Oppose Bharat Tiwari's Encounter — and Asad's and Kamlesh Bind's Too

Namaskar, I am Ravish Kumar.

Bihar's Bharat Bhushan Tiwari's encounter was wrong. There are no two opinions about it. We have not come in this video to argue whether Bharat Tiwari was a criminal or not, whether he was mentally disturbed or not. Had he been Aslam, had he been Arshad, even then we would have called the encounter wrong. But the matter does not end there.

Look at the bullets — one was fired point-blank, pressed against the body, not from a distance. If it were a "langda" (lame) operation, a bullet is fired into one leg. But here a bullet was fired pressed against the body. Watch the video yourselves. One bullet was recovered from the body. This is what an encounter looks like.

Bharat Tiwari's story is itself born of the very encounter politics that ended his life. Bharat was an admirer of Yogi Adityanath's encounter policy. He too believed that mafias and the corrupt could be wiped out through encounters. In today's India, encounters are supported, encounters are opposed — and there is a third response: encounters are quietly tolerated. The moment you say Bharat's encounter was wrong because he was not a criminal, it also implies that if he had been a criminal, you would have supported the encounter. Whereas any civilised society should oppose encounters in clear terms.

Take Bharat Tiwari's Facebook page. On 3 June, Bharat Tiwari shared a video of UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in which Yogi says the mafia will be encountered. The title read: "The one who didn't listen to words listened to bullets."

What effect the encounter politics, the statements made around it, and the media coverage had on 30-year-old Bharat Tiwari, we cannot say with certainty — but we do want this to be made part of the analysis. The way Yogi Adityanath talks of finishing off the mafia, the politics of "thok denge" (we'll gun them down), draws applause. After ten years as CM he still speaks of finishing the mafia — meaning it isn't finished. So perhaps Bharat too came to believe that an encounter could be a way to finish the mafia.

Many young men took up the cause of cow protection, roamed about, and ended up in jail on murder charges — though stopping cow smuggling was the police's job. Under the influence of politics they began to see themselves as cow-protectors and started committing crimes. In several of our videos we have named such Hindu youths who killed a Muslim in the course of "cow protection" and went to jail.

Bharat Tiwari's Facebook also shows he liked CM Yogi Adityanath very much. He did a padyatra for Dhirendra Shastri, who demands a Hindu Rashtra. But he could not tolerate corruption and looting at all. He would say: work was not done here, a scam is happening, I will not let it happen.

Bharat Tiwari's encounter is being opposed. But do not forget that two months ago, in Ghaziabad, the public was demanding the encounter of Asad, accused in a murder; and after Chirag Tyagi's murder, his own family began demanding the encounter of the accused, Deepak Khatik. I do not know what the public that demanded Asad's encounter thinks about Bharat Tiwari's encounter. Someone should talk to them. At least it is easy to oppose Bharat Tiwari's encounter. The problem will come when, on the same basis, you oppose the encounter of Asad in Ghaziabad — then a mob will rise against you.

MP Giriraj Singh refused to speak on this issue. People say: had this been a Muslim's matter, all the national channels would be screaming. Had it been a mosque matter, a cow matter, these people would have given plenty of statements. (A speaker complains that the CM came and spoke of playing with public sentiment.) These leaders are experts at playing with the sentiments of the public. Where are all these Hindutva leaders now? Where?

Now I will talk about Bihar's Education Minister Mithilesh Tiwari. Mithilesh Tiwari says an encounter was not necessary — a "half-encounter" could have been done. What is this half-encounter? The minister says Bharat's criminal history should first have been checked, and then if necessary a half-encounter could have been done. Should a minister make such a statement? It means a full encounter is not okay but a half-encounter is okay. In a way Mithilesh Tiwari ends up supporting the encounter. He should have said that when Bharat Tiwari surrendered, the court should have punished him — why did the police encounter him?

The term "half-encounter" seems newly arrived in Bihar's politics. A 20 May News18 report says that on the orders of the new government, an undeclared "Operation Langda" against criminals has begun; in Samastipur's Ujiyarpur police-station area, a joint police–STF team carried out a "half-encounter" of the notorious criminal Prince Kumar. "Half-encounter" is written to mean shooting in the leg. Thus encounters became legal in the language of media, society and government — some call it a full plate, some a half plate, justifying it under the name of encounter. Whereas every kind of encounter should be called wrong and opposed. The one who celebrates an encounter by writing "Langda" — what will he write in opposition to Bharat Tiwari's encounter?

Studying Bharat Tiwari's Facebook page, we found he was a young man fed up with the corruption around him, growing desperate, believing that his activism and speaking out would end all this. His page has many videos in which he tries to expose corruption and warns the administration. In December 2024 he shared newspaper clippings about the lack of a yellow light on the Ara–Buxar national highway; in May 2026, when a three-storey fire station was announced in Biloti village, he praised it and claimed it was the result of his efforts. He made reels about the problems of his village and area, kept making announcements.

His Facebook shows he was quite well-known in his area, had become popular, several videos went viral. In his posts he raised the slackness in development work, got angry — from Nitish Kumar's tenure to Samrat Chaudhary's last two months. He kept meeting district administration officials about local problems, and recordings of those meetings are on Facebook. It is also worth noting that not only upper-caste people are opposing Bharat Tiwari's encounter — because Bharat used to raise their issues too.

Bharat Tiwari's anger is also an example of how, if a youth is angry about corruption in the system, the system can drive him to such desperation that he may do anything. As in films, one who fights the system, seeing himself as a hero, gradually becomes the villain. In the India of 2026, the space for a 30-year-old like Bharat to become a hero had been shut off long ago. Perhaps Bharat did not realise it. Here, FIRs are not filed within 15 days against those who stole gold and cash from the Ram temple. What happened between 15 and 17 June that his encounter took place? Why these three days? Bihar CM Samrat Chaudhary has said there will be an impartial inquiry. But the question is being raised: why was he encountered within these days?

We found a 15 June video in which Bharat Tiwari says he has taken up arms for revolution. When the pistol came into his hand, where it came from, we cannot say. We are exposing the half-baked understanding and double standards around the support for and opposition to encounters in Bihar's politics. In one video Bharat even challenges the CM, saying the government's work should come down to the ground; showing a gun, he says this is a revolutionary war — if promises are not fulfilled, the SDM will be encountered. These are his words. Firing in the air, Bharat says he will destroy the whole corrupt system. Firing a gun is breaking the law — everyone knows this and should know it. In March 2025 Bharat himself gave on his Facebook page the account of a clash with police — that he beat up the Shahpur daroga (sub-inspector) and was arrested.

It is being written that Bharat Tiwari had no criminal record. Even if he did, his encounter was still wrong. On the morning of 16 June the police go to Bharat's house asking him to surrender his weapon. From here the situation develops. That same afternoon, in a recorded video, Bharat is seen pointing a pistol at the police; he talks with them for a long time, threatens them, but the police too act with patience and restraint. After the police leave, that night Bharat makes a video from his rooftop, alleging that the Bihar police have hidden themselves around his house. In the dark he talks to distant constables; the constables tell him, "we are your friends, we have come for you."

On 17 June, at a coalition camp, CM Samrat Chaudhary makes a statement — listen carefully: "Yesterday I saw a video. Since morning I was worried that someone was showing a weapon to my police and no action was being taken. Then the DGP told me he is mentally ill, sir, and we did the work of admitting him to a mental-health hospital." A day earlier, on 16 June, the police in their press release described Bharat Tiwari as mentally unwell and disturbed, saying the necessary process to send him to a mental asylum for proper treatment and care had begun, and that police and a medical team were trying to take him into safe custody. Did they take him into safe control?

Here is an important angle: in Bharat's videos of 16 and 17 June a medical team is visible. This should be investigated. Was the police capable of handling such a patient? What did the mental-hospital doctors advise the police? In reply to being called mad, Bharat Tiwari wrote on Facebook that they should also call him everything that is said in this country from time to time about a revolutionary warrior — including, he said, that the tag of "traitor" should be put on him by all of you.

The 17 June video was made by Bharat himself and live-streamed on his Facebook. Around (a time), Bharat fires from his rooftop at a police jeep. A little later he comes out of his house with the gun and runs behind the jeep, saying the Bihar police fled in fear. We are not giving the entire account of the video. But it can be seen that in a lane amid the fields the police surround Bharat. The sound of a gunshot is heard behind Bharat; he is not visible but his voice is. On the assurance that his demands will be met, he finally throws his pistol very close to the officers' feet. A constable can be seen coming forward to pick it up. After this the video ends.

(Voices from the ground:) "If they made a mistake, what should we say? This is a mistake. This is murder. They call Bharat Bhushan Tiwari a criminal, and then these people come and pat their own backs, claiming they shot a great arrow. But they do realise it — that's why there was a suspension. Six police officers... they say six policemen were suspended. How can you say this was an encounter, that the police fired in self-defence? At 2 a.m. — why was there a body at their house at 2 in the night? A father said: I had gone pleading, save my child; I went with a plea to save the child, and they arrested him at the station."

When Bharat threw down his pistol, why was the encounter carried out? Police claim that after throwing the pistol Bharat picked it up again and tried to fire. Many say that after watching Bharat's last videos this is hard to believe — the pistol was thrown right next to the police jeep, near the officers' feet, while Bharat stood quite far. So how did he get the gun back? Opinion is also divided on whether police shot below the knees. According to a Bhaskar report, he was first taken to a referral hospital, then Ara Sadar Hospital, then admitted to PMCH in Patna, where he died during treatment.

(Commentator:) "The video that has come certainly raises doubt; in all the circumstances, the state government has acted quickly and suspended four policemen, but that is not enough. A senior officer must investigate this case in a time-bound manner — not that it takes any amount of time — and action must be taken against whoever did this. As far as the government is concerned, I can say this much: when the government says no criminal will be spared, then it is not only the criminal — if the police too commit a crime, they should not be spared either; action must be taken against them too."

Our question is broader. Should encounters be opposed? If they should, why only Bharat Tiwari's encounter — why not Asad's? Are we even capable of understanding that the moment you grant the right to encounter, the public can target anyone? My answer: the Indian public has lost even this much understanding. Today it opposes Bharat Tiwari's encounter; after the very next incident it will be seen demanding an encounter.

Mayank has given UP police figures: from 2017 to now, 15,726 encounters; of these 256 hard-and criminals were eliminated; 31,960 arrested, 10,324 injured. Where did encounter politics in Bihar come from? Media reports show that within two months of Samrat Chaudhary becoming CM, encounter cases were registered; within two weeks there were four encounters. Several journalists and social workers warned that giving police such licence will damage the police's credibility and increase anarchy. When encounters rose, questions should have been asked — instead, there began talk of Bihar's "Yogi model." When Tejashwi Yadav said the police are doing encounters by looking at caste, Samrat Chaudhary's sarcastic reply was that some people are even asking whether caste should be asked during an encounter — "so I'll tell the policeman, brother, ask the caste and then shoot; don't shoot like this." These are Samrat Chaudhary's words, his language. The Leader of Opposition is asking about irregularities in encounters, and his question is being mocked. This shows encounters are now part of the policy and politics of the Indian state.

You cannot oppose an encounter at your convenience, nor demand it. In May 2020, Minnesota police pressed George Floyd's neck for nine minutes and he died. Protests erupted across America against this killing — the movement called Black Lives Matter. No one there asked whether George was a criminal, whether George was a Muslim or upper-caste. Everyone saw that the police's method was wrong. On the third day after George Floyd's death, the Minneapolis police chief publicly apologised. The officer who pressed Floyd's neck was tried, found guilty, and jailed for 22 years. And in India a minister says an encounter was necessary, or a half-encounter could have been done. Across America there were protests against the police.

Encounter and bulldozer — who applauded these two policies? Whose encounters were carried out more? Whose homes did bulldozers run over more? All the data will tell you it ran more over Muslims' homes. After the opposition to Bharat Tiwari's encounter, will encounter policy stop? Will (the public) think differently? My answer is this: the public can no longer think that way. It is no longer capable. The public sees encounters through a communal lens. To satisfy the hunger of hatred it demands encounters along political lines. And once someone falls into the grip of communalism, it is very hard for them to come out. That is why opposition to encounters will be along the lines of one's own caste and religion — whereas encounters must be opposed in every case.

Namaskar, I am Ravish Kumar.