Tag: Human Rights India

🇮🇳 Begging, Public Harassment and the Hijra/Transgender Community in India: What Is Really Happening?
In many Indian cities, people sometimes encounter transgender or hijra individuals asking for money at traffic signals, near railway stations, on buses and trains, outside shops and at other public places.
Some members of the public have complained about persistent requests for money, blocking a person’s path, clapping or shouting, touching vehicles or people, or refusing to leave after being asked.
Such conduct, when it occurs, can make people uncomfortable and may cross the line into harassment.
However, it is important to make one distinction very clear:
The behaviour of some individuals should not be used to label an entire transgender or hijra community.
India’s transgender population includes people working in many professions, and government policy itself recognises their rights to education, employment, healthcare and social security. The 2011 Census recorded 4,87,803 people under the “Others” sex category, although the government notes that this category was broader than transgender people alone.
📸 Why Do We See Begging at Traffic Signals and Public Places?
The traditional hijra community has a long history in South Asia.
Some members have historically earned money through:
- Blessings at weddings and childbirth
- Ceremonial performances
- Begging or soliciting money
- Community-based occupations
Economic exclusion has also played an important role.
The National Human Rights Commission has noted continuing problems involving employment disparities, limited healthcare access, education and social exclusion affecting transgender people.
For some people, therefore, street-based income becomes a survival strategy.
But economic hardship does not give anyone the right to intimidate or harass another person.
⚠️ When Does Begging Become Harassment?
Simply asking someone for money is not necessarily the same as harassment.
The problem arises when a person allegedly uses behaviour such as:
🚗 Blocking vehicles
Standing in front of a car or preventing a driver from moving can create a dangerous situation.
🚶 Blocking pedestrians
A person may feel threatened if someone deliberately prevents them from walking away.
💰 Repeatedly demanding money
A request can become problematic when the individual continues after a clear refusal.
🤚 Unwanted physical contact
Touching someone without consent is unacceptable regardless of the person’s gender identity.
🗣️ Threatening or abusive language
Threats, intimidation or abusive behaviour can potentially become a criminal or public-order matter depending on the circumstances.
🚦 Creating traffic danger
Approaching moving vehicles or standing between vehicles can put both pedestrians and motorists at risk.
These standards should apply equally to everyone.
❗ Don’t Blame the Entire Hijra Community
This is perhaps the most important part of the discussion.
There are transgender people in India who are:
👩‍🏫 Teachers
👩‍⚕️ Healthcare workers
⚖️ Lawyers
👮 Police personnel
🏢 Office employees
🎭 Artists
🏛️ Politicians
👩‍💼 Entrepreneurs
🧑‍💻 Professionals
🤝 Social workers
Therefore, it would be inaccurate and unfair to say:
“All hijras harass the public.”
The correct statement is:
Some individuals may engage in aggressive or intimidating begging practices, and complaints about such behaviour should be addressed without discriminating against the wider transgender community.
🇮🇳 Supreme Court Recognition of Transgender Rights
India’s Supreme Court recognised transgender persons as a third gender in the landmark NALSA v. Union of India judgment in 2014.
The Court recognised the right of transgender persons to legal recognition and directed governments to take steps concerning education, healthcare, social welfare and protection from discrimination.
This was a historic development in Indian constitutional law.
It also means that discussions about public behaviour must happen within the framework of equal rights and dignity.
⚖️ What Does Indian Law Say?
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was enacted to protect transgender persons from discrimination and provide for welfare measures.
The law addresses areas including:
- Education
- Employment
- Healthcare
- Residence
- Welfare
- Identity
- Grievance redressal
- Protection from abuse
The law also contains offences involving harm, abuse, obstruction of access to public places and forced or bonded labour.
🆕 Important 2026 Legal Development
India amended the transgender-rights law in 2026.
Among the changes were stronger offences concerning forcing a person to present as transgender and engage in begging, servitude or bonded labour.
For an adult victim, the new provision provides for 5–10 years’ imprisonment and a minimum ₹1 lakh fine; for a child, it provides 10–14 years’ imprisonment and a minimum ₹3 lakh fine.
This provision is aimed at coercive exploitation, not at criminalising every transgender person who begs.
That distinction is extremely important.
🚨 Begging Does Not Automatically Mean Criminal Activity
India’s approach to begging is complicated because laws vary among states and Union Territories.
The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment says 20 States and 2 Union Territories have enacted or adopted anti-begging legislation, while the provisions and implementation differ across jurisdictions. The Centre’s stated approach is increasingly rehabilitative rather than purely punitive.
Therefore, there is no simple national rule saying:
“Every person begging on the street should be arrested.”
The legal position depends on the location, behaviour and applicable state law.
🏛️ Government’s Rehabilitation Approach
The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment operates the SMILE — Support for Marginalized Individuals for Livelihood and Enterprise scheme.
It includes separate components for:
- Comprehensive rehabilitation of transgender persons
- Rehabilitation of people engaged in begging
The programme focuses on areas such as:
🏠 Shelter
🩺 Healthcare
🧠 Counselling
📚 Education
🛠️ Skill development
💼 Livelihood opportunities
💰 Economic linkages
The objective is to provide alternatives to vulnerable people rather than relying only on punishment.
👮 What Should Police Do When Harassment Is Reported?
If a person—regardless of gender identity—is threatening, assaulting or intimidating members of the public, the appropriate response should be based on the actual conduct and applicable law, not on the person’s identity.
Police can:
1. Receive complaints.
2. Assess whether an offence has occurred.
3. Take action under the applicable law.
4. Prevent immediate danger.
5. Avoid discriminatory treatment.
6. Refer vulnerable persons toward rehabilitation and welfare services where appropriate.
The Ministry of Home Affairs has also directed states and UTs to establish Transgender Protection Cells and state-level mechanisms for monitoring offences, registration, investigation, prosecution and sensitisation.
📢 What Should an Ordinary Citizen Do?
If you experience aggressive begging or harassment:
1️⃣ Stay calm
Do not escalate the situation through shouting or physical confrontation.
2️⃣ Clearly refuse
A simple “No, thank you” is generally better than an argument.
3️⃣ Move to a safe location
If you feel threatened, go to a shop, police booth, security post or other populated place.
4️⃣ If there is immediate danger, seek police assistance
If someone threatens, assaults, blocks you or damages property, report the specific conduct.
5️⃣ Don’t retaliate
Do not hit, abuse or publicly humiliate someone because of their gender identity.
6️⃣ Don’t generalise
One person’s conduct should not become a reason to discriminate against thousands of innocent transgender people.
📊 What Do We Actually Know About the Scale?
There is no reliable national government dataset showing how many transgender people engage in begging or how many members of the public are harassed by transgender beggars.
This is important because social-media videos can create an impression that a particular behaviour is universal when it may represent only a small portion of the population.
The 2011 Census figure of 4,87,803 “Others” should also not be interpreted as the exact current transgender population, because the category included people beyond transgender persons. The Social Justice Ministry itself explains this limitation.
🧩 Why Does This Problem Continue?
There is no single reason.
Several factors can overlap:
💼 Employment discrimination
If someone cannot find stable employment, street-based income may become an option.
🏠 Family rejection
Some transgender people face rejection or separation from family.
🎓 Education barriers
Dropping out of school can reduce future employment opportunities.
🏥 Healthcare barriers
Discrimination and lack of accessible healthcare can create additional vulnerability.
👥 Social exclusion
NHRC has repeatedly identified discrimination and exclusion as major concerns.
💰 Informal income systems
Traditional community structures can provide income and support, but they can also create complex power relationships.
⚖️ The Real Solution: Rights + Responsibility
India needs to address both sides of the issue.
For transgender citizens:
Dignity + safety + education + employment + healthcare + housing
For the general public:
Safety + freedom of movement + protection from intimidation + access to police and legal remedies
For government:
Enforcement + rehabilitation + employment opportunities + welfare + accountability
A fair society cannot protect one group’s rights by ignoring another person’s safety.
At the same time, protecting the public does not require humiliating or discriminating against an entire community.
🇮🇳 What Can Be Done?
A long-term solution could include:
🛠️ More skill-training programmes
Provide practical training linked to real jobs.
💼 Employment opportunities
Encourage businesses to recruit transgender workers without discrimination.
🏠 Safe shelters
Expand accessible and properly funded shelters.
📚 Education
Prevent school and college dropout caused by discrimination.
👮 Sensitised policing
Police should protect transgender people while also responding fairly to complaints against anyone who commits an offence.
📱 Public awareness
People should understand both transgender rights and public responsibilities.
💰 Better rehabilitation
Government schemes should be implemented effectively at the local level.
NHRC’s 2026 Advisory 2.0 has called for action on education, healthcare, employment, property rights, police procedures, grievance mechanisms and stronger transgender-inclusive welfare systems.
🕊️ A Balanced Message to Society
It is perfectly legitimate for a citizen to say:
“I do not want to give money, and please do not force or intimidate me.”
It is equally important to say:
“A transgender person deserves the same dignity, safety and legal protection as every other citizen.”
These two principles can exist together.
Respect does not mean accepting harassment.
And
stopping harassment does not mean discriminating against an entire community.
That is the balanced approach India needs.
🇮🇳 Conclusion
The issue of transgender or hijra people asking for money in public places is a complex social issue involving poverty, traditional community practices, discrimination, employment exclusion, public safety and individual responsibility.
There may be genuine complaints about aggressive begging or harassment by some individuals. Such complaints should be taken seriously and addressed according to law.
But it would be unfair and factually wrong to portray the entire transgender community as aggressive or criminal.
India’s current policy direction increasingly combines legal protection, police accountability and rehabilitation. The government operates the SMILE scheme, while NHRC has continued to push for stronger education, employment, healthcare, police and welfare measures.
The goal should be simple:
A safer public space for everyone — and equal dignity for every citizen. 🇮🇳
🇮🇳 MANA BHARATHAM
Stories, Facts & Wonders From India
✍️ Written by Pasupuleti Saida Rao
Know India. Explore India. Celebrate India. 🇮🇳
September 10, 2026
🇮🇳 INDIA’S CUSTODIAL DEATHS
People Who Died in Police Custody — The Cases That Raised Questions About Human Rights and Accountability
India’s police force has an essential responsibility: protecting citizens, investigating crime and maintaining law and order.
But when a person dies while in police custody, the circumstances demand especially careful investigation.
A person who has been arrested is still entitled to dignity, medical care and protection under the law.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) requires authorities to report custodial deaths within 24 hours. Deaths during police action, including encounters, are also subject to mandatory reporting and investigation procedures.
📊 How Many People Have Died in Police Custody?
There are different official datasets, so the numbers need to be understood correctly.
The NCRB’s Crime in India data records deaths in police custody/lock-up, including people who were on remand and those who were not.
For example:
Year Persons in remand Persons not in remand Total
2022 — 41 —
2023 24 38 62
2024 25 40 65
The NCRB dataset covers 1999–2024.
The NHRC/MHA series is different because it counts cases registered with/received from the NHRC, rather than simply reproducing the NCRB death count.
According to the latest information placed before Parliament, NHRC-linked police-custody death cases were:
Financial year Cases
2021–22 176
2022–23 163
2023–24 157
2024–25 140
2025–26, up to 15 March 2026 170
The 170 figure is for cases reported up to 15 March 2026, not a completed full-year figure.
⚠️ Why are these numbers different?
Because “NCRB deaths” and “NHRC cases” are not necessarily the same statistical series.
So an article should not add the two datasets together.
👨‍👦 1. Jeyaraj and Bennix — Sathankulam, Tamil Nadu
One of the most widely known custodial-death cases in India is the death of P. Jeyaraj and his son J. Bennix in Tamil Nadu.
In June 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown, the father and son were taken into custody in Sathankulam after a dispute concerning the operation of their mobile-phone shop.
Both subsequently died after being detained.
The case triggered enormous public anger and became a major national discussion about custodial torture and police accountability.
The CBI investigated the case and charges were brought against police personnel.
In March 2026, a Madurai trial court convicted nine surviving police personnel. In April 2026, the court sentenced them to death and ordered compensation for the victims’ families.
Importantly, a Sessions Court death sentence is subject to the legally required confirmation and appellate process.
Why the case became historic
It demonstrated how a relatively ordinary dispute could become a major human-rights case when allegations of custodial violence arise.
🧑 2. Jayaraj / Bennix Case — Why It Changed the Conversation
The Sathankulam case was particularly significant because it involved:
- A father and son
- A police-station detention
- Allegations of custodial torture
- Medical evidence
- CBI investigation
- A long-running criminal trial
- Convictions and severe sentences
It also encouraged renewed discussion about safeguards for people inside police stations.
The lesson was clear:
Being arrested does not mean losing your human dignity.
🧑 3. Khwaja Yunus — Maharashtra
Khwaja Yunus was a young engineer who was arrested in connection with a criminal investigation in Maharashtra.
He disappeared after being taken into police custody in 2003 and was later reported dead.
The case became a long-running legal battle concerning alleged custodial violence and the conduct of police officers.
It became one of Maharashtra’s better-known cases concerning alleged custodial abuse and accountability.
👨 4. Pradeep Sharma / Other Custodial Cases
India has witnessed numerous other cases in which families have alleged that relatives died following detention, interrogation or police custody.
However, this is precisely where responsible reporting becomes important.
A person being arrested and later dying does not automatically establish that police caused the death.
Each case must be separated into:
Allegation → Investigation → Medical evidence → Chargesheet → Trial → Conviction/acquittal
That distinction is essential.
🏛️ Custodial Death Is Not the Same as Police Encounter Death
Another important distinction is between:
Police Custody Death
A person dies while detained in a police station or police lock-up.
Police Encounter Death
A person dies during police action/firing.
Judicial Custody Death
A person dies while in prison after being remanded by a court.
These are three different categories.
The NHRC separately monitors deaths in police firing/encounters and requires reporting of such deaths within 48 hours.
🔥 Police Encounters — Another Important Category
Deaths during police encounters are a separate and highly sensitive subject.
The NHRC requires police authorities to report deaths occurring during police action, including encounters, and expects detailed documentation such as post-mortem, forensic and magisterial inquiry reports.
Therefore, encounter deaths should not simply be added to police lock-up deaths.
📍 Which States Reported More Custodial Death Cases?
The latest MHA information shows significant differences between states.
For 2025–26 up to March 15, 2026:
State Reported cases
Bihar 19
Rajasthan 18
Uttar Pradesh 15
Gujarat 14
Maharashtra 14
Punjab 14
Tamil Nadu 7
West Bengal 7
Telangana 5
Karnataka 3
Kerala 3
These are cases reported in the MHA/NHRC series up to 15 March 2026, not necessarily convictions or findings that police caused every death.
⚖️ What Happens After a Custodial Death?
When someone dies in police custody, several investigations can potentially become relevant.
1. Medical examination
The circumstances of death and medical evidence are documented.
2. Post-mortem examination
The cause and nature of injuries are investigated.
3. Magistrate/Judicial inquiry
A formal inquiry can examine the circumstances surrounding the death.
4. Police investigation
Criminal responsibility, if any, is investigated.
5. NHRC involvement
The NHRC can seek reports, conduct inquiries and recommend action or compensation where appropriate.
6. Court proceedings
If sufficient evidence exists, police personnel or other persons can face criminal prosecution.
💰 Compensation Does Not Automatically Mean Conviction
The NHRC sometimes recommends monetary relief in custodial-death cases.
For example, its November 2024 statistics record recommendations for monetary relief in several police-custody death matters.
But:
Compensation ≠ criminal conviction
A compensation recommendation and a criminal court’s finding of guilt are legally different matters.
This distinction is important when writing about victims and police personnel.
📜 Why India’s Custodial-Death Data Matters
Numbers tell only part of the story.
Behind every number is:
A person.
A family.
A livelihood.
Children, parents or relatives waiting for someone who never returned home.
That is why accurate reporting is essential.
A custodial death should never become merely another statistic.
🇮🇳 What Should Change?
Several safeguards can help reduce the possibility of abuse in custody:
📹 CCTV monitoring
Police stations should have functioning surveillance systems with proper preservation of footage.
🩺 Independent medical examinations
Medical examinations should be thorough and properly documented.
👨‍⚖️ Judicial oversight
Deaths in custody should receive independent scrutiny.
📋 Proper arrest records
The time, place and circumstances of arrest should be accurately recorded.
📞 Family notification
Families should be informed about arrests and serious medical developments.
⚖️ Accountability
Where evidence establishes criminal wrongdoing, responsible persons should face the legal process.
❤️ Remembering the Victims
It is impossible to create a responsible article naming every person who has died in police custody in India since 1947, because India does not have a single publicly available historical database containing every victim’s name and photograph.
The national statistical series itself begins much later; the NCRB dataset currently available covers 1999–2024.
Therefore, rather than inventing a “complete list,” this article distinguishes between:
official national statistics
and
individually documented cases.
That is the only responsible way to present the subject.
🇮🇳 The Larger Message
Police officers perform difficult and sometimes dangerous work.
At the same time, the power given to police comes with enormous responsibility.
A democratic society needs both:
Strong policing
and
Strong accountability.
Protecting the rights of people in custody does not weaken law enforcement.
It strengthens public trust in the law.
🇮🇳 Conclusion
India’s custodial-death statistics show that deaths in police custody remain a serious human-rights and accountability issue.
The latest NCRB data records 65 deaths in police custody/lock-up during 2024—25 people in remand and 40 not in remand.
The MHA/NHRC series separately recorded 140 custodial-death cases in 2024–25 and 170 cases between April 2025 and March 15, 2026.
But behind every statistic is a human story.
Cases such as Jeyaraj and Bennix demonstrate why those stories deserve careful investigation, accurate reporting and, where wrongdoing is proved, accountability.
A person may be in custody, but they never stop being a human being.
Justice, dignity and the rule of law must remain stronger than the power of any individual or institution. 🇮🇳
🇮🇳 MANA BHARATHAM
Stories, Facts & Wonders From India
✍️ Written by Pasupuleti Saida Rao
Know India. Explore India. Celebrate India. 🇮🇳
September 9, 2026
🇮🇳 Sathankulam Father–Son Custodial Death Case
The 2020 Tragedy That Raised Serious Questions About Police Power, Human Rights and Justice
In June 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown, a tragic incident in Sathankulam, Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu, shocked the country.
A father and his son, P. Jeyaraj and J. Bennix, were taken into police custody after an alleged violation of lockdown-related shop-closing restrictions. Both men later died after being detained.
The case became one of India’s most closely watched custodial-death cases and raised serious questions about police accountability, custodial violence and the protection of human rights.
🏪 How Did the Incident Begin?
Jeyaraj and Bennix were traders who operated a mobile-phone business in Sathankulam.
On June 19, 2020, police took Jeyaraj to the Sathankulam police station over an allegation that the shop had remained open beyond the permitted COVID-19 curfew hours.
When Bennix went to the station concerning his father, the situation escalated.
According to the prosecution case accepted by the trial court, the father and son were subjected to sustained assault while in custody.
What began as a dispute over lockdown regulations ultimately became a case involving allegations of severe custodial violence and two deaths.
👨‍👦 A Father and Son Never Returned Home
After their detention, Jeyaraj and Bennix were remanded to judicial custody and taken to Kovilpatti sub-jail.
Their physical condition deteriorated.
Bennix died on June 22, 2020. Jeyaraj died the following day, June 23.
The deaths caused widespread public anger.
People began asking a fundamental question:
How can two men who entered police custody over a lockdown-related allegation end up dead within days?
🔎 What Did the Investigation Find?
The case was initially investigated by the Tamil Nadu Crime Branch-CID and was subsequently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The CBI filed a chargesheet against police personnel accused in the case.
The prosecution alleged that the father and son were brutally assaulted in police custody.
The case went through a lengthy judicial process, with the trial eventually reaching its verdict nearly six years after the deaths.
🩺 The Medical Evidence
The injuries documented during the investigation became an important part of the case.
According to The New Indian Express, the postmortem report recorded 13 external injuries on Bennix and 17 on Jeyaraj.
The trial court ultimately accepted the prosecution’s case that the deaths resulted from custodial assault.
This evidence became central to the court’s findings concerning the accused police personnel.
👮 Police Personnel Were Arrested
Following the deaths, police personnel connected to the Sathankulam station were arrested.
The accused included the then Inspector S. Sridhar, Sub-Inspectors P. Ragu Ganesh and K. Balakrishnan, Head Constables S. Murugan and A. Samidurai, and Constables M. Muthuraja, S. Veilumuthu, S. Chelladurai and X. Thomas Francis.
One other arrested police officer, Special Sub-Inspector Paul Durai, subsequently died after contracting COVID-19.
🕯️ Public Anger Spread Across India
The deaths sparked protests in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere.
Civil-society groups, political leaders, activists and members of the public demanded an independent investigation and accountability.
The case also became part of a larger national conversation about deaths in police custody.
For many people, the central concern was not simply what happened to one family.
It was the broader question:
Who watches the people who are given the power to enforce the law?
⚖️ The 2026 Court Verdict
After years of investigation and trial, a major development came in March 2026.
On March 23, 2026, the First Additional District and Sessions Court in Madurai convicted all nine surviving accused police personnel in the case.
The court found them guilty in connection with the deaths of Jeyaraj and Bennix.
The sentencing was taken up separately.
🏛️ Death Sentences in April 2026
On April 6, 2026, the Madurai court sentenced all nine convicted police personnel to death, describing the case as exceptionally serious.
The court also directed the convicted personnel to collectively pay ₹1.40 crore in compensation to the victims’ families.
This was an extraordinary development in a case that had begun with a relatively ordinary lockdown-related dispute.
Important legal point
A Sessions Court death sentence is not automatically the final stage of the case. Under Indian law, a death sentence awarded by a trial court is subject to the required High Court confirmation process and other available legal remedies.
Therefore, the April 2026 sentence should be understood as the trial-court sentencing decision, rather than assuming that the sentence has already become final or been carried out.
👮 Why Custodial Deaths Are So Serious
When a person is arrested and placed in custody, the state assumes responsibility for that person’s safety.
A person does not lose their fundamental dignity simply because they have been arrested.
The normal legal process is:
Arrest
⬇️
Investigation
⬇️
Evidence
⬇️
Prosecution
⬇️
Trial
⬇️
Judgment
The police investigate alleged offences.
The courts determine guilt and punishment.
Custodial violence cannot replace the judicial process.
👨‍👩‍👦 Six Years of Waiting
For the family of Jeyaraj and Bennix, the legal proceedings lasted for years.
Their relatives had to live with the loss of both a husband and a son while waiting for the court process to reach its conclusion.
In March 2026, family members spoke publicly about the long wait for justice. Reports described the emotional toll the case had taken on the family.
For them, the case was never simply a headline.
It was the loss of two people they loved.
🕊️ Why This Case Will Be Remembered
The Sathankulam case became significant for several reasons.
1. It involved a father and son
Two members of the same family died within days of each other.
2. It involved alleged custodial violence
The central allegations concerned what happened while the men were under police control.
3. It raised questions about accountability
The case asked whether police personnel could be held responsible when people die in custody.
4. It lasted for years
The incident happened in 2020, while the major trial-court verdict and sentencing came in 2026.
5. It became a national human-rights issue
The case triggered discussions about police reform, custodial safeguards and the need for accountability.
🇮🇳 What Can India Learn From Sathankulam?
The role of the police in a democracy is extremely important.
Police officers protect citizens, investigate crimes and maintain public order.
But with that authority comes responsibility.
Power must always be accompanied by accountability.
A strong democracy needs:
- Professional policing
- Proper arrest procedures
- Independent investigations
- Medical examination of detainees
- CCTV and other safeguards
- Judicial oversight
- Accountability for misconduct
- Protection of human dignity
These safeguards are not designed to protect criminals.
They protect everyone from the misuse of state power.
❤️ Remembering Jeyaraj and Bennix
Jeyaraj and Bennix were not merely names in a criminal case.
They were:
A father.
A son.
Members of a family.
People with a livelihood and a future.
Their deaths became a painful reminder that every person entering police custody remains a human being with rights.
The case also demonstrates why investigations into custodial deaths must be transparent, independent and thorough.
🇮🇳 Conclusion
The Sathankulam father-son custodial death case began with a lockdown-related dispute in June 2020 and developed into a major national discussion about police accountability and human rights.
After a lengthy legal process, the Madurai trial court convicted nine police personnel in March 2026 and sentenced them to death in April 2026. The court also ordered ₹1.40 crore in compensation for the victims’ families.
The case reminds India of a fundamental principle:
Nobody should be above the law—not even those whose duty is to enforce it.
And perhaps the most important lesson is this:
A person in custody is still a human being. Their dignity, safety and rights must never be forgotten. 🇮🇳
🇮🇳 MANA BHARATHAM
Stories, Facts & Wonders From India
✍️ Written by Pasupuleti Saida Rao
Know India. Explore India. Celebrate India. 🇮🇳
September 9, 2026