meanu😳

Today, commemorating Birsa Munda’s birthday anniversary, I wish to present the forgotten struggle of Muthanga samaram, where indigenous people of Kerala stood their ground to get back what was once taken away from them

God's own Zionist! A Belarusian-Israeli man, Vladimir Vitkov, brutally slammed an 18-month-old Iranian child headfirst onto the floor at Moscow airport. The toddler - fleeing war with his pregnant mother - is now in a coma. Vitkov was arrested. Drugs were found in his system.

'This is my only hope.' 24-year-old Youssef Abu Rabie is reviving farming to combat food shortages and starvation caused by the prolonged Israeli war on Gaza.

PRESS STATEMENT Date: May 26, 2025 Coordination Committee for Peace Violation of the Right to Dignity in Death: Demand for Immediate Release of Slain Maoist Bodies The Coordination Committee for Peace expresses grave concern over the continued withholding of bodies of deceased individuals from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana following the operation conducted on May 21 2025 in Chhattisgarh's Abujhmarh region. Despite assurances given by the Advocate General of Chhattisgarh before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on May 24, 2025, that post-mortems would be completed and bodies handed over to families, the remains continue to be withheld. This prolonged delay is causing immense anguish to bereaved families who have travelled long distances to claim the bodies of their loved ones. Even more alarming are the emerging allegations that the bodies have not been preserved in cold storage and have been left exposed to decay—despite the clear legal and ethical obligation to preserve mortal remains with dignity. Such treatment amounts to a gross violation of medico-legal protocols, dehumanisation of the deceased, and the infliction of further psychological trauma upon grieving families. We are particularly disturbed that, during court proceedings, the Deputy Solicitor General—appearing for the Union of India—opposed handing over at least two bodies, citing a potential “law and order” issue arising from funeral processions. This justification, which effectively criminalises mourning, is both callous and constitutionally untenable. The families, through senior counsel, had already assured the Court of their willingness to abide by any conditions to ensure a peaceful farewell. Even then, the bodies have being withheld. Such obstruction reflects a contempt for both human grief and fundamental rights. We are also alarmed by reports that family members, ambulance drivers, and others assisting in this humanitarian process are facing intimidation and obstruction by the authorities. This represents an unconscionable abuse of state power, deepening the trauma of the bereaved. This delay and desecration is not merely an administrative lapse—it constitutes a blatant violation of constitutional and legal obligations. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been judicially interpreted to include the right to dignity in death. In Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India—and reiterated in numerous subsequent judgments—the Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that the dignity of a human being does not end with death. " We thus find that the word and expression 'person' in Article 21, would include a dead person in a limited sense and that his rights to his life which includes his right to live with human dignity, to have an extended meaning to treat his dead body with respect, which he would have deserved, had he been alive subject to his tradition, culture and the religion, which he professed. The State must respect a dead person by allowing the body of that dead person to be treated with dignity …., the preservation of the dead body and its disposal in accordance with human dignity.” (1/2)

PRESS STATEMENT Date: May 26, 2025 Coordination Committee for Peace Violation of the Right to Dignity in Death: Demand for Immediate Release of Slain Maoist Bodies The Coordination Committee for Peace expresses grave concern over the continued withholding of bodies of deceased individuals from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana following the operation conducted on May 21 2025 in Chhattisgarh's Abujhmarh region. Despite assurances given by the Advocate General of Chhattisgarh before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on May 24, 2025, that post-mortems would be completed and bodies handed over to families, the remains continue to be withheld. This prolonged delay is causing immense anguish to bereaved families who have travelled long distances to claim the bodies of their loved ones. Even more alarming are the emerging allegations that the bodies have not been preserved in cold storage and have been left exposed to decay—despite the clear legal and ethical obligation to preserve mortal remains with dignity. Such treatment amounts to a gross violation of medico-legal protocols, dehumanisation of the deceased, and the infliction of further psychological trauma upon grieving families. We are particularly disturbed that, during court proceedings, the Deputy Solicitor General—appearing for the Union of India—opposed handing over at least two bodies, citing a potential “law and order” issue arising from funeral processions. This justification, which effectively criminalises mourning, is both callous and constitutionally untenable. The families, through senior counsel, had already assured the Court of their willingness to abide by any conditions to ensure a peaceful farewell. Even then, the bodies have being withheld. Such obstruction reflects a contempt for both human grief and fundamental rights. We are also alarmed by reports that family members, ambulance drivers, and others assisting in this humanitarian process are facing intimidation and obstruction by the authorities. This represents an unconscionable abuse of state power, deepening the trauma of the bereaved. This delay and desecration is not merely an administrative lapse—it constitutes a blatant violation of constitutional and legal obligations. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been judicially interpreted to include the right to dignity in death. In Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India—and reiterated in numerous subsequent judgments—the Hon’ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that the dignity of a human being does not end with death. " We thus find that the word and expression 'person' in Article 21, would include a dead person in a limited sense and that his rights to his life which includes his right to live with human dignity, to have an extended meaning to treat his dead body with respect, which he would have deserved, had he been alive subject to his tradition, culture and the religion, which he professed. The State must respect a dead person by allowing the body of that dead person to be treated with dignity …., the preservation of the dead body and its disposal in accordance with human dignity.” (1/2)