Anti-Drug Activists Are Being Killed in Punjab. Why Isn’t AAP Being Held Accountable, and Where Is the Prime-Time Outrage?
On October 13, 2026, the streets of Mansa in Punjab witnessed a horrifying incident that should have triggered a nationwide debate about law enforcement, political accountability and the safety of ordinary citizens fighting organised drug abuse. Parvinder Singh Jhota, a 42-year-old anti-drug activist, was shot dead during a confrontation with a medical store owner over the alleged illegal sale of addictive substances. The argument unfolded during a Facebook livestream, with the accused reportedly brandishing a firearm before opening fire. Four of Jhota’s companions also suffered injuries. Within moments, a man who had dedicated years to confronting suspected drug sellers became another casualty of the dangers surrounding Punjab’s drug crisis.
Jhota was no ordinary campaigner. Having overcome his own struggles with substance abuse, he had emerged as a prominent voice against the sale of addictive drugs, regularly confronting alleged offenders and documenting his campaigns on social media. His methods were sometimes controversial and had previously brought him into conflict with the police. Nevertheless, his death raises a question that cannot be dismissed because of disagreements over his approach. Why were private citizens repeatedly exposing themselves to potentially violent confrontations over suspected drug trafficking? More importantly, what was the state’s law enforcement machinery doing to address the complaints and dangers that drove such confrontations?
Since assuming power in March 2022, the Aam Aadmi Party government under Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann has repeatedly promised to eradicate Punjab’s drug menace. Arvind Kejriwal and the AAP leadership have promoted the party’s governance model and anti-drug commitments as central elements of their political identity. The government subsequently launched its much-publicised Yudh Nashean Virudh campaign, presenting an aggressive crackdown on drug trafficking as a major administrative achievement. Yet the deaths of several people associated with anti-drug activism during AAP’s tenure raise uncomfortable questions about whether public safety has received the same attention as official announcements.
There is another dimension that deserves equally rigorous scrutiny. RTI disclosures reveal that the Punjab government has spent hundreds of crores on media advertising since AAP came to power. This expenditure has benefited print publications, television broadcasters and other media platforms. Against this backdrop, the question is not whether Jhota’s murder received any news coverage, because several national outlets reported it. The more important question is whether these deaths have received sustained prime-time scrutiny of the political leadership, and whether media organisations receiving taxpayer-funded advertisements are sufficiently transparent about their financial relationships with the government they are expected to investigate.
Jhota Was Not the First: The Anti-Drug Campaigners Who Never Returned Home
The killing in Mansa was not the first reported death involving a citizen who had taken an active stand against drugs during AAP’s administration. In January 2023, Ram Gopal, a prominent member of the Nasha Virodhi Front in Jalandhar’s Lakhanpal village, was murdered. Residents alleged that drug peddlers were responsible because of his campaign against their activities. In August 2023, Harbhagwan Singh, an anti-drug committee member in Faridkot’s Dhilwan village, was allegedly shot dead by suspected drug sellers. His death left his family facing profound financial insecurity and fear, while weakening the local movement he had supported.
In September 2023, Jasvir Singh, a member of an anti-drug action committee in Bathinda, was killed during a nighttime village vigil. Although fellow campaigners suspected involvement by drug smugglers, police disputed any drug-related motive, making it important to distinguish his death from cases with a more clearly alleged trafficking connection. In March 2026, Mahinder Singh, a village sarpanch in Jalandhar who had opposed suspected drug peddling, succumbed to injuries suffered in an alleged retaliatory attack. Jhota’s murder now adds another name to this disturbing record. These five reported deaths do not constitute a comprehensive statewide count, nor has a drug-trafficking motive been legally established in every case. They nevertheless demand a consolidated official accounting of the dangers confronting citizens involved in anti-drug activity.
Bhagwant Mann and Kejriwal Must Answer for Punjab’s Anti-Drug Promises
AAP did not enter Punjab politics without making commitments about the drug crisis. The party sought public confidence by promising a different approach to governance and stronger action against trafficking networks. Bhagwant Mann, as Chief Minister, carries direct administrative responsibility for the state’s policing and public safety, while Arvind Kejriwal, as a leading architect of AAP’s political programme, must answer politically for the promises made in the party’s name. Neither responsibility should disappear behind campaign slogans, press conferences or announcements about enforcement drives.
To its credit, the Punjab government reports extensive anti-drug operations. By October 6, 2026, Punjab Police claimed more than 64,000 FIRs and over 82,000 arrests under its anti-drug campaign, alongside substantial narcotics seizures. Those figures deserve examination, but arrests and seizures alone cannot establish whether communities have become safer or whether those confronting suspected drug trafficking receive adequate protection. The government must explain how many complaints were investigated, how many cases resulted in convictions, whether vulnerable activists were threatened beforehand, and what preventive measures authorities implemented. The burden of demonstrating meaningful results belongs to those exercising state power.
Crores for Publicity, But What About Public Safety?
The financial record raises another set of questions. According to RTI disclosures reported in May 2025, the Punjab government spent approximately ₹317.17 crore on print-media advertisements between 2022 and March 2025 under AAP. An earlier RTI disclosure established that the government spent ₹37.36 crore on advertising in just its first two months, between March 11 and May 10, 2022. Of this amount, approximately ₹20.15 crore went towards television and radio advertising, while ₹17.21 crore went to newspapers. These are documented expenditures, not speculative allegations about government publicity.
No government is prohibited from advertising legitimate public programmes, and communicating public services is a valid administrative function. But the scale of expenditure creates a compelling obligation to demonstrate value for taxpayers. Citizens deserve to know whether corresponding investments have strengthened drug enforcement, addiction treatment, intelligence gathering and protection for complainants. A government capable of funding extensive publicity campaigns should be equally capable of explaining the operational safeguards available to people confronting suspected drug networks. Punjab needs independently measurable public-safety outcomes, not merely evidence of how widely the government’s achievements have been advertised.
Where Are the Prime-Time Debates Demanding Accountability From AAP?
Jhota’s murder has been reported by prominent national outlets, including television news organisations. Chief Minister Mann has also condemned the killing and promised strict action, while the principal accused was arrested in Rajasthan on October 14. Acknowledging these developments does not eliminate the larger editorial question. Has the case generated sustained prime-time examination of the government’s policing record, previous warnings, protection mechanisms and the deaths of other anti-drug campaigners? A news bulletin reporting an arrest is different from an investigative programme systematically demanding answers from the government.
National television routinely devotes extensive attention to contentious political statements, protests and allegations of administrative misconduct. The killing of an activist during a livestreamed confrontation over alleged illegal drug sales surely warrants comparable scrutiny. Yet claims of a complete media blackout or the absence of all prime-time debates require evidence from broadcast records. The challenge to national broadcasters should therefore be precise and public: disclose the airtime devoted to these deaths, the investigative questions pursued, and the opportunities given to the Punjab government to explain its record. Editorial accountability should be demonstrated through coverage, not asserted through promotional claims.
Government Advertisements and the Uncomfortable Question of Media Independence
The relationship between government advertising and editorial independence deserves particular scrutiny. Government advertisements create commercial relationships between public authorities and privately owned media organisations. Such arrangements are not inherently improper, but they create a legitimate concern about the possibility of financial dependence affecting editorial judgment. The Punjab government’s documented advertising expenditure makes this concern especially relevant to any assessment of how newsrooms scrutinise its performance on politically sensitive subjects.
There is presently no established evidence that the AAP government purchased silence over Jhota’s murder or that particular broadcasters deliberately suppressed reports in exchange for advertising revenue. But that absence of proof should not become an excuse for avoiding transparency. Broadcasters receiving Punjab government advertisements should disclose the amounts involved, the periods covered and the safeguards separating commercial departments from editorial decision-making. The public is entitled to ask whether government advertising relationships affect the intensity of coverage. News organisations that regard themselves as independent institutions should welcome such scrutiny rather than treat questions about financial influence as an attack on journalism.
Selective Outrage: Would Other Governments Face Tougher Questioning?
The consistency of television news scrutiny is an issue that goes beyond Punjab or any individual political party. If a citizen campaigning against suspected drug dealers is murdered in a state governed by one party, the same standards of questioning should apply as they would under a government led by its rivals. The political affiliation of the Chief Minister should not determine how aggressively newsrooms investigate possible administrative failures. Nor should the commercial interests of a broadcaster determine how long a serious public-safety issue remains part of the national conversation.
This standard can be tested rather than simply debated. Media researchers and independent observers could compare prime-time airtime, investigative reports, interviews with officials and follow-up coverage of major law-and-order incidents across states. Such an examination would reveal whether some governments receive more sustained questioning than others and whether advertising expenditure correlates with editorial behaviour. Correlation would not, by itself, prove interference, but transparent records would provide a much stronger basis for assessing the concerns surrounding government-funded publicity and the editorial independence of national media houses.
Five Reported Deaths, Repeated Promises: What Answers Must AAP Provide?
The immediate priority must be an accountable examination of each reported death involving anti-drug activists and campaigners. The Punjab government should publish the investigation and prosecution status of these cases, distinguish established criminal motives from disputed allegations, and disclose whether victims had previously reported threats or illegal drug activity to the police. If warnings were ignored, those failures should be identified. If protective measures were requested but denied, the reasons should be explained. These are reasonable demands for administrative transparency, not presumptions that the political leadership directly caused the murders.
The state must also address the conditions that lead citizens to confront suspected drug sellers themselves. Complaints about illegal pharmaceutical sales should trigger effective enforcement by qualified authorities, not recurring confrontations between activists and shopkeepers. Witness protection, confidential reporting channels, timely investigations and clear protocols for community anti-drug committees are essential. When campaigners resort to dangerous interventions because they believe formal enforcement is inadequate, the government must examine that loss of confidence instead of treating every confrontation as an isolated incident.
Punjab Needs Accountability, Not Another Advertisement
Parvinder Singh Jhota’s final livestream should not become another disturbing video that briefly dominates social media before disappearing from public debate. His death, alongside earlier reported killings and attacks involving anti-drug campaigners, raises substantive questions about state protection, policing and the effectiveness of Punjab’s much-publicised fight against narcotics. Bhagwant Mann must answer those questions as the head of the state government, while Arvind Kejriwal and AAP’s leadership must explain how their political commitments are being translated into measurable protection for citizens.
The responsibility of national media houses is equally serious. Organisations receiving taxpayer-funded advertising must be prepared to demonstrate that their coverage remains independent and their scrutiny does not weaken when the government under examination is also a commercial advertiser. The demand is not for manufactured outrage but for sustained questioning, documented investigation and transparent editorial standards. How many more people associated with the fight against drugs must die before AAP is made to answer the hard questions, and before television newsrooms demonstrate that their responsibility to the public comes before their relationship with government advertisers?
