Moral obligations of Indians

April 13, 2022

Rohit Dhankar

Many of us remember the arguments advanced by Indian intellectuals that (1) terrorism has not religion, (2) that Muslim community is not responsible for the terrorist attacks allover the country, and that (3) the Muslim community has no obligation to show that they are not with terrorism by distancing themselves from it or criticizing it. Any one who argued against this line, was considered a Hindu bigot out to attack Muslims. Many pointed out that if there are so many incidents of terrorism in the country then there must be a section of the population which harbors and support these groups. But these people and thoughts had no room in the Indian liberal thinking and no place to be published.

The next step was, and still is, that each terrorist attack and Islamic terrorism in Kashmir is a reaction to injustice suffered by Muslims in India. The political, social and historical explanations of these attacks clearly sounded like ‘justifications’ of those attacks. And challenging this justification was, and is in the high intellectual circles even today, impossible. Once, 4-5 very enlightened university professors were talking about ganga-jamuni sabhyata with enthusiasm. I mentioned that on the ground where I work there is a very visible attempt by Muslims to mark themselves separate through changing traditional dress which was the same as Hindus, and changing language. Immediately I was told that this is because they are attacked. Which of course was completely wrong.

With such strong principle of terrorists and rioters not belonging to any religion, when one reads the current—newly minted principles—one wonders whether there is a relationship between consistency of through and memory with intellectual capability? A Delhi University professor and one of the foremost writers in The Wire1, tells us that “This politics of violence has caused immense cognitive damage to the Hindus. Their ability to comprehend the world and society is seriously impaired. They have also lost their sense of the self.” (emphasis added). Now, the Hindus, all Hindus, are not only responsible for the Hindu-Muslim riots and rifts in the society, but if they don’t feel this they have become stupid, they lost their cognitive ability and sense of self. Remember that sense of the self and cognitive ability to understand the world is what makes us persons and confers citizenship rights on us. But Hindus have lost both, thus they are no more persons and soon their rights should be consider an anomaly.

Pay attention to the self-righteous tone in which ‘what I and my comrades think is right. And that is the only right way of thinking.’ If the courts give a verdict which I don’t like, they are corrupt or toeing the government line. If people vote for the party ‘we the guardians of truth and morality’ do not like they have lost their mind, and are unfit to be citizens of a democracy. ‘What we believe is the only knowledge, truth and facts. What we want is the only moral principles worth thinking and obeying’. The article in question has expressed this idea very clearly and forcefully. The dictionary meaning of bigotry: “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” Who said it is confined to the religions alone?

The article also talks about how banning halal certification will harm Indian economy, will make Indian products unacceptable to Muslim majority countries and even to the Indian Muslims. Thus some Hindus by demanding ban on halal certification will harm Indian economy, and that it is an attack on Muslims. There are three issues any thoughtful Indian—irrespective of his/her religion should think about in this connection.

First, the extent of influence of the halal certification. The halal certificates are completely governed by Islamic perspective on what food and other items are allowed and forbidden to a Muslim. The certification business seems to be above fifty-thousand crores per year. A cursory look at the market reveals that there is almost no consumable item which is in the market and does not have a halal certificate. Just a few examples: Amul, Ramdev, Haldiram, Milky Mist, Nestley all have halal certificates. That means that in Bangalore market you can not buy chicken nuggets or even milk which is not halal certified. The author of the article does not mention that this makes the market controlled by Islamic choices, and a Hindu who does not want to buy halal has no choice.

Two, are the Hindus who oppose halal certification attacking Muslims? To understand this lets take the example of halal mutton or chicken. The concept of halal comes from Quran. And in practice guided by Quran and Hadith. Quran has several verses on halal food. In verse 2.172 the Allah tells believers to eat “good things” he has provided. Verse 2.173 further tells what is forbidden, “He has forbidden you only the Maitah (dead animals), and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah (or has been slaughtered for idols, on which Allah’s Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering).” (Emphasis added)

Without going into other details lets note that halal non-veg has to be (1) slaughtered in the name of Allah, (2) it is forbidden if slaughtered in the name of any other divinity than Allah, particularly if “slaughtered for idols”, and (3) has to be performed by a believing Muslim according to a particular procedure. Thus, halal, actually is sacrificial meat. This is taught to a Muslim in his/her dini-talim, the halal certification houses mention that it is also their job to educate Muslims about the halal. Which means that there is active teaching designed for Muslims to convince them to eat or use only halal certified items.

Now, suppose a Hindu takes objection to the fact that slaughtered in the name of any divinity but Allah and especially for idols is forbidden. And such Hindus start a campaign (peaceful, I am not saying so far they have always been peaceful, but the argument being built here is only for peaceful campaigns) of informing Hindus about the nature of halal, and tries to convince them not to eat or use halal items. For this they take out peaceful processions, distribute pamphlets and give lectures. Why is this an attack on Muslims? Suppose some people call it so, then isn’t there built in ‘attack on Hindus’ in the very process and procedure of halal? The article which goes on to describe campaign for banning halal certification—which actually means controlling the market—does not bother to understand this aspect.

Three, should Hindus, then, campaign for ban on halal certification? I would say NO. Because Muslims want to eat only halal, and halal certification helps export to Muslim majority country; the Hindus should campaign for marking on the items whether they are halal or not, and force the market through their choice to keep non-halal marked items always in the shops. If there are no non-halal, they do not buy. That will automatically correct the tilt in the market. Any one who calls this an attack on Muslims deliberately ignores the inherent exclusiveness and exceptionalism built into the ideology of Islam, and condones it, but countering this is dubbed as attack!

Now I came to the last and most important issue in this article. The very title declares “Hindus Are Morally Obliged to Oppose the Anti-Minority Politics of Hindutva”. With this I completely agree. This Hindus should oppose and correct the excesses committed by Hindu individuals and organizations, and they are morally obligated to do that. However, like the example above, one has to carefully analyze what is anti-minority politics and what is exercising their own choices, keeping space for their on rights, and actions to defend themselves. I do think that Hindus are not as cognitively challenges and morally depraved as the author makes them to be. And they are actually opposing obnoxious actions of other Hindus, criticizing them strongly. In a way, many of the Hindus are actually fulfilling this moral obligation.

But then a question arises: are the Hindus only people in this country who have such moral obligations? And here I feel that the first group which should show some capability to think and some moral fiber in India are the so-called intellectuals. The intellectual who does not think about and expose in the halal issue what I have very briefly pointed above is either incapable of thinking or completely morally depraved. The so-called intellectuals have shown themselves lacking in clear thinking, acceptance of truth, and courage to speak against injustices and atrocities perpetrated by Muslims; and thus shown themselves lacking in moral responsibility. Another example form the same peace is the use of word “pogrom” for 2002 Gujarat riots. Pogrom means an organized massacre. Which implies it is one sided, organized and with clear intent. The Gujarat riots started with burning alive 59 Hindu pilgrims. According to official figures, the riots ended with 1,044 dead, 790 were Muslim and 254 Hindu. Taking into account the trigger point and death toll suggests it was no pogrom, it was a riot, where both communities participated with madness. Recent example of denying Kashmir genocide is another example of denying truth and this unfulfilled moral obligation by the so-called intellectuals.

Weaving these one sided stories brings us to the third issue of moral obligation. Do the Muslims of this country also have any moral obligation? Should they also oppose and criticize the excesses committed by Muslims mobs (stone pelting on Ramanavami), so-called blasphemy killings, the lectures by Muslim clerics and so on? But as soon as this issue is raised a completely different principle will be evoked: the terrorists, rioters and blasphemy killers have no religion! Well, Hindu hate speech givers, rioters and aggressors have a religion (that is Hindu-dharma) but Muslim counter part of all these and more have no religion? This is moral depravity of so-called intellectuals and one wonders whether one who does not fulfill his/her own moral obligation is worthy of giving lectures to others on moral obligation?



Gita again: Now in Gujarat

March 17, 2022

An article written in 2015 on a Haryana proposal, still relevant for Gujarat decision

Some thoughts on The Kashmir Files

March 16, 2022

Rohit Dhankar

It is neither a review nor a properly written article, but only some bullet points.

1. The people who consider themselves guardians of democracy and harmony are saying again and again that films should be made on other unfortunate riots and atrocities as well. THEY ARE RIGHT.

2. But they forget that there are many films on such issues. Mostly fictitious and to build a narrative that every time Hindus are aggressors and Muslims are at the receiving end. Any other views, even for the sake of discussion, are derided and blocked.

3. The Kashmir Files goes against this narrative. Its value is not in its cinematic merit, even if it is there. Its value is not even in bringing new information to light.

4. It’s value is in connecting the dots which brings out in the open the sinister elements of Islamism and one-sided narrative. The film might be faulted on several counts, yes. But it breaks a taboo.

5. The taboo that anyone hinting at the possible concerns of the majority community, even if they are misguided, is attacked ferociously to shut-up. An open dialogue is made impossible and a politically correct discourse goes on, that is in the liberal sphere.

6. Yes, this film should have talked about the killings of Muslims going on at the same points. AND SHOULD HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE DIFFERENCE IN INTENTIONS AND NATURE OF KILLING OF HINDUS AND MUSLIMS.

7. The Muslims were killed as traitors to the creations of Islamic state, and needed to be silenced.

8. The Hindus were killed as undesirable elements on the Islamic state and were to be cleansed.

9. One to teach a lesson into submission.

10. Other as hated unbelievers to be given the choice of conversion, or leave or die. But not remain with the religion of their birth.

11. Pointing out this difference would have made the film more authentic and much more potent in challenging the narrative.

12. Not every Muslim in the valley was a party to this genocide. But at one time the powerful section of the community was. Otherwise the use of Mosques in blaring slogans of “convert, leave or die” would not have been possible. This powerful section scared the liberal Muslims into submission. The film should have shown this as well.

13. The most hurting aspect of the film for so-called liberals is the fact that they were a party to this genocide. They used some devices of narrative building that encouraged the bigotry, and they are still being used. Some of these devices are listed below.

14. WHAT ABOUT: repeated mentions of other unfortunate riots etc. like Godhara 2002 etc. It does a double job. One, re-established without going into argument that Godhara 2002 was a similar genocide of Muslims, which it was not. And two, makes a point that these killings are not the only ones, so pointing them out alone is biased.

15. THE MUSLIMS WERE ALSO KILLED: this is used to make the point that there is nothing Islamic and anti-Hindu about it. It hides the intentions of killers and nature of killing.

16. EXPLAINING AWAY: it has two prongs. One, the issue was not Islamic it was political. Hides the fact that any issue involving Muslims very quickly becomes Islamic. And two, that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes were people who faced injustice by the system or by the Hindus. Hinting without saying so that they were justified. This second one is a very specious argument used in all Islamic atrocities all over the world.

17. The real point, for me, of the film is to correct this bias in the present day so-called liberal discourse.

18. The most pernicious part of this discourse is that you can call out Hindu atrocities and criticize all that is deemed bad in Hindus, and I AGREE THAT IS HOW IT SHOULD BE. But as soon as you point out anything in Islam and Muslim politics you are attacked as a bigot.

19. If we want harmony and peace, we need to face truth and be fair. Or we will keep pitting Hindus and Muslims against each other to their mutual destruction.


Genocide and riots: Not the same thing

March 1, 2022

Rohit Dhankar

There is a campaign by some organizations including Hindus for Human Rights and Indian American Muslim Council very objectionably titled “India-on the-Brink” “Preventing Genocide”. It seems to me they are actually instigating riots, through not genocide. In response to their defamatory campaign I tweeted “Do these people realise that in India the only victim of genocide are Hindus. Most recent Kashmiri Hindus.”

A very socially conscious and genuinely secular (not a pseudo one) friend of mine asked “when you say ” Most recent Kashmiri Hindus. ” what is the time period you refer to?”

Me: “Particularly from early 20th century.”

My Friend: “The genocide in 2002 in Gujarat and 2020 in Delhi, are they not more recent? And with the complicit support of the police/govt?”

The following few paragraphs are a response to his last question.

According to UN Genocide Convention “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” (emphasis added) (International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences on the authority of OHCHR [1948] 1951. Second Edition, 2008. Volume 3, page 297)

I would like to draw your attention to “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”. A riot is “a public act of violence by an unruly mob”. One needs to note that a riot is not necessarily with the intent to destroy a group as a whole or in part. It does not have the coordinating authority that direct the violence to achieve the intended end. It can be to ‘teach a lesson’ or expression of anger, or retaliation out of fear. None of it makes it a genocide unless the coordinated intent is there. It become a genocide when such a coordinating intent appears and violence is directed to fulfill this aims. Genocide also communicates that the act of attack is one sided, that the other side did not participate and did not start/trigger it. That it was planned. When we call a Hindu-Muslim riot a ‘genocide of Muslims’ we are communicating that it was one sided, started by Hindus, there was neither provocation/starting nor full blown participation from Muslims. That is Hindus and Hindus alone have been the ghastly perpetrators of violence in this.

The 2002 Gujarat riots were triggered by burning alive 59 Hindu karsevaks returning from Ayodhya. They included 27 women and 10 children. The death toll in the riots was 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. It was a two way affair started by Muslims. It was not genocide as per the definition. It was horrible, heinous, should not have happened, there were perhaps excesses from Hindu mobs once it started. All that should be condemned. But it was no genocide, and it was started by Muslims.

Regarding the Delhi riots debate is still on who stared it and how it progressed. I think the first causality was a Hindu police constable. Again it was a riot. Bad, should not have happened. In this horrible riot 53 people died, 36 Muslims, 15 Hindus and 2 are said to be unidentified. Many report say that initially for a day the deaths were equal from both communities, then the situation changed. This may show retaliation by the Majority community, the Hindus. It was no genocide.

I do not like using words like genocide, pogrom, terror, hate, etc. lightly. Undue use of them may lend anger and rabble rousing ability to one’s speech but it also normalizes these words. And that increases the likelihood of their enactment. That is too heavy a price bargaining to malign some one.

As said above currently some organizations are continuously maligning India and Hindus through an ongoing campaign mischievously titled “India on the brink” as if a genocide is about to happen here. Reputed supposed to be intellectuals and activist are speaking in it and paddling lies and false theories. It of course will increase their visibility and reputation in certain circles but will harm India and Hindus by harming the truth. And to me India includes all citizens, whatever their religion, so it will harm all. My tweet was against this campaign.

These worthies do not realize that the level of tension is very high in the country presently. There are incidents of Hindus killing Muslims and Muslims killing Hindus. Each Muslim death justifiably generates a storm of articles condemning the act, India, Hindus and the government. But Hindu deaths generate a deafening silence. And that makes the crime hundred times more painful for the Hindu community. The so-called intellectuals do not realize that this condoning of barbarity of one community and heavy attack on the other angers people more than the act itself.


The hijab, secularism and identity politics

February 18, 2022

Rohit Dhankar

Part A: Display of religious or community-identity symbols in public educational institutions

  1. Indian public education institutions have Saraswati pictures, religious prayers and various religious symbols displayed in their premises.
  2. Most institutions which have uniform for students allow Sikh head-dress as part of their uniform.
  3. In most of the institutions students and teachers can use markings on their person which may be religious in nature or otherwise indicate a particular community identity.
  4. Therefore, from the point of view of display of religious or community-identity symbols banning hijab (nikab, burka) in these institutions is unjustified discrimination if any of the other such symbols are allowed.
  5. It is also against the constitution as far as I understand.

Part B: Right of the institutions to decide their uniform

  1. Any institution which either receives public funds or wants recognition should not be allowed such discrimination.
  2. Private institutions which do not take any grant or receive public funds in any other form and do not want recognition from the government can certainly decide their uniform code that may selectively allow or ban certain symbols.
  3. That however will be again discriminatory, but as far as I understand not against the constitution.
  4. An additional issue in a uniform allowing hijab could be difficulty created by full body and face coverage, as there may be issues of concerned with identification of the person, security and possibility of using unfair means in examination. But that has to be resolved by other means rather than through a ban.

Part C: The issue of religious necessity

  1. None of the symbols and markings displayed except Sikh pagri are religiously necessary as far as I understand.
  2. Therefore religious argument is bogus.
  3. Even if something is religiously necessary it will not constitute a sound argument. Simply, because the person claiming religious necessity on the basis of whatever authority is bound to ignore many other religious injunctions, recommendations and markings.
  4. That will make insistence on only one of many equally supposed to be important religious necessities an opportunistic stand for alterior motives.
  5. Bringing in Quran as the source of religious authority is very untenable and extremely dangerous. The hatred for non-believers, Christians, Jews and idolaters is in Quran is rather raw and undisguised. Making all that religiously mandatory would be untenable.

Part D: The issue of identity politics

  1. The issue to my best judgment is actually an identity politics issue and not at all religious.
  2. To my mind it emerges from two problems in our definition of secularism and state attitude to secularism.
  3. Secularism is absolute necessity for a democracy. Democracy presently is absolute necessity for equality and freedom. Equality and freedom are absolute necessities for respecting human dignity. Thus, we have to take secularism as an unnegotiable fundamental principle.
  4. However, secularism as ‘equal respect’ for all religions is becoming untenable in India. Simply because equal respect is practiced as free for all in grabbing public space.
  5. It gives rise to intense completion for public visibility, grabbing physical space, bending laws and so on. Thus becomes a handy and dangerous tool for identity politics.
  6. Hijab and flaunting of saffron scarfs is exactly the kind of activities it encourages.
  7. A stricter version of secularism which disallowed any and all religious transgression of public space will be more manageable and fair.

Part E: Some undue comparisons

  1. Many wise cracks are comparing hijab with bindi, ghunghat, and sindur in educational institutions and saffron attire in assemblies etc.
  2. These comparisons are either mischievous or simply mistaken.
  3. Gughat is patriarchical dominance like hijab is. But no one actually uses ghughat in educational institutions. It is not religious at all.
  4. Sindur is again a symbol of patriarchical dominance but more as a warning to males who might want to approach the woman. Not a hiding of her charms. That is a very big difference. It may have some religious significance as well.
  5. Bindi is religious, but not necessarily patriarchical. It is more a mark of spiritual aspirations.
  6. State Assemblies and parliament have no uniforms and every one is allowed to choose their own attire there, including hijab.
  7. And most importantly, no one is punished publicly for not sporting bindi, ghunghat, sindur etc. No one is imprisoned or stoned or killed.
  8. This kind of comparison, if not a result to abysmal ignorance, is certainly mischievous, deliberately made to equate a definitely patriarchical and often cruelly enforced practice with other religious or social practices.


A Muslim youth lost life for communal tension

January 29, 2022

Rohit Dhankar

A youth named Sameer Shahpur was killed on 17th January according to reports in various news papers. According to reports there seem to have been a running tension since November 21 when it is alleged there was an altercation between some Hindus and Muslims. There are allegations and counter allegations from both sides. Most of the reports state that there have been multiple attacks or harrasments of Muslim communbity members by some Hindu organizations. Names of RSS, Bajarang Dal and Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parshad are mentioned.

None of the reports go into the details of how the whole thing started. The Hindu writes that “Trouble began five days ago in Nargund following an altercation between two groups. Police filed two cases against 75 persons, including some Bajrang Dal members and some Muslim youth who were charged with insulting Lord Ram and Lord Krishna.” So this time is in the name of Lord Ram and Lord Krishna.

The News Minute states that according to the the SP said.“The incident comes after a series of communal altercations in Nargund. Speaking to TNM, the Gadag SP Shiv Prakash Devaraju said that the conflict goes back to November 2021 when one of the accused men was attacked by a group of Muslim men. “This is the third altercation since November. We made arrests in the first case and booked the men under section 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC. Though Sameer and Shamsher were present in this altercation, they were not directly involved”.

A report seem to have been prepared by some fact finding committee, which alleges the whole tension to deliberate incitement of hatred by Bajarang Dal etc, without any reference (as per the version briefed in given here to any previous altercation or alleged insult to Ram and Krishna.

It is very difficult to find out the actual sequence of events and real trigger. But the increasing animosity, distrust and ill-will between the who communities involved in this incident is clear enough. In such a situation any small incident or altercation between people belonging to two communities can ignite the flame of hate and violence.

Religion invariably comes up either as a trigger or as an explanation. We as a society need to reflect calmly, rationally and impartially on these incidents, and try to find a remedy and soon, before it is too late. Or is it already too late?


One more death allegedly for Mohammad

January 28, 2022

Rohit Dhankar

One more human being looses his life for allegedly posting something about supposed to be prophet Mohammad on social media. News Track ( claims “According to the report, the video that Kishan posted on social media was related to the Prophet Muhammad.” The Hindu ( states that “He allegedly posted offensive remark” against a minority group. The Hindu further remarks that “The murder acquired a communal colour as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other outfits gave a bandh call on Thursday.”

We need to think at the least about three issues here. One, how long the killings for saying something or drawing or videos about Mohammad will continue? We should be aware that the attitude of violence or restriction on expressions feigned to be offensive to one’s religion is spreading. It has to be resisted. Recently there was a news that MP Minister has ordered a probe on remarks by a celebrity that “Bhagwan” is taking the size of her bra. One can see that this feigned religious hurt is spreading. Whats wrong in this remark? And whats wrong in posting a video or picture of Mohammad? This is supremacist attitude that is stating clearly that either abide by what my prophet or Bhagwan said or you will be killed or punished. In other words your life in this country is safe only under conditions we state. Completely against freedom of thought and expression.

The second issue I see is the manner such news items are reported in. What the reader comes to know is “offensive remarks”, “offensive picture”, “offensive video” etc. “Offensive” is not a descriptive but evaluative term. It is someone’s, the killer’s and his ilk’s, judgment on an object, that is, on comment, or picture or video. The media actually forces the reader to accept the killer’s judgment by not sharing that supposed to be offensive article. The whole thing becomes a tilted discourse in which those who want to kill freedom of expression through violent means are privileged over common peaceful people. A reader is given no choice but to side by one or the other opinion blindly, without actually knowing the contents of the controversial item. This opaqueness does not allow the society to learn about what is considered offensive by some members of it, and why. It gives free reign to belligerence of this or that group. If the supposed to be offensive material is shared widely there can be a debate in the society regarding the limits of publications. I know there must be some law or protocol about not re-publishing the supposed to be offensive material but that actually works in favor of the belligerent. If the media starts presenting the material for wider public’s judgment the supposed to be offended will hesitate killing or taking other actions because that will make the same object more widely observed or known.

Third, in my reckoning The Hindu is the most objective and fair national news paper. And yet, it states “The murder acquired a communal colour as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other outfits gave a bandh call”. We should think about this kind of remarks, the logic behind them and their impact on the readers. Let’s note that the newspapers itself says that the murder is supposed to be because of remarks posted which are offensive to a particular minority group. The murder is alleged by members of that ‘particular minority group’. The remarks or video was about a person some consider their prophet. All these things make it clear that the whole episode is communal right from its genesis. Then what does the remark that it “acquired a communal colour” as some doings of VHP and other outfits? Was it not communal before these outfits gave a call for bandh? Would it have remained non-communal if these outfits did not give a call for the bandh? What does the newspaper exactly wants to convey? I seems to me it wants to give an impression that it is the VHP and other outfits which are making it a communal issue. The murder itself was non-communal, should we say ‘secular’ as well, though non-communal does not necessarily imply that?

As we say in Hindi “कबूतर के आंख बंद करने से बिल्ली गायब नहीं होती”. Now many new billies are developing their appetite for pigeons emulating an old one’s gains through such practices.

A teacher’s Description of Digantar Pedagogy

January 22, 2022

Rohit Dhankar

I bumped into this video (Video No.1) on YouTube by chance. The person being interviewed is Harish Sharma, who taught in Digantar. The name of the interviewer is (perhaps) Vikas. I have not met (as far as I remember) Mr. Vikas, and did not know about this video prior to this morning. The video describes pedagogy and organisation of Digantar schools from 5 mins to 45 mins. I was surprised and admired the skill and understanding of the interviewer to elicit information and the articulation of the teacher in responses. This is detailed and authentic description of pedagogy in Digantar schools. I thank Harish ji and Vikas ji for a very good job.

Video No. 2:

The second video (Video No. 2) is a film on Digantar made by Jagjyot Singh. He is a professional film maker and did his job very well in this short documentary.

Video No.1:

Both these videos put together give a lot of information about Digantar and its functioning.

To donate to Digantar visit



Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

500 ₹
1,000 ₹
5,000 ₹
500 ₹
1,000 ₹
5,000 ₹
500 ₹
1,000 ₹
5,000 ₹

Or enter a custom amount

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly