Killing of Parvinder Singh Jhota: Punjab’s drug menace and the questions it raises | Explainer

Parvinder Singh Jhota, a prominent anti-drug campaigner in Mansa, was shot at a medical store on October 13, 2026. He was taken to Mansa Civil Hospital, where doctors declared him brought dead. The killing immediately triggered protests and political pressure because Jhota had become a visible opponent of illicit drug sales.

Punjab Police’s preliminary investigation identified Ashwani, the medical store owner, as the alleged shooter. Police said Ashwani fired his licensed pistol during the confrontation. A video reportedly showed the two men arguing over alleged illicit drug sales, followed by parts of the shooting. The assailants initially fled the scene, and police received information at about 10:30 a.m.

The police also said personal enmity appeared to be the motive. Investigators are examining an earlier dispute between the two men from 2023. On October 14, AAP media in-charge Baltej Pannu said the main accused had been arrested, while police continued investigating everyone involved.

Parvinder Singh Jhota was a 45-year-old former boxer who launched an anti-drug campaign in Mansa in 2023. He sought guidance from farmer union leaders before starting “Nasha Roko, Rozgaar Do,” meaning “Stop Drugs, Give Employment.” His work made him a widely recognised civilian figure in the fight against substance abuse.

The campaign had two connected aims. It opposed the sale and use of illicit drugs, while its name called for employment as part of the solution. Jhota and his supporters counselled people against selling or consuming drugs. They also raided chemist shops and homes suspected of supplying illicit substances. These actions brought him into direct conflict with people accused of drug sales.

Jhota’s popularity helped spread the campaign beyond Mansa town. Civilian “Nasha Roko Committees” appeared in villages across Mansa and Bathinda and carried out similar searches and raids. His killing therefore affected a movement that had grown from one activist’s campaign into a wider local mobilisation.

Civilian anti-drug committees were community groups created by Jhota’s supporters to oppose suspected drug activity. They were not described as official police units. Instead, they represented local participation in the anti-drug campaign, especially in villages across Mansa and Bathinda.

Their main methods were direct and confrontational. Supporters searched chemist shops and homes suspected of selling illicit drugs. They also counselled people against selling or consuming substances. Jhota’s own campaign began in 2023, and the committees carried similar efforts into surrounding villages. The approach depended on community members identifying suspected outlets and acting together.

The article does not establish how many committees existed or whether their searches were legally authorised. It does show that the movement gained popularity and expanded beyond Jhota personally. His confrontation with a chemist over alleged illicit sales illustrates both the campaign’s purpose and the tensions created by these direct interventions.

The article presents Punjab’s substance-use problem as substantially larger than India’s overall burden. A PANJ Foundation report based on the comparable 2018 national survey found Punjab above the national rate for every substance measured. The biggest gaps included alcohol, cannabis, opioids and cocaine. This matters because the problem involves both widespread use and unusually high treatment needs.

The figures show the scale clearly. Cannabis use reached 12.55% of Punjab’s population, or 4.4 times the national rate. Opioid use was 4.7 times higher, and cocaine use was 6.6 times higher. Alcohol use was about twice the national rate. More than 21 lakh adults used opioids, while nearly 31 lakh used cannabis in 2018.

Dependence was also higher. Opioid dependence affected 1.28% of people aged 10–75, compared with the national rate, and 2.8% required help for opioid use versus 0.70% nationally. The report therefore points to a major prevention and treatment challenge.

The killing sparked protests because Jhota was not an ordinary victim in the public eye. He had built a campaign against alleged illicit drug sales and attracted supporters across Mansa and Bathinda. His death therefore raised fears about the safety of people challenging the drug trade and renewed anger over Punjab’s continuing substance-abuse problem.

After the shooting, scores of people protested outside Mansa Civil Hospital. Shops closed in the town, and protesters vandalised the accused’s medical store. Jhota’s family and supporters refused to cremate his body, blaming the State government for failing to control substance abuse. These actions turned the killing into a wider public confrontation.

The incident also put the ruling AAP on the defensive. The police anti-drug campaign had entered its 591st day, while AAP had promised before the election to rid Punjab of drugs. Questions about law and order and the government’s ability to deliver that promise intensified after Jhota’s death.

The article does not identify one definitive reason why drug abuse has remained a major problem in Punjab. It does show that the challenge is long-standing and extensive. Punjab has battled drug abuse for decades, while the “Yudh Nashian Virudh” campaign had reached its 591st day when Jhota was killed. A campaign’s duration alone has not demonstrated that the wider problem has been solved.

The reported data helps explain the difficulty. In 2018, Punjab’s rates exceeded national levels for every measured substance. Cannabis use was 12.55% of the population, opioid use was 4.7 times the national rate, and more than 21 lakh adults used opioids. Opioid dependence and the need for treatment were also much higher than nationally.

These figures suggest a problem requiring sustained action, but the article does not prove which policies caused success or failure. It points to continuing pressure on law enforcement, prevention and treatment. Jhota’s killing also showed that community action and official campaigns remain contested and politically sensitive.

Substance dependence generally means that repeated substance use has become difficult to control and is causing significant harm or a strong need for continued use. The article does not provide a formal definition, but it reports opioid dependence among people aged 10–75. This distinction matters because stopping illegal sales is different from helping people whose substance use has become entrenched.

Punjab’s figures show why treatment is central. Opioid dependence affected 1.28% of the population, and 2.8% required help for opioid use, compared with 0.70% nationally. Jhota’s campaign used counselling, while police pursued alleged sellers. These examples represent different responses: support for users and enforcement against suspected supply.

Effective drug policy generally combines policing with prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Policing can disrupt illicit supply and protect communities. Prevention can reduce new use, while treatment and rehabilitation address dependence and help people recover. The article’s data shows the scale of need, but it does not evaluate which specific policy mix works best in Punjab.