Priya Pillai, an Indian citizen and Greenpeace activist, was stopped from travelling outside the country last month, preventing her from voicing her views against a coal project in Madhya Pradesh. The government offered no convincing reasons for this.
The incident calls into question our understanding of what constitutes anti-national, and the basis of our rules for profit-making companies and not-for-profit ones?
If the state allows the former to use foreign funds to promote their cause, shouldn’t the latter be allowed the same? Why should opposition to forms of development always be misconstrued as anti-national, and call for extreme measures to curb it? Do listen.

Teacher Dead, announced an 82-word obit for a college teacher. Compare this to the 375 word-obit that followed the death of a film publicist. Obits in India are a funny business. But then again, in a time where everything is calculated, how do we go about taking the measure of a teacher?

When private land is taken for public purposes shouldn't it only belong to the government and not 'private entities'?
The government's recent land ordinance enables it to take away any privately-owned land for 5 types of infrastructure projects in the name of 'public purpose', with little or no scope for objections. It has even enlarged the meaning of public purpose to include private hospitals and educational institutions.
Shouldn't there be a clearer distinction between the private and the public?

Even as you choose your position on Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and the recent killings, and before you decide whether you are Charlie or not, stop a while and ask: which side are you on and why?

The Indian Constitution grants us the right to both practise and propagate our faith, but should institutions have that right? Are not large-scale organised acts of conversion different from one person convincing another of the fruits of his or her faith?

The responses to the killings in Peshawar were predictable. Anger and deep sorrow, and swift retributive action. But in this circle of violence, revenge and more violence, what is the way out? Will the deaths of these children be once again forgotten like countless others before them?

Sushma Swaraj in an otherwise non-political speech sharing the importance of Gita in her life mentioned her demand for making the Bhagwad Gita the national granth. Why slip in this desire in a devotional address and why this desire to yoke everything to the nation and nation-state?

No sooner had Sushma Swaraj made the demand for making Gita the "rashtriya granth", there were those who said the country (India) already has one -- the Constitution. What this urge to look towards the Constitution as if it were a holy book? It is but a covenant, a set of laws. And do were really need a national book, now.

A Union Minister in India exhorted people to choose between Rāmzādās and Harāmzādās at a recently held political rally in Delhi. Some questions on her choice of words and the PM Narendra Modi's intercession on her behalf.

After the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha announced its intentions of constructing a temple dedicated to Nathuram Godse—the man who killed MK Gandhi—criticism followed. Vehement declarations were made; the act would be disrespectful to Gandhi, the chorus went. But can the construction of a temple to Godse, or installation of his statues across the country, harm Gandhi, his philosophy, or the sentiments of his followers? Do listen and leave your comments below.