This is how it ends when you vote for hate: Author Sonia Faleiro on India's COVID situation
New Delhi: Critically acclaimed Indian writer and Journalist Sonia Faleiro on Sunday took to her official Twitter account to express anguish over the situation of COVID-19 in India as the country is facing a major second wave outbreak of the deadly virus.
Sonia, whose critically acclaimed first novel The Girl was published by Viking in 2006, said she was gutted to see the situation of the virus in India and that it need not be this way in the first place. “The country literally produces vaccines!” she wrote in the tweet adding “This is how it ends when you vote for hate”.
Absolutely gutted to see the situation in India. It didn’t have to be this way at all. The country literally produces vaccines! This is how it ends when you vote for hate” her tweet read.
In another tweet, Sonia added, “Almost every day I find myself sending someone in India a condolence message. So sad, sorry and frankly heartbroken by the situation”.
Sonia’s writing and photographs have appeared in The New York Times, The New York Times Book Review, Granta, The California Sunday Magazine, The Guardian, and Smithsonian. She is a co-founder of Deca, a global journalism cooperative that creates long-form stories to read on mobile devices.
She was awarded the 2011 Karmaveer Puraskaar for Social Justice for "drawing attention to India's most vulnerable and writing about them with sensitivity, humanity, and integrity". She is the recipient of a runners-up award in the CNN Young Journalist Award of 2006[4] as well as of awards from the Ratan Tata Trust, the Oxford Cambridge Society of India, and the British Council's de Souza Trust.
Absolutely gutted to see the situation in India. It didn’t have to be this way at all. The country literally produces vaccines! This is how it ends when you vote for hate.
— Sonia Faleiro (@soniafaleiro) April 18, 2021
Almost every day I find myself sending someone in India a condolence message. So sad, sorry and frankly heartbroken by the situation.
— Sonia Faleiro (@soniafaleiro) April 18, 2021
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
