a year or more to start the surgery,” said Sayukta. Additionally related procedures to the gender reassignment surgeries are not covered by the government or by insurance as they are considered cosmetic surgeries. “We have to pay out of our own pocket because how does one get insurance? Through their jobs and where is that?” said Sayukta.

Additionally, to get gender reassignment surgery one needs a Transgender card. Getting a transgender card comes with its own difficulties however with the latest amendment to the Transgender Act passed, where in self identification is no longer recognised and only biological and physical traits are, the process to get the card requires a medical certification stating they are undergoing gender affirming procedure which creates a vicious loop.

“What the government is doing is strategic, they know the ways to attack us and they say they want to get rid of ‘fake trans people’ but we aren’t included in the discussion. If they include us in the discussion, then we can tell what we need.” said Sayukta.

When asked about the technicality issue with the new Amendment regarding needing a Transgender card to get gender affirming procedure but needing a medical certification of the procedure to get a Transgender card, Resident Medical Officer, Dr. P. Umpathy said, “Yes.”

Hormone therapy is an important component and expense for many transgender persons who intend to or are going through gender reassignment procedures. However, the cost is borne by themselves as this too is not covered by a scheme. Side effects of the hormones is an additional burden carried by them; Charulata’s legs have swollen and are bruised due to the effects of the hormones. To overcome the mental harassment faced, Charulata was referred to a psychiatrist. The medical professional diagnosed it as “now, ‘he’ is a TG.” Charulata explains, “it is not now that I am transgender but it is from birth. We have nothing to say about what we were born as but what is between our ears. If a trained medical professional can’t understand that then who can?”

Side-effects and mental harassment aren’t covered in any insurance or scheme and due to lack of access to better hormonal alternatives, Transgender men and Transgender women continue to bear the costs with their own expense leading to many to rely on Jammat systems. All these costs are not an exhaustive list of expenses that transgender persons need to incur to simply survive; at every juncture they face a cost simply due to inaccessibility caused by their identity, a way of society to charge them a “transgender tax.”

According to a study conducted by the NHRC in 2018, 96% of transgender persons are forced to do low-paid or undignified work and resort to other means of livelihood such as begging and sex work. Charulata and Sayukta are both professional; psychiatrist and chemical engineer, but can not get a job after affirming their own identity.

With several rights under consideration to be revoked by the amendment and self identification no longer recognised, “we might have to give our Transgender cards back,” said Sayukta.

Anna* wanted the mainland people to be as oblivious of her as they were of her shop. She did not want their stares or their curiosities. She had left the conflict-torn Manipur in 2011 to make a living in Chennai and not to be pestered by probing questions. It was uncomfortable for her to talk about a conflict back home when she herself was so far from it.

Anna came to Chennai because the city offered more economic opportunities than Imphal, where she could either become a teacher or join hospitality. "I had to make more money, and Chennai felt safer than other metros," she explained. For years, she worked as a salesperson at a shop in Palladium, saving every rupee. Eight months ago, she finally leased and opened "The Northeast Shop."

“No one but people from Manipur, Nagaland and Mizoram come here,” she said happily. She preferred it that way. There were shelves lined up with Wai-Wai packets, King-Chilli paste and Sunday coffee mix. “People have their own tastes and these are our favourites back in Imphal,” she said as she stocked some pickled prawn candies into a small handwoven basket.

Whenever the conversation would steer towards Manipur, she would have a stern expression and would give obviously incorrect pretexts that she is busy.

“I don’t like to talk about Manipur here,” she said as she turned her chair away. “No pictures of the shop.”

It has been six years since she last went to Imphal.

After assurance of her complete privacy, she explained how, in 2023, the government-ordered internet shutdown in Manipur made her feel so distant from her hometown, “I would wait for my family to call because they (government) had shut down the network and so they would find ways to contact me and tell me if they are okay.”

Her family is still in Imphal. The tension between Manipur’s communities has existed since the 1990s, but the 2023 violence saw ethnic cleansing ravage the territory without proactive intervention from the Centre. “No one wants to leave their home, but if there is no other option, then someone has to do something,” Anna said tersely. She left because staying was not an option.

“Whatever is happening there affects us here, too,” she continued, gesturing to the bare shelves in her shop. “The prices for all these items increase because transportation becomes difficult. Factories and shops get closed or burnt down there.” Even the essentials are harder to get.

Anna is not alone. The Tamil Nadu State Planning Commission found that 15.9% of migrants in Chennai are from the seven Northeast states. Now Velachery has a thriving community of migrants who have set up provision shops and restaurants catering and representing their hometowns.

One of those restaurants is Feli’s Kitchen, located near Anna’s shop. Feli, the co-founder and chef, came to Chennai years ago to work in hotels before opening her own place. Unlike Anna, Feli is more open about her homeland in Mizoram and that could be because of a variety of reasons, including the safety of having her family in Chennai now.

“My restaurant started because so many people from our Northeast community missed the taste of home,” said Feli, the co-founder and chef at Feli’s Kitchen, located near The Northeast Shop. “It feels at home if you have food that tastes like home,” she said gleefully.

To keep the flavour authentic to the tastes of Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland, Feli talked about how she gets raw materials like sticky rice, dry vegetables and spices from her hometown in Mizoram.

She knows that despite her efforts to make her food palatable to all the different homelands her customers come from, she will always let a bit of Mizoram slip in. However, the community remains strong. Feli organised a special live music event on January 21, to celebrate Manipur Statehood day and many students and working professionals poured in because in a city where they are always greeted with stares, this was a recreation of a homely spirit.

“Everyone has a community here based on where they are from. Nagas have a Naga community, Kukis have their own and like that, everyone forms their own group,” Feli explained, “but at the end of the day here, no one has conflict with each other because who has the time. Everyone is working and everyone has to look after each other.”

They try to keep the turmoil in Manipur away from their work here and avoid the stares that they still get when they walk around the city. However, in 2023, when a video of two women in Manipur being paraded naked started circulating, they held a protest with the women’s wing of the DMK party, demanding that the centre take action against the conflict in their home.

The conflict in Manipur has been going on for so many years and the lack of attention it gets from the mainland only fuels the distress.

Recently, Manipur violence made it to the headlines after Boong, a Manipuri film, won India’s first Bafta for Best Children’s & Family Film. Lakshmipriya Devi (Director) called for peace in Manipur in her speech, which has now been deleted from Bafta’s social media. The Prime Minister had more to say about the film winning than he did in his half-day visit to the UT, two years after the violence became rampant.

It is thus for all these reasons that Anna refused to talk about her leaving Manipur, because while her homeland remains in turmoil, people around are staring at it silently. What more could she say?

His family expressed their grief and stated that her son was deeply distressed and felt that there was no point in living with this public humiliation. The police then filed a case against Shimjitha under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for abetment of suicide. Local residents and political workers have insisted that she face more stringent charges, including murder.

This is not a one-off case where there has been media outrage over an allegedly false accusation. In December 2024, Atul Subhash committed suicide and in an 81-minute video, he blamed his estranged wife and her family of harassment.

He alleged that his then-wife had filed “false court cases” which accused him of cruelty, dowry harassment and other wrongdoings. He accused her family of extortion and blackmailing him to pay 30 million rupees to withdraw their case against him. On social media, netizens demanded justice for Subhash. They too demanded that strict penalties like charger of murder should be applied to his estranged wife. The police arrested her and her mother and her brother on the charge of abetment to suicide. She denied the charges.

In January 2025, Cabbie H Manjunath lit himself on fire because his wife, Nayana Raj refused to retract her divorce case against him. She had applied for divorce in 2022 and for two years, Manjunath tried to persuade her back. After repeated refusal, he set himself on fire. His family was distressed and filed a case against her and her family saying that the death was foul play.

Comments related to this death include-

“This is the height of cruelty. How many deaths of men are required to make govt draft a strong policy against the cruelty of women. All the laws are blindly supporting only women even if they are the vamps. Shame.”

In the same month, Nitin Padiyar from Indore, committed suicide and in his suicide note, he said:

“I, Nitin Padiyar, request the Indian government to change the law of the country, because women are misusing it. If you do not change this law and order, then every day, many boys and their families will continue to be ruined,” he added. He then proceeds to advice all youth to reconsider marriage and if they do get married, then to establish a formal agreement.

Police noted that there was a prior discord between the families and a case of domestic violence and dowry was registered against him. Details of the case were to be re-assessed as part of his suicide investigation. He claimed in his notes that the authorities were taking one-sided action in favour of his wife.

Comment for his case included:

“We need gender neutral laws!! Enough of these gender biased laws...women are taking a lot of advantage because of these laws....”

For all the above cases, social media outrage has been consistent. Many demand stringent penalties and some others question the gendered laws that exist in the country. These laws include; The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DPA); POSH Act, 2013; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; and various sections of the BNS relating to sexual harassment.

These laws are based on the history and societal struggles women have faced. Dowry had been criminalised due to the alarming rate of dowry deaths. In the 60+ years of the act, it will not be an exaggeration to say that dowry is still prevalent, it is just hushed.

Cases filed under the DPA in 2023 were 15,489, which is a 14.16% increase from 2021 (13568 cases) and an increase of 56% from 2015 (9894 cases)

The rising numbers are indicative of how the tradition of demanding dowry persists in the country.

Similarly, the numbers for crimes against women over the years depict a trend. Sexual harassment cases fell under the Indian Penal Code (now BNS) and under some Special laws. Looking at primarily the IPC cases 2023 had 4,48,211 cases, which is a 4% increase from 2021 (428278 cases) and an increase of 42% from 2015 (3,14,575)

The rate of increase can be attributed to more women reporting their cases. It is important to note that this data is only of the cases reported. The social stigma, fear of further harassment or the lack of trust in the system are some of the many reasons why many women still do not report cases. An analysis by National Family Survey data by Livemint in 2018 said that 99% of sexual violence incidents go unreported.

However, the media has seen a rise in false accusation cases. Cases ended by the court as final report false in 2023 were 361 cases and 46 were stayed at the investigation stage i.e investigation have been put on hold. However, cases disposed of by the police as final report false in 2023 were 33,645. These numbers include the cases that were pending investigation the year prior. Considering the cases that were filed, the police disposal based on a false report is 7%.

Various Men’s rights activist groups like Vaastav Foundation and Save Indian Family Foundation hold sessions where they state, “Through calm participation and clear messaging, Vaastav highlighted an uncomfortable but necessary reality: legal imbalance and misuse of laws are destroying lives, families, and mental health, and ignoring this does not make society more equal—it makes it unjust.”

They also hold banners like-

Lawyers like Adv. Vikas Nagwan also misquotes figures. In his episode with Raj Shamani he confidently said, “Almost 90% of cases that are registered by women against men are fake, only 10% are real.”

The misquoting and sensationalisation of the exceptional cases lead to cries that could overall be detrimental to the legal system and put several victims in grave danger.

In the above suicide cases of the men who alleged false accusations, a common thread was the lack of legal recourse sought.

A criminal litigation lawyer said, “The law did not fail him but society did. If he had waited for the application of the law, then if it was fake, he would have the justice he deserved. His innocence would prevail then, not now.”

Since the Delhi High Court in Ms Rajesh Wadhwa Vs The State Nct Of Delhi said that there is a trend of filing cases under sexual harassment sections of IPC, many have decided to focus on this sentence rather than the overwhelming number of cases related to perverse and continual harassment of women. To give weight only to the exceptional cases may result in more eyeballs to media reports but then to normalize extremely real and unfortunately frequent attacks on women is damaging to society as a whole too.

The Sahyadri School Kutch trip of 2019 was one of the most memorable, hot and eye opening times of my life. For about 12 days we had roamed around the district learning about community living and traditional professions. What better way to find stories?

So armed with my Kutchi speaking partner and 2 other friends who were mostly willingly roped into this plan, we decided to rediscover the stories and hopefully do so with journalistic precision.

One of the stories that were thus discovered by Reva and Ishan were of the Salt pan workers of Little Rann of Kutch. The Agariya community have been there for generations yet an administration and government that have just completed a decade there have created problems that hadn’t existed before.

This documentary, directed and edited by Reva and shot by Ishan shows the recent stuggle that the Agariya community is facing.

The protest in September had made headlines across the globe and for all the right reasons. What was considered to be a protest due to the social media ban across the country, the political and economic state was the biggest cause.

Prabhat, a fellow journalist, talks about everything that led to the recent protest and what the world can expect to see in the coming months in Nepal’s general elections led by the discord-elected interim Prime Minister Sushila Karki.

What is Vantara?

Vantara is the pet project of Anant Ambani, son of Asia’s richest man and Reliance Industries Chairman, Mukesh Ambani. It was formed by amalgamating Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) and the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust. Located in Jamnagar, Gujarat, the animal centre is near the Ambani oil refinery, which is the largest in the world. Animal conservationists also hail this “private zoo” as the largest wildlife rehabilitation centre.

According to the Reliance conglomerate’s News18 website article, the 3,500-acre conservation and rescue centre houses over 2,000 species including around 200 elephants, 300 big cats like leopards, lions and tigers, and 1,200 reptiles. GZRRC now hosts almost as many individual birds and animals as Bronx Zoo, New York City’s prized zoo.

Vantara’s staff is as meticulously curated as the variety of animals in the shelter. Vantara has poached veterinary and animal-care staff from conservation NGOs across India, and convoys moving animals to Jamnagar are well-provisioned, with vets and an ambulance riding along.

The corporation, through Vantara, aims to conserve endangered species, build biodiversity assets, water resources and carbon sinks. With a distractingly noble aim and a suddenly cooperative government, the Ambanis could conserve and house many endangered species.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Vantara, Jamnagar| Image Courtesy: PTI

The transfer of leopards isn’t the first relocation of an animal. Earlier this year, the Maharashtra government transferred an elephant to Vantara, which was met with public criticism.

Why was there a protest in Maharashtra regarding the transfer of an elephant?

Based on Vantara’s capabilities to provide for ailing animals, the Bombay High Court passed an order, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, to transfer an elephant, Mahadevi, who had been with Swasthishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Sanstha, a Jain math in Kolhapur since 1992. Mahadevi was allegedly suffering from arthritis, foot rot, wounds and mental distress from being kept in custody for 33 years.

The local community disputed these claims. In Kolhapur, thousands of locals walked in a silent protest to bring Mahadevi back. They marched for more than 12 hours and covered 45 kms. The Jain community condemned the move and demanded that the elephant be returned or transferred to a government facility and not the private enterprise.

Vantara claimed that they had not initiated this transfer. It was due to their track record of caring for elephants that PETA (India) and the High Court trusted their facility to better care for Mahadevi. They said that the private facility is merely following directions and the promoter family (Ambanis) have no involvement in the daily operations and only offer support philanthropically.

Many contest the claims and argue that the private nature of the biodiversity asset is suspicious.

Why was there a case filed in the Supreme Court against Vantara?

Advocates C.R. Jaya Sukin and Dev Sharma had separately filed public interest petitions (PIL) alleging irregularities in Vantara. Allegations included unlawful acquisition of animals, mistreatment in captivity and money laundering. Their petitions also questioned CZA operations.

A two-judge bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale heard the matter. They dismissed the case based on the findings of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

On September 15, the court said it had “no hesitations” in going forward based on the SIT’s reports of which the summary was presented. The Bench further noted that Vantara had been subject to judicial scrutiny several times and the allegations against it had always been rejected, thus it would be “wholly unjustified” to “permit the cycle of speculative complaints or petitions to continue despite such authoritative determinations in the past.” They said that no further complaint or proceeding will be entertained on the issues of Vantara that have previously been investigated by the SIT.

The SIT’s complete report remains under sealed cover.

The speed of the report (three weeks) is noteworthy considering the volume of permits and agencies involved in the animal sourcing. Justice Chelameswar told the Supreme Court Observer, “The summary released by the Court is what we have found, though I can’t find any reason why the Court can’t release the full report.” Lack of disclosure of not only the report but even the procedure of animal transfers to Vantara adds to the criticism.

While domestic legal challenges have been addressed, international regulatory bodies have raised separate concerns.

Why are the international organisations raising concerns regarding the animal transfers?

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) is an international agreement with 185 countries as parties, of which India is one. CITES has asked India to apply “due diligence” while sanctioning animal import permits for Vantara. Its team was on a fact-finding mission to India in September and the report was released in early November.

They questioned the “origin of specimens” and the “mode of acquisition.” While they did not find any evidence of the animals being used for commercial purposes, they still mentioned that several imports raise questions regarding the origin of the specimens.

The report noted that due diligence is a must considering that the Indian CITES Management Authority issued import permits on the basis of forged export permits from Cameroon to bring eight chimpanzees to Vantara.

CITES has thus directed the Indian government to curb imports and based on their report UN Wildlife Body has directed the same.

Similar due diligence inadequacies were pointed out for other imports. The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) has written to South African environment minister Dion George saying that it was “aware that legitimate concerns have been raised within CITES regarding the large amount of different live species of wild animals that are being imported to [Vantara]”.

WAPFSA specifically questioned the export of leopards, cheetahs and tigers from South Africa to Vantara and did not accept Vantara’s explanation that the animals had been rescued.

The trafficking of chimpanzees from the Democratic Republic of Congo has been an issue globally. In January this year, the staff of a chimpanzee rehabilitation centre in DRC were surprised when a delegation of Kinshasa Zoo arrived unexpectedly with a letter that authorised them to pick up 12 chimpanzees. The staff rejected the transfer.

However, after internal conflict, the transfer was carried out. The chimpanzees were not sold to Kinshasa Zoo, which did not have adequate facilities, but to Vantara. On 13 February, they were flown to India.

The DRC CITES export permit allegedly lists nine chimpanzees in the shipment, with a “Z” (zoo) purpose code and “C” (captive-bred) origin. To use a “C code”, the Appendix I specimens must have been second-generation born in captivity, and their progenitors must have been acquired legally. The team told Africa Geographic that there are no great ape breeding facilities in DRC and thus the chimps transferred were not bred in captivity. They have not been acquired through lawful sources.

Chimpanzees in Kinshasa Zoo in dirty and cramped cages| Image Courtesy: Africa Geographic

In March, a German report, Süddeutsche Zeitung, quoted a European wildlife dealer saying that the “supply” of wild animals has been “bought up” and supply lists were getting shorter because “everything goes to India”.

“The fact that this demand also leads to more wild catches is ‘obvious’ to the animal dealer,” the German report read.

The CITES Standing Committee’s 79th meeting on 23 November in Samarkand, Uzbekistan will precede the Conference of the Parties. The Vantara case is expected to be a contentious agenda item.

Why have the Ambanis curbed media reports and filed case against Himal South Asia for their report on Reliance’s wildlife ambition?

The media has been expressing the above-mentioned concerns of international organisations and their own findings. Conservationists too expressed their concerns of how reports were being misrepresented.

While CITES reports and international concerns are public their distribution through media websites were curbed. Coverage by certain media houses became unavailable after they were published.

NorthEast Now’s executive editor told The News Minute that he received a threatening email that alleged articles published regarding Vantara criticisms were inciting violence and hatred.

Down To Earth magazine received an email and call asking them to remove the story. Later, they received a notice of defamation up to Rs. 1,000 crore from lawyers claiming to represent Anant Ambani.

Vantara had filed a petition against Himal Southasian in February for publishing an investigative story on the wildlife project. They said it was in violation of a judicial order. The Delhi High Court on May 19, held that there was no judicial order or direction passed by the Court against Himal requiring the magazine to remove the story, and hence the issue of contempt did not arise.

The litigation against Himal Southasian is in nature of a Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) which curbs media freedom and public debate.

Himal’s article raises important questions against the centre including the international concerns and about how the number of animals reported by the centre do not tally with the permitted imports and exports.

After the international reports and the Himal Southasian article delved into the details of the animal transfer, the above-mentioned Supreme Court case took place. The Court passed the judgment based on the SIT report filed in less than 3 weeks of the investigation. With the SIT report being under seal cover, the media and public remain in the dark of the findings.

The two-judge bench also directed that complaints based on the allegations will not be entertained and that Vantara is free to seek deletions of “offending” media publications and pursue legal action for “defamation.”

This puts media organisations and independent researchers in a difficult position, considering that even after the recent directions by CITES, UN Wildlife Body and others, to curb imports to Vantara, permissions to transfer animals are still provided. Yet, India has urged the bodies not to curb the imports.

This includes the transfer of leopards from Maharashtra. With the government backing the permits, Vantara continues to house many endangered species with no disclosure of the facilities and ongoing activities in the centre.

Just before the elections in Bihar, over 40 lakh people have been removed from the final list. Throughout the process, much confusion arose, many documents were filled out incorrectly, and many people were skipped over.

So what will be the consequence?

What can be seen and expected from the Bihar elections?

Prakhar, a fellow journalist, has been actively following what has been happening (or not happening) in the elections and in the SIR process. He talks about party dynamics and the impact voters are facing due to the confusing SIR process.

Tell us your thoughts and let me know how you would answer my final question in the interview!

Open Twitter or whatever else is your social media of choice. You will probably see someone fanboy-ing about AI and all the ways they have managed to decrease human contact in their daily life or see fangirling about Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel for taking a stand.

At the same time, there will be a thorough examination of the recent Delhi Court order that prevents the circulation of articles related to Adani Enterprises Limited by several journalists and creators, such as Akash Banerjee.

Maldives government has passed a bill that can give the panel set by them the power to fine journalists and media houses for articles they deem to carry misinformation and they can block websites during a time of investigation.

In America, Jimmy Kimmel’s show has been suspended because of his comments on Charlie Kirk and for calling his shooter a member of the MAGA. This follows his support of Stephen Colbert, whose show was unfortunately cancelled. He did win an Emmy for it, but who cares about that when there is a petty man leading your country?

And on Modi’s birthday, we obviously got a celebrity video. Shouldn’t Bollywood know better after seeing the reaction of the public to the Hollywood video during COVID?

And I’ll tell you the worst part and the reason why this will be a hastily published article.

I complain and hate everything that is happening.

I worry that the only thing America had going for them; their openness to tolerate dissent (at least more than India has ever tolerated), is now stripped away, and Late Night Comedy becomes the start of muzzling speech, then what can places with even stricter laws expect?

I’ll tell you.

At the rate society’s love and dependence on AI is increasing, humans should just worry if their speech and expression even matter. Will it even have a forum? We are all hasty for information and we all seem to be convinced that time is running out. We don’t want to give time to anything and so now we have an AI Overview for Google searches. We have AI summaries in every news article; be it for 2000+ words feature articles or 150-word news reports.

We would rather have a lot of information than just process and sit with a singular thing. People are reading AI book summaries and equating it to reading books. Why?

Why am I sitting in a journalism college and listening to a man drone on about everything AI can do and is doing better while he explains that we need to change our dreams because professions like editors, illustrators, transcriptors, translators, creative agents, etc will all go. Why sit and think and ideate when you can just fill in a prompt and publish the story faster? It is all about volume and unfortunately the human fingers can only type fast till a certain degree.

Oh,

Oh,

OH!

There are extensions dedicated to making your prompt better. Don’t want to think about your prompt and express your wants by yourself? Cool. Don’t. Add that prompt extension.

The teacher who had the misfortune of teaching 75 kids about AI and how it can be used to structure an article, change the writing style, find research material, find different angles, create infographics, create a documentary etc has convinced himself that the environmental, human and moral qualms of the system don’t matter because AI isn’t actually writing the article or doing the final product of creativity, it is just an aid.

What is creativity if not everything that made it possible?

Writing this article may not be as creative as it is rageful, but the rage is stemming from everything that I have read, consumed, discussed, and persevered through. If I didn’t have people around me and some sane teachers who heard me babble about this then I wouldn’t reach a point to write about it. Human collaboration, interpretation, error and emotions and the unbridled need to be heard and known is creativity. So why are we in a race against time to actually just feel, process and know things?

And another headache. We are no longer supposed to write for you; our audience. But for the GEO. Yes, it is not even SEO that we need to appease but these AI Overviews need articles to be GEO friendly (generative engine optimization) to hope and appease the AI lords into choosing our content to be made visible.

Art is not completely made by humans anymore and it is not completely made for humans either.

Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, Maldives journalists and India’s long battle for free speech all existing in a time when people have probably found out about their cause through Grok. Or read a summary of it on their preferred news website. Or worse, read about it in an AI summary of a google search. They are fighting for our speech and expression and I want to ask, does it even matter? Is my rage, love, joy, pain, observations and learning GEO friendly enough?

What am I sitting in a class for?

And as was said in the Criterion Closet by a genius-

So, yes, films should make you feel uncomfortable when they are a story that is riddled with commentary on our world. Good stories shouldn't only be a solace but should make you face truths that are difficult to swallow.

Then why oh why, has our world come to the re-release of Raanjhanaa with an alternate "happy" ending which AI created.

AI is a travesty that I will firmly always stand against, regardless of what "growth" it might bring to our world. But rewriting the end of a movie that was made to make its audience uncomfortable with our society's realities is a betrayal by every person who let this happen.

They have disrespected Aanand L. Rai and Dhanush and everyone who made this movie. Raanjhanaa was meant to be a movie that mirrored obsessive love, religion, and social stigmas and now with the alternate ending, Dhanush's highly flawed protagonist loses the impact that it was written with - a character who was meant to face consequences for his obsessive behavior instead gets rewarded. Abhay Deol's character loses everything that it stood for. Sonam Kapoor's character becomes a one dimensional woman like every other movie. The film's power lay precisely in its refusal to comfort viewers. It demanded that audiences sit with difficult emotions and examine painful realities. (No spoilers because please please please go see the original)

Using AI has already been controversial, considering how it replaces humans and takes away jobs. But now to use it with explicit contradiction from the original creators is stripping away artist liberty.

It is a distortion of their art and as far as Intellectual Property goes, that's a moral right that no artist can give away. Unfortunately they don't have the economic rights or first authorship in this matter because like almost all cases, they belong with Producers and in this case the producers are money minded, AI using, non creatives with no understanding of what the soul of the movie is.

Pradeep Dwivedi, the chief executive of Eros Media Group said the alteration was an "exploratory baby step" and confirmed that Eros was "significantly evaluating" its library of more than 3,000 releases for similar AI treatments.

"If a finished film can be altered and rereleased without the director's knowledge, it sends out a clear and very troubling message – that the film-maker's voice is dispensable," said Colour Yellow's chief operating officer, Harini Lakshminarayan.

We were worried that AI will be used to write new scripts, new visuals and be the new faces in our movies but companies are now using it to redo previously worked art.

Where is the line?

Why does our art need to comfort us?

Why do our movies have to make the audience feel good about themselves and not make them face unsettling truths?

When asked for proof of identification, do you show your Aadhar Card first?

And if you don’t have an Aadhar Card, how does it feel to be part of the 2% of country that doesn’t?

The Aadhar card is considered a handy document to prove identity. According to the government, an estimated 1,422,062,032 have Aadhar cards and of those who don’t have Aadhar cards are children around the age of 0-5 years (83 million). This means that over 94% of the eligible population does have an Aadhar card. Before the Aadhar Card, more than a 1/3rd of India did not have a birth certificate and more than 60% did not have a bank account.

The penetration of Aadhaar is thus not one that can be taken lightly. While we know and understand that the card itself can cause major privacy issues (K. S Puttuswamy), its impact and spread cannot be ignored.

Nikita Vangule, 30, works as a Maid in Mumbai. She got her Aadhar back in 2015. “I heard it was compulsory, so I got it”. When asked about linking all her personal details and ration card to Aadhar Card, she replied, “I don’t have a problem with giving my personal details because what will they do knowing about that.”

The push from the government’s side was a major factor in the rise of Aadhaar prevalence. When the SC judgment declared Aadhaar not to be official proof of citizenship, it left many in the same position.

The Bihar Elections are the glaring proof. ECI made the decision on 24th June to conduct a special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral roll in Bihar. The concerns are primarily that this is yet another new tactic to introduce the NRC. The intensive procedure laid down for the SIR got more convoluted because the time frame got rushed to match up to the upcoming elections in Bihar.

The current special intensive revision mandates the submission of different sets of documents based on the applicant’s year of birth. Notably, individuals born after 2004 are required to provide multiple documents. These include a personal document indicating their date and place of birth; a document of the father showing his date and place of birth; and a document of the mother reflecting her date and place of birth. To establish these facts, acceptable documents include a birth certificate issued by a competent authority; a matriculation or educational certificate from a recognised board; an Other Backward Classes (OBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), or Scheduled Tribes (ST) caste certificate issued by the relevant authority; government-issued land or house allotment certificates; and, where applicable, records from the National Register of Citizens.

Some of these were added only because the Supreme Court refused to stay the voter list revision even after several petitions were filed pointing out the haphazard manner in which it is being conducted.

Now here is another issue. As mentioned before, over 1/3rd of the country doesn’t have a birth certificate (and that is of the people we know), the other documents are even fewer.

According to the “Vital Statistics of India Based on the Civil Registration System” (2022) report, the percentage of registered births in the state is 71.6%, significantly lower than the national average of 89.1%

Additionally, the alternative route for registration is to obtain a certificate issued under the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The government has yet to release the number of individuals who have received the certificate. Moreover, the verification of approximately 7.7 crore voters in Bihar is an enormous task that is unlikely to be completed accurately within a limited timeframe. Given the social, economic, and political vulnerabilities of the population, this process may not provide adequate opportunities for individuals to raise objections or claims if there are any issues.

Thus, many in Bihar stand with just an Aadhar Card in hand to prove that they are in fact eligible to vote. While Aadhar does have its problems, it has become the only proof of identification for many. By denying it as a proof, many are lost and have thus become almost invalid in the elections.

The question thus posed to be answered is if the government is ready for a hoarde of people standing outside their offices demanding recognition of their existence? Approximately 94% of the population.

Because we need stories that haven’t been told—written and performed by people living in the middle of it.

We often blame the slow decline of long-form movies in theatres on short attention spans or the convenience of watching at home, where you can pause or skip at will. At the same time, short-form content became not just accessible, but artistically compelling. Creators learned to work within the limits of reels and shorts—and suddenly, we had alternatives to traditional films with impressive writing, music, acting, and cinematography.

What we got wasn't just viral clips. It was storytelling.

Some Instagram creators now run ongoing series with recurring characters, soundtrack choices, cinematic shots—and each “episode” is just one minute long. But it works. That limitation becomes the hook. You follow to keep up, just like you’d binge a show.

Take one of my favourite examples: @eavesdrop.png.

Christian Sullivan, Kaleigh Bleu, and Nicolas Alayo are the creators, writers, and actors of this Instagram-native series. The writing is sharp, fresh, and unlike anything else on your feed. It doesn’t feel like it’s trying to go viral—it feels like it’s trying to tell a story. They’re now onto Season 2. Yes, they’re committed to making Instagram your new OTT platform.

Or take @danaandthewolf, creators of “The Poly Couple.” Their series plays with form in clever ways—incorporating influencers into storylines, setting up a fake podcast within the show (how meta), and looping their original music into scenes to guide audiences toward the work they truly want to be known for. They’re building layered, multiverse-style worlds out of 1-minute clips.

Why does this work?

Because so much of our content is already shaped by the same logic. We used to have “guy on the street” interviews—now we have “therapy-style” confessional interviews. Product reviews became “get ready with me” rants. Everything is a bite-sized moment trying to say something bigger. These story-driven accounts flip that logic and use it to tell fictional, intentional, emotionally resonant narratives.

They also feel raw and personal. There’s no big production house, no gatekeeper. The creators often wear multiple hats—writer, actor, director, editor—and what you get is something totally unique to them. It’s not a studio product. It’s a self-authored world.

These are new stories. They’re not coming out of a pre-approved mould of what works or what sells. They feel like the early indie film era of the internet, except it’s playing out in reels and Shorts.

And if you need proof that this form is booming—just look at ReelShorts, an app that’s amassed over 6 million followers by producing bite-sized dramas. Some call them ridiculous, even lowbrow—but people can’t stop watching. The formula is fast, dramatic, absurd, emotional—everything compressed into 30-60 seconds. It’s a wild commentary on what our brains crave right now.

What a fascinating time to be in love with movies—and to watch them break and rebuild themselves in real time.

For one, when my father asks me for updates about the ongoing Iran and Israel conflict; the one Israel is igniting simultaneously with its genocide in Palestine, I turn to various sources of news to relay credible information, and then, soon after, to Twitter (X), because what even is credible information anymore?

Being chronically online entails being invested in too many things. So my feed was a healthy mix of the news and entertainment. Currently, it is bubbling with dissecting Sabrina Carpenter and whether the horrific airplane crash was actually planned or how International law is unable to enforce anything on Israel.

So what is really disappointing me, is how I am a helpless audience to it all. I can relay the information, dive into the history and specifics of it and yet have nothing that I can add to the discourse on the wars, genocide, politics and legal analysis of it because I am more confident in my opinion about how Sabrina is an iconic satirical artist whose new album cover does wonders for the debate on “true feminism” and “female sexual liberty” than I am on how Jaishankar’s statement to Iran’s external affairs minister means almost nothing if India continues to remain Israel’s largest weapons buyer.

It isn’t a matter of credibility or how oversaturation of information has numbed our senses to violence, but about demanding value to our opinions and perception.

In the aspect of the “big picture,” we are nothing and that as consumers and audience makes us most vulnerable to being dismissed and not getting the entire image. Because yes, I am not special and yet watch me argue how the assassination of a pop culture figure like Sabrina Carpenter affects every person who has been trying to find sexual liberation without feeling like they are surrendering their feminism. Some women enjoy their hyper-sexuality and are not doing it for male gaze. They might love kneeling but be absolutely disgusted by the gender. Yes, yes, not all men. Similarly, sometimes, not outrightly condemning an International attack and not backing the statement of SCO is showing complete support for a war criminal and not a sign of diplomacy.

Our news is absurd, oversaturated, biased and maynot even portray the complete picture and thus our social media platform is even more so. We are equipped with forums where we can speak our mind and read other’s thoughts and then relay them to even more people so sometimes the information starts overlapping.

Two entirely separate events, with four degrees of separation between them, get processed in the same scroll. A fun game of Chinese whispers with higher stakes.

Can Sabrina Carpenter’s branding help me understand global conflict? Do I need my news to come sandwiched between something glossy, aesthetic, and glamorous? Maybe. After all, I do know celebrities who are raising funds for war-torn countries while doing press tours for their next projects.

So the next time someone asks me for the state of international affairs, I might just have to find the answer lodged between a Pedro Pascal lookalike contest, analysis of pop girlies catering to the male gaze, and an article about Donald Trump being confused about whether he should authorize an attack on Iran or not.

And then Netflix came out with Naadaniya, that also made every person think if Netflix’s team and Akhtar had spoken to the audience that they were trying to write a film for. Did they even speak to their own cast that albiet are of a really specific privilege but they too should have a fair idea of what today’s teenagers and 20 year olds sound like.

There are really few Bollywood films that I could make my case for that understand how the youth speak to each other or how they view their lives. Maybe that is why we would rather watch content creators bring us their own written shorts, sketches, rants and vlogs because even they end up writing and understanding their demographic better. They might not be best but at least they aren’t trying to convince us that this line makes sense: “I feel a lot of things, I'm not an AI robot you know.”

Mainstream platforms like Netflix and Bollywood continue to get Gen Z and young adult portrayal wrong—not because they don’t have access to good actors or budgets, but because they exclude the very people they’re trying to represent from the writing process

But Bollywood is not the only who was severely misunderstanding the young demographic. For a long time, Hollywood had sparse content in the “Coming-of-age” genre and Young Romance and Life films. Mostly because, productions would rather place their investments and bet on seasoned directors and writer rather than the up and coming ones. The directors and writers being asked to write for the younger audience who have grown up learning and creating a vocabulary for themselves with an extremely different perspective on the world is criminal. These directors should continue to do what they do best (Yes, Zoya, please go write another hit like Dil Dhadakne Do or something, you are great at writing about rich families with ambitious kids who kind of follow in their parent’s footsteps.)

Hollywood got the hint a little before us.

With releases like Overcompensating, Bottoms and Not Okay being the brainchidren of writers and directors who are or are close enough to understand the younger generation and mind, they aren’t making the overly online generation sound cringe or childish or performative. Rachel Sennot, Quinn Shephard, Benito Skinner and Emma Seligman are all including the experiences the online generation has lived through and seen in a manner that doesn’t reduce them to stereotypes but makes them stand out.

I would say even Cooper Raif and Bo Burnham have done a good job in writing stories about the “younger” generation.

Even India got it right for a while. When the directors got a chance to tell stories about their age like Dil Chahta Hai (Frahan Akhtar was 26) and Wake Up Sid (Ayan Mukherjee was 25) they made classics, so shouldn’t we also have a new wave of directors and writers who are given the budget and opportunities to tell the stories for this generation.

Think about what the youth is watching today. Stand Up, Short Content Reels, Skits and Sketches and whatever else the influencers are churning out. Because even that is more natural, authentic and creative and does a way better job in connecting with the 20 year olds than whatever else Bollywood marks as “young”.

Maybe the way for India to also get more stories that appeal to the demographic won’t be by just casting popular names and giving them side roles, but to let them into the writing rooms and actually hear how they speak. Maybe they need to listen to what the varying perspectives on lives are. How do we interact with films and content, what do we look for in our stories, what do we think is something we should talk about, because lets be real, none of us are AI Robots.

I am a loudmouth with something or the other to say for most things (I take great pride in being a devil’s advocate) so the few times I didn’t take a stand, I felt really out of place. One of those times was during the Depp v. Heard trials. And no, I don’t mean the legal dispute, I mean the one that was happening on social media. Somehow, everyone knew exactly what was happening in their relationship. Everyone knew how she conducted herself on the sets of her movies and everyone knew how quirky Johnny was. There were pages littered with opinions written with authority, cosplaying as the truth. No one wanted to consider the alternative that maybe Depp was nothing like his characters and could actually be a shit human but they were all sure that Heard was. That’s the funny thing about being sure about something without any evidence, we start believing that our surety is basis enough for something to be true.

But fine, that case was rigged from the beginning and I hadn’t known about this issue till the material in front of me was completely biased. I couldn’t form a view on it at all.

However, the next case is different.

I watched Gossip Girl and Jane the Virgin. I was captivated by Serena and Rafael. I binged the rest of Lively’s and Baldoni’s extravagant credits. I even followed them on Instagram. They were both such fanciful celebrities. One of them would regularly speak about child harassment and raise awareness about sexual harassment and the other one would use their forum for women's empowerment. They both have regularly spoken about concerning issues but now all headlines seem to forget that for Blake Lively.

There used to be several articles about Blake Lively being one of the most iconic actors of our time which included her relationship with Ryan Reynolds. Her fashion would be chronicled by media houses obsessively. Her quips in interviews would be labelled as hilarious and her messy hair was called chic. But then one fine morning, everyone decided to relabel these.

Her relationship with Ryan was called performative, her fashion was named as cringe and her quips were labelled as rude. It was so easy to flip our adjectives.

When she was pregnant and on press tour for a movie, many journalists focused more on the number of babies she had or how “pregnant” she was and she would often retort back because the press tour wasn’t supposed to be about her babies. At the time, the answers were hailed as feminist. She was at the time being a professional but in a charmingly sarcastic way. Now, the same clips are being used to say that she was being harsh. How?

I am not even getting into who is right or wrong in the Lively v. Baldoni issue because they are both high-rise celebrities with the most advanced PR agents and lawyers. Whatever information you think you have about their dispute is something that has been proofread, edited, twisted and glamourised by many, many many eyes and brains. We are literally at the bottom of the pile in terms of receiving any information on malpractice on sets or powerplay between the Director and Producer of movies.

What I am concerned about is how the media has shown a jarring truth about us. So many women who initially would have called Blake an icon or a powerhouse are now ripping into everything she says. She went to Seth Meyers’ show and spoke about how her year has been so hard and their are influencers and creators who are laughing and saying, “oh it has been a hard year for you sitting in your fancy house and ruining Baldoni’s life?”

She talked about how women are scared to speak up and she got ridiculed for making that statement. How? Why? Are people so excited to spin everything into what can make them popular?

These are some of the clippings I have found about Blake Lively before the movie, It Ends With Us, took it all downhill.

Now, going to one press tour means being hounded by content about being narcisstic and evil by random “analysts.” Literally search Blake Lively up on your social medias and you will see how so many reels and posts are dedicated to analysing how villainous she is. Whether it is smiling for the press on the red carpet or not smiling enough, whatever she is doing has a deeper meaning that only these sleuths on Instagram can identify.

This article details it so well:

And those smiling fans that Lively took photos with before the screening? Fake, say the “experts,” hired by the actress herself. In fact, one “fan” seen taking photos with Lively, they claim, is actually the wife of the film’s director, Paul Feig (“pathetic,” one person on Twitter sneered). In actuality, they say, the carpet was not filled with fans, but protesters, holding signs outside the theater in support of Baldoni. According to one, Lively was terrified to walk the carpet at all and her costar, Anna Kendrick, “hates” her (this specific claim was debunked by Feig, but it didn’t really seem to matter).

What is mad to me is that everyone is already convinced that she is wrong. Based on what? Evidence is something that apparently can be tied to opinions. If I believe this then it obviously logically true. No ma’am, you are dragging down another woman without any foundation, just because you make sarcastic comments into your camera and post it to your followers doesn’t mean that the other woman is heinous.

There is a lady on Instagram who is convinced that whoever has spoken in favour of Lively is paid to support her. What is the evidence she has? Vibes.

How easy is it to vilify such celebrity figures? And it is difficult to say that it is NOT related to their gender. Baldoni had about the same (if not more) accusations thrown at him but he is living peacefully away from all this hate. He is in fact being pitied. When the entire cast and crew of a movie distanced themselves from this person and stood by Lively, how is it this man who apparently didn’t do anything wrong and is somehow a victim?

The only argument that I see about why Lively is in the wrong, that has proper evidence or at least a statement that isn’t spun around to look bad is how she didn’t talk about Domestic Violence in the press tour for a movie that is about DV.

But that is it.

She did highlight how women are always fighting for their safety. She mentioned how she used to hear so many stories about DV that she felt as if she never had the right things to say to help the person and thus chose to remain silent and listen instead. I think that was the right thing to do. What if she said the wrong thing to this person and caused more pain and hardship? She isn’t a trained professional. Isn’t it wiser not to broach a subject that requires training and sensitivity than to assume that just because you played a character who went through trauma, that you are an expert in handling the trauma? Silence isn’t always complicity — sometimes it’s care.

Worst of all, sometimes a contract obligates certain duties. You don’t know what she was required to do in the press junket. You can’t villainise a person because they didn’t do what you expected them to do. There were so many of the cast that didn’t once speak about DV but it is her who was easier to throw to the rocks.

We associate “strong women” with arrogance and “emotional men” with sensitivity. Justin gave a Tedtalk about women empowerment so obviously he can do no wrong. Blake didn’t speak about DV so ofcourse she isn’t sensitive. She has spoken multiple times about harassment and violence but somehow that wasn’t enough. We think a man who does the bare minimum is a great guy but a woman has to be above and beyond.

I didn’t think this would be an article that argues about women and men in cliches but unfortunately, we still live in a time when we have to say the most basic things because live behind a mask of progress and not actual growth.

The humor that Blake and Reynolds were deemed iconic for has now been used to make them into assholes. OFC Rya is going to riff and spoof about this issue wherever he can. Media would have loved this humour 5 years ago but now it has a vendetta out for them so ofcourse they call him a bully. I loved Nice Deadpool because all Nice Guys are exactly like that and if they think that is Baldoni then um well.

Moral of the story: we will never have enough information about extremely rich and powerful celebrities and so to only lash out at the woman in the dispute seems rather malicious of the media. If you want to hate on someone, hate on them both. Best would be to know your place and not hate on either of them and just enough the art, beauty and hilarity they bring to your life. If you must throw stones, make sure they’re going at both. Better yet, save your rage for something real.

P.S: this article was a need because I saw a reel insulting Blake’s hair for being messy and frizzy and how she should not be having a hair care brand. The next reel that came up was how everyone’s hair looks so sleek now and there used to be a time when voluminous hair and beach hair were chic because it let people embrace their natural hair texture. What is this? How is having frizzy hair bad but also good? Stop.

(Key disclaimer: my disdain for 30-second content is because of multiple reasons, but one of them is my own lack of skills to edit myself into 30 seconds.)

The era of cancel culture has led to important things like standing up against years of abuse and toxicity. It has led to people taking a strong stand towards ideologies but this era has come in a time of algorithms. Our social media is showing us content based on content we already like and consume. If I believe that Seth Meyers is the best late night comedy host (which he is) then my algorithm will do everything in its power to keep reinforcing this idea in me. I will get people who talk about Meyers on my feed; I will get Meyers giving hilarious interviews on my feed and everything else that is closely related to this talented human being. So, there is a low chance that I get a view that has nothing to do with Meyers. I am simply consuming content that I probably already have consumed but it is all in just a different variation. Everything is telling me the same thing but in different fonts.

This means that rather than getting information on something unrelated and worlds apart, I am more likely to know if Meyers has eaten a vegan bowl today than to know about the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.

I do hope that everyone’s FYP is not limited to one interest and thus they get an influx of super specific content about their multiple interests however, that is still limiting in terms of information. Our digital media is more singular now. I used to consume content that was adjacent to Neil Gaiman i.e. Netflix’s adaptation of The Sandman, Prime’s adaptation of Good Omens and Gaiman’s Tumblr era. So even if I wasn’t directly consuming Gaiman’s content, my feed knew that I had an interest there and then when Gaiman’s atrocities were brought to light, my content on my feed instantly shifted. However, the content is still not a discussion but a rant/explainer/singular form of media. Currently discourse is limited to the comment section or to podcasts between individuals who also come from a similar background/interest/niche/mindset. Discourse is then a disagreement between like minded people who will probably end up at the same point but with a slight detours of ideas.

The echo chamber of our social media has led to an era of anti-intellectualism where we not only have small attention spans but are far from the other end of spectrum of our interests and ideologies. We are unlikely to consume information that we don’t already know about or related to us.

With politics and governance aiming to become more relatable and content-friendly, we have strayed so far from debate culture that intellectuals and experts are forced to become more social media-friendly and build up their brand than actually disseminate information.

In a paper, Influencer collaboration on YouTube: Changing political outreach in the 2024 Indian Elections, by Sarah Khan, Rudransh Mukherjee, Joyojeet Pal, it was found that:

Politicians can piggyback on the informal style of their content to present humanised versions of themselves while controlling a narrative that may get derailed by aggressive questioning from a trained political journalist. We see that a number of online influencers can already claim more interviews with major national politicians than most political journalists can claim during the period studied.

This is highly indicative of how social media reach and style of content is more likely to be engaged with than formal interviews because the former will be based more on the viewer’s likes than the ideas of the politicians. They will echo the ideas of the viewers because I am not likely to see content that I don’t relate to so even the politicians who show up on my feed will be people who my interests are aligned with. This will then make me believe that I am politically aware but am I?

Prior to influencers, the public intellectual guided cultural and intellectual spheres. Now they are barely known to exist.

In another great substack essay:

When your goal is not only to present ideas but to make them palatable and digestible for a distracted audience, the boundaries of intellectualism start to blur. Ideas are no longer for discussion, they’re for consumption.

Influencers have the same power as the former cultural and political intellectuals. While the latter had this power because of the way their thoughts and ideas challenged norms the former does the same by echoing and amplifying culture in a more aesthetic way that creates a lifestyle rather a society.

In a similar way, intellectual debates have been replaced with soft journalism interviews/podcasts. Even those with seemingly intellectual platforms—like podcasts or blogs—often function differently from the public intellectuals of earlier times. Today’s most prominent voices are those who can neatly package complex ideas into bite-sized, easily digestible content. While their work might invite attention or provoke reaction, it doesn’t always require deep thought. In many ways, the most prominent cultural critics of our digital era are just another form of influencer—selling not products, but perspectives. Yes, I do mean, Alexandera Cooper’s Call Me Daddy.

With discourse becoming planned and easily editable, public and live debates have taken a backseat. We will see comments and interview snippets that most align with our interest and even our search engines and AI becoming personalised means it is increasingly hard to get something that isn’t aligned to ourselves. Who is challenging your ideologies? What is truly the other side of a topic and not something only slightly different? When were you last completely challenged in your idea?

Our echo chambers have limited us to even creating. We are likely to believe that what we think and have to say has already been said.

Our belief that everything has already been said has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where people are discouraged from speaking out at all. But the intellectual space isn’t sustained by a handful of once-in-a-lifetime thinkers, it relies on continuous conversation. No one person can say it all and no one idea is ever truly complete. The question isn’t whether something has already been said before, it’s whether it’s been said by you, right now, in this very moment.

Now, I don’t mean to say that none of you are consuming something that isn’t vastly different but I hope you get what I am saying when I argue that 30-second content is the death of our thoughts.

Every influencer and their micro-niche account has been talking about how the return of certain trends is indicative of a recession — and yes, I totally understand why Officecore feels like economic foreboding. But I also want to say: this revival isn’t just about inflation anxiety. It’s about a quiet return to old ideologies — including gender roles.

Sometimes, I do wonder if these “markers” are a stretch. Surely the return of skinny jeans and blazers shouldn’t automatically mean the world is collapsing. Let’s give Trump’s antics some credit too!

But what these trends do indicate is how we perceive each other.

Take the discourse around Sabrina Carpenter. The critics who call her a “pick me” can’t fathom that a woman could just genuinely enjoy being horny and hot. Those who say everything doesn’t have to be about sex forgot that sex sells. And then there are the ones who love her because her humour hasn’t changed since Girl Meets World.

Which brings me to gender roles.

Trends like the song “Looking for a man in finance,” the tradwife aesthetic, “girl dinner,” and “girl math” all started as jokes. Little bits of satire. They weren’t meant to become full-blown lifestyle templates — but viral culture does strange things. “Girl dinner,” for example, began as a funny way to describe the snacks we throw together when we’re not hungry but want something light and chaotic. It was meant to be unserious. But when a trend like that picks up momentum, it starts to shape perception.

As Cosmopolitan writer Morgan Fargo said:

“While those 'meals' might not represent the wider diet of each individual, it begs a larger question: why are we celebrating women under-eating, further entrenching diet culture and instilling deeply unhealthy body ideals?”

“The thing these videos don't explain is that under-eating, crash dieting or choosing to overly restrict yourself can have lifelong consequences.”

Girl math became a trendy retort by snobby people who are ready to belittle any financial decision made by their female equivalents. Our recession trends should first be seen for what they are — a reviving trend of gender norms.

Now coming back to my Pornstache confession. Men like Pedro Pascal have contributed so much to making that sleazy facial hair style hot again. Pornstaches have always existed, but only occasionally have they been hot. Think Richard Burke in Friends, Jack Pearson in This Is Us, Sam Elliott, and the amazing Ted Lasso.

The Pornstache gained popularity in the ’80s when it was considered macho. The sleaziness of the style began when the porn industry decided to make their stars and fluffers grow mustaches to look more masculine. Then it got associated with being a sex symbol, with megastars like Freddie Mercury flaunting a strong and prominent Pornstache throughout their public careers. But soon, the stache became linked to toxic masculinity — a man who is too much of a man. A man who has power and can take control, because, like Sabrina Carpenter’s social experiment proved: SEX SELLS.

But then why is it suddenly gaining popularity again? Wouldn’t it be difficult to re-write an entire public perception of the sleaziness and hyper-machoness of a Pornstache?

When celebrities like Timothée Chalamet, Jason Sudeikis, and Vicky Kaushal adorn something as icky as a Pornstache, it’s unexpected. It makes people look back again. Timothée had sprouted this thin, caterpillar-like Pornstache right after his fame from Call Me By Your Name hit — and he didn’t grow it for a role. No. It was a personal choice. His interview persona of being an excited and adorable fresher won so many hearts, and the tiny moustache got associated with his energetic being.

Vicky Kaushal had the Pornstache in Raazi. Think about his character — an army officer in the ’70s who is pretty conventional. He is the cliché man, and yet, this character is calm. He is not hypermasculine at all — he is at peace with his soft side. Kaushal became an overnight sensation.

Similarly, the current obsession and love for Pedro Pascal, who has rocked a Pornstache in multiple roles, is because of how he could be a macho man but happens to be a hunky man in touch with his softer side. He is obsessed with manicured nails, talks about his anxiety issues, supports his sister in every front of life and keeps winking at camera and becoming an internet sensation.

The version of the current Pornstache is in sync with all our other trends. It plays into gender roles without explicitly promoting them. Girl dinners don’t explicitly promote diet culture, but they circle around it — and similarly, the Pornstache wants to indicate that the man sprouting it is macho, but he supports women’s right to choice.

The office siren trend is happening because more women are in leadership positions, but at the same time, they could be cajoled into some shopping — because girl math, right? Of course, Pedro Pascal looks like he could move mountains and build a cabin with his bare hands, but he wouldn’t feel emasculated if the woman earned more than him.

Even if our trends aren’t directly indicating economic or political statuses, they clearly show how — even in our wokest of mindsets — we are not completely free of the gender roles we grew up with.

So yes, I hate to admit that when Ted Lasso or Richard Burke come up on my screen, or a new Pedro Pascal video is trending, I do end up thinking, “I would do anything he says and then say thank you.”

Naturally, we live in a time when there are just not enough words to express ourselves. Thankfully most of us are at least Bi-lingual. Thankfully, we’re multilingual, so we can be misunderstood in multiple languages.

India loves to flaunt its diversity and speak about the thousands of languages, cuisines, religions and castes we have and so naturally, our public policies reflect that.

One of the policies that nicely navigates the debate of being great and bland is our National Education Policy. In a country where education is riddled with systemic issues, any reform feels like a step forward. But one aspect continues to spark debate: the three-language policy.

Prior to the current policy, Hindi was a mandatory subject. Every state was required to include Hindi in its curriculum and you can see why that would be an issue. You can’t flaunt your diverse cake and then proceed to shove it aside. But now, the schools need to teach three languages and it is up to the State’s discretion which languages they want to teach. However the issue is, of the three languages, 2 have to be Indian.

Since most English-medium schools will naturally teach English, the remaining two languages must be Indian. If a state prioritizes its regional language, the third option—more often than not—ends up being Hindi. Not by mandate, but by convenience.

However, the argument posed here by non-hindi speaking states are that this rule acts as a smokescreen to impose Hindi. Tamil Nadu’s funds for education under the scheme has also been re-allocated due to their opposition.

This has caused heated debates, the quotes of which have been neatly presented in this article.

The politics of our culture and language is bared out in the world because of the kind of grip with which every person holds onto their language. There is no communication in any of the language, just a murky battle of which language reigns superior. Because with the triumph of having a prevalence of language comes the power to dictate a culture.

What this article made me think about is how different languages change the way one looks at the world.

According to the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis:

“ language functions, not simply as a device for reporting experience, but also, and more significantly, as a way of defining experience for its speakers.”

The way a language is spoken and created itself changes the way you think of your own ideas. It is one of the reasons why not only does your voice and accent change when you switch between languages but sometimes the idea itself moulds into something else.

Like everything else in our world, many researchers and academicians came to discredit this hypothesis. They twisted and turned the hypothesis into something more exaggerated and animated saying that if a language didn’t have a coherent future tense, did it mean they didn’t believe in a future? So yes, they might question the practicality and cognition part of the theory but isn’t that taking the thought too literally?

However, many do believe in this hypothesis. As languages are usually learned from experiences and frequent use in practice, the way with which we associate words is not limited to their technical meaning but to also with the context we learned them.

What language holds is not limited to communication. It holds beliefs of a culture. For example:

“English speakers instinctively split time into categories of past, present, and future, but many others don’t. Karitiâna, an Amazonian language Everett studied two decades ago, has two tenses, future and non-future, while another Amazonian language, Yagua, seems to have eight, including for events that occurred between a month and a year ago, for events that are about to happen, and for events expected to happen further into the future.”

Or simply consider how all our Indian languages have separate words for our Maternal and Paternal side while English usually bunches up our relatives under the same word, “uncle, “aunt” “grandmom” etc. The structure of these languages forces a more precise categorization of family relationships, shaping how speakers perceive familial bonds

I love to believe that our mind carries these cultures with it when it changes the language it thinks in.

The politics related to the Indian language is a battle that has persisted longer than some of the cultural nuances of our society. It is thus nice to know that if language was taught to not ace communication but to learn meaning, we might have something more to talk about.

With the vast number of options, OTT content has been thriving. Almost all these platforms have a distinct type. Every streaming platform has a distinct brand. You wouldn’t find Severance on Netflix—it’s way too subtle for the dramatic tu-dum.

Platforms buy the rights to stream a show based on the audience they cater to. So imagine the surprise when a streaming platform like Disney Hotstar with prominent shows like Euphoria, The White Lotus and similar HBO shows, merged with Jio Cinema.

I was on the wrong side of the comedy debate for a while simply because I never thought that freedom of speech was actually under threat. I really thought it was just a slow day for news, and in a matter of hours, I would get snippets of another panel on IGL. Well, I was so wrong. I can’t believe that I might have to side with the same people who I deemed to be idiots.

Regardless, it isn’t just our politically influential people who are curbing content; it is all people with insane power. Movie censorship isn’t new, and India has always used its power to cut scenes it deems inappropriate. However, OTT shows used to easily escape the scrutiny of the Certification Board. However, the JIO merger changed that completely. With this merger the company now has control of approximately 85% of the streaming market. Why is it a problem?

Take the show, The White Lotus. The first two seasons are so popular because of how artistically scandal is portrayed in the story. It has murder, drama, sex and drugs. It is rich people getting wild and dirty in a pristine hotel. But in the latest season, Indians might not be streaming the shows in its entirety. Jio has taken it upon themselves to cleanse the content on Hotstar.

There have been fewer instances of censorship on online platforms than in films. One of the most notable scenes to be removed for a streaming platform was Last Week Tonight With John Olver’s segment about the Indian Elections.

Our freedom of speech includes the freedom to comment and criticize. But by completely removing the content in the first place, both the freedoms are being taken away. How can I say something is bad if you remove the traces of it completely? How do we laugh at rich people suffering in a fancy people if you cut scenes of them cursing? How do we nod to valid commentary on our elections if you feel so threatened?

An insider of the company reported to Mid-day saying, “We’ll have to exercise caution before making modifications. The content must be in accordance with local sensibilities. At the same time, the platform can’t alienate key international partners.”

In our laws too, we base obscenity on societal sensibilities, and more than once we have seen in our cases that there never really is any sensibility. There is never a consensus and so with which audience in mind is Jio deciding what should be censored?

Imagine if content like Gangs Of Wasseypur make there way into the JIO bubble of purity. Oh wait, it already is, I think we can now expect the movie to have a run time of 10 minutes.

It was already quite clear that the IGL case would be used to step up the Broadcasting Bill but will the monopolisation of the Streaming Market by Ambani lead to the government finally gaining control on OTT content and its censorship?

Luigi Mangione is a 26 year old boy who allegedly shot UnitedHealthcare’s CEO last week. But, when searched on any social media, he is one of the most “Wanted” boys. No, no, not by the police or law enforcement because they already caught him. He is wanted by everyone else too.

There is his look-alike competition being held. People are ready to write letters to him in prison. And many deem him as a hero.

What does he have that many other criminals don’t?

Charming looks. Prestigious background. Media reporting that makes him sound almost like an unsung hero who is sticking it to Big Pharma. You name it, and his PR has done it.

Now I don’t know whether he is guilty or not but how far into the romanticization of morally grey characters have we gone that an alleged shooter has become the object of thirst for so many individuals?

He is pleading “not guilty” in his trial but simply because of his looks and IVY league education, people are convinced that he is being framed. Whether he is framed or not, Instagram has proclaimed its love for the man. They have performed ballads in his names and those who couldn’t sing their praises, made dedicated Spotify playlists.

This isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. Internet has loved some really grey characters; fictional and real. Joe Goldberg and Richard Ramirez. It baffles me how Dahmer too had a notable fan following. Now the question changes from how low the bar is to what is the bar?

The want for this man can’t simply be his good looks because the internet doesn’t lack good looking men with a high pedigree. It can’t be his “moralistic” reasons to kill the CEO and it can’t simply be “I-Can-Fix-Him” because that is now the responsibility of the prison system. Why are people fawning after this boy?

According to media reports, internet loves a good looking man who uses tactic methods to get “justice.” We are definitely living in a time when rather than a legal recourse, the public likes to take matters in their own hands. The hands who get result are then deemed as saviours and martyrs for the general good. To make it cinematic, if the hands belong to attractive people then you might witness collective and united thirst.

The case of Luigi is a little more filmy because no one is entirely sure that he did the shooting. The evidence incriminating him seemed to be too conveniently available. If this was a plan of the mastermind, why was this boy roaming around with fake cash, the murder weapon and a manifesto with all the details of his plan so clearly stated. So now the part of the internet who would not support a murderer is now fawning for this boy because they believe he is innocent. They want to save the saviour.

The boy at least has some intention. He is actually doing something. Maybe he wanted his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe he was actually fed up with the healthcare system and did something (allegedly). Maybe the internet lacks boys who act with intent and thus latch onto anyone who goes out of their way to do something. How romantic.

Is he the next Anna Delvey? A violent Anna Delvey? A criminal who definitely charmed the internet and is now literally Dancing With The Stars? Who knows, but if they make a series about him, I hope Netflix doesn’t make it a romantic comedy.