When you speak uncomfortable truths, you pay with blood: Dr. Meena Kandasamy in Mangaluru
Fifth PP Gomathi Memorial Lecture held
Mangaluru: Dr. Meena Kandasamy, a noted writer, poet, and anti-caste activist, delivered an incisive fifth PP Gomathi memorial lecture on ‘Writing for Resistance’ at Sahodaya, Mangaluru, on Tuesday. The event was organized by the PP Gomathi Memorial Education Trust in collaboration with the Karnataka Theological Research Institute. Addressing the audience, Dr. Kandasamy delved into the perilous intersection of writing, resistance, and censorship in contemporary India, drawing attention to the struggles faced by writers who dare to speak uncomfortable truths.
Dr. Kandasamy opened her speech by expressing gratitude to the organizers and acknowledging the sacrifices of late writers M.M. Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh, both of whom were assassinated for their fearless expressions of dissent. “When you speak uncomfortable truths, you pay with blood,” she remarked, emphasizing the deadly consequences writers in India face for their boldness.
She lamented the current environment where dissent is stifled, and critical voices are labeled as threats to the nation. “Why is it that writers are either killed or imprisoned?” she asked, highlighting how the state equates the pens of activists and writers to the guns of insurgents by branding them as “Urban Naxals.” She warned that such comparisons legitimize the state’s persecution of dissenting voices.
Dr. Kandasamy further criticized the misuse of state machinery, such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to silence political figures and activists. She said these agencies, originally intended to uphold justice, have become tools of suppression, adding that writers increasingly find themselves victims of censorship.
Reflecting on the vital role of storytelling, she noted the heavy burden placed on individuals who protest against injustice. “When people are already burdened by protesting, why do we want to burden them further with the responsibility of telling their stories? That is where writers play a crucial role,” she said. According to her, storytelling is not just an act of resistance but a necessary means to expose injustices and amplify voices that often go unheard.
In a poignant observation, Dr. Kandasamy stated, “In this country, even reading is resistance, not just writing,” urging the audience to critically engage with literature in a time of widespread repression.
She cited the example of Mohammed Zubair, a journalist and fact-checker who has faced multiple legal challenges for exposing hate speech. She pointed out how he is being accused of compromising India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity, epitomizing the growing trend of portraying truth-tellers as enemies of the state.
The lecture concluded with a call for resilience among writers and readers alike. Dr. Kandasamy expressed hope that those who speak the truth, expose injustices, and offer solace to the oppressed would be recognized as the true patriots.
The event commenced with a welcome note by Prof. KP Vasudev, who introduced Dr. Kandasamy to the audience. Christopher George, Director of Karnataka Theological Research Institute, delivered the vote of thanks, expressing gratitude for the insightful session. Dr. B Srinivas Kakkilaya, coordinated the event while media scholar Sindhu Manjesh was also present on the dias.
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.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
