Home Blog Page 114

Opposition trying to provoke farmer protests by lying about India-US trade deal: Read how it is only interim framework, no tariff cut on major crops, and India already imports farm products

Raju Das
-
0
Opposition trying to provoke farmer protests by lying about India-US trade deal: Read how it is only interim framework, no tariff cut on major crops, and India already imports farm products

The United States and India on Saturday unveiled a new joint framework for an Interim Trade Agreement, a major step toward a full Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA). The White House said that the US is dropping the punitive 25% tariff on India for purchasing Russian Oil immediately, and the reciprocal tariff of 25% will come down to 18% once the trade deal is finalised and signed.

After US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the move as a big breakthrough that could open the door to deeper economic cooperation between the two countries, opposition leaders have started to attack the Modi government over the framework. Some of them have started to claim that PM Modi has already signed the trade deal with the United States, reducing tariffs on farm products to zero, and that it will flood the domestic market with cheap American agricultural products, leading to the ruin of local producers. However, these allegations are completely false and misleading.

In a post on X, Sanjay Singh of the Aam Aadmi Party claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had “lied to the nation” and “betrayed crores of farmers” by opening India’s agricultural market to the US at zero per cent tax. He also claimed that PM Modi agreed for the deal to save Gautam Adani after he was accused of corruption by US Department of Justice. He accused the government of lying for saying that interests of farmers will be protected in the trade deal with the US.

Sanjay Singh claimed that cheap American grains and fruits would devastate Indian farmers, while the country would be forced to buy costly American oil instead of cheaper Russian supplies, imposing an additional burden of ₹80,000 crore on the public. The AAP leader claimed that while the US will impose 18% tariff on all Indian exports to the US, India will not impose any tariff on imports from the US. He claimed that Narendra Modi signed the death warrant of farmers by allowing 0% tariff on farm products.

Similarly, activist Yogendra Yadav claimed that the deal marked the first time Indian agriculture was being integrated into an international trade agreement. He added that while products will be imported at zero import duties, others like maize and soya will enter the Indian market through the “back door.” He urged farmers to mobilise against what he termed an “attack.”

Yadav claimed that the Modi govt is also ready to relax the ban on the import of genetically modified crops and dairy from animals that consume non-vegetarian feed. But there is no basis to make this claim, and even the Trump administration has not made such a claim.

These comments are completely baseless and untrue, aimed at provoking the farmers to launch yet another protest against the government. The opposition leaders are claiming that the Indian government has already signed a trade deal reducing tariffs on agricultural products to zero, which is completely false.

No Trade Deal Yet

Opposition leaders are claiming that India has already signed the trade deal with the USA, which is completely false. What we have is a joint statement saying that India and the US have reached a framework for an interim trade agreement. The actual Free Trade Agreement is yet to be finalised, let alone signed.

The framework is not a binding pact but a preliminary outline reaffirming commitment to broader US-India Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) talks. It will potentially take months of negotiations to finalise the draft of the deal. The final agreement will depend on these negotiations, and also on the famously unstable mood of Donald Trump.

No Major Farm Products Mentioned

Notably, the Joint statement specifies that India will “eliminate or reduce tariffs” on all US industrial goods and a “wide range” of American food and agricultural products. Notably, it does not say that India will eliminate tariffs across all items, contrary to the claims. Yogendra Yadav, Sanjay Singh and other opposition leaders have chosen to conveniently ignore the term ‘reduce’, which is a blatant misrepresentation of the text of the statement.

The agricultural products on which India will eliminate or reduce tariffs include Dried Distillers’ Grains, red sorghum for animal feed, tree nuts, fresh and processed fruit, soybean oil, wine, spirits, and select others. These are predominantly commodities that India already imports to meet domestic demand gaps. These are not major farm products produced by Indian farmers. Therefore, it does not represent any major threat to Indian farmers.

The joint statement does mention any major staple crop like rice, wheat, maize, etc., most of the products are used for industrial and non-food purposes. These reductions are targeted at industrial and supplementary goods that do not compete with the core productions of Indian farmers.

While the US was demanding that India open up its market for American corn, soybean, fuel ethanol, dairy and poultry products, none of them have been mentioned in the joint statement, and are unlikely to be included in the final agreement.

No Backdoor Entry

Yogendra Yadav claimed India is allowing backdoor import of corn and soyabean by allowing import of Dried Distillers’ Grains (DDG) and soyabean oil, which is not correct. DDG is a byproduct of ethanol manufactured from corn and other cereal grains, and it is used as animal feed. But it does not replace existing feed; it is only added to normal feed, as it is very rich in protein.

Similarly, Red Sorghum mentioned in the statement is also used as animal feed. Amul MD Jayen Mehta has assured that import of these items will not have any major impact on Indian farmers, as dairy farmers do not use more then 3%-4% of DDG in animal feed. He said that though DDG has high energy, it leads to fat separation in the cattle, and hence it is kept limited to around 3% to 4% only.

DDG is only a byproduct of corn that India has agreed to purchase; there will be no import of corn or other corn products like ethanol and corn syrup. And as DDG made from corn is cheaper compared to DDG made from other crops like rice or other sources of protein, Indian dairy farmers will actually benefit from it.

Contrary to Yadav’s claim, importing soyabean oil does not mean backdoor import of soyabean, and India already imports a large quantity of soyabean oil as domestic production is not sufficient to meet demand.

Union ministers, including Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhab have repeatedly emphasised that farmers’ interests will be safeguarded, and the joint statement reflects that commitment by not referring to not mentioning any major Indian farm products. It only shows that tariff adjustments are limited to products where India has import dependencies.

US imposed 25% reciprocal tariff on India, claiming that India was charging a very high import duty. Therefore, it was only expected that the Indian govt will reduce some tariffs as part of the deal. In exchange, the US has committed to slashing tariffs on Indian goods from 50 per cent to 18 per cent, removing punitive duties linked to India’s prior Russian oil purchases, and easing barriers on items like generic pharmaceuticals, gems, diamonds, and aircraft parts.

Russian Oil

Referring to the claim that India will replace cheap Russian Oil with costly American oil, it needs to be noted that this remains only a claim by the US, and the Indian govt has not made any comment on it. The claim that India has agreed to stop buying Russian Oil is not even mentioned in the India-US joint statement. It was mentioned in a separate presidential order issued by the White House, eliminating the 25% punitive tariff on India.

The Executive Order states, “India has committed to stop directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil, has represented that it will purchase United States energy products from the United States, and has recently committed to a framework with the United States to expand defense cooperation over the next 10 years.”

India never imported oil only from Russia; the country imported petroleum products from various countries depending on market conditions. India started to buy Russian oil in significant quantities only after the Russia-Ukraine conflict resulted in EU imposed discount on Russian oil. Before that, India was buying oil at prevailing market rates.

Therefore, the claim that replacing discounted Russian oil with oil at market rates will destroy the economy is completely baseless and wrong. Discount on Russian oil is anyway coming down, and once the war is ended, sanctions on Russian oil and gas will also go away, as the country is a major producer and exporter of energy in the world. Once that discount is removed, India will have to buy all its imported oil at market prices only. That will not destroy the economy, but will only remove the additional benefit oil companies are enjoying.

India Already Imports Farm Products

A key misconception fuelling the claims regarding the import of agricultural products is the notion that India does not import farm products, and is now being coerced into doing so under US pressure. In reality, India has long been a major importer of agricultural commodities to meet its vast domestic demand. A country does not and can not produce all the agricultural products, and has to depend on imports.

For example, an interesting trivia is that India is simultaneously the largest producer, largest consumer and largest importer of pulses. India’s domestic demand for pulses is so high that, despite being the largest producer, it needs to import substantial quantities from various countries, including the USA and Canada.

Similarly, India imports substantial quantities of vegetable oils like palm oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil, etc. India needs to import edible oils because domestic oilseed production, like mustard, groundnut, soybean, etc., doesn’t meet the high demand for cooking and industrial use.

Similarly, Indian markets already import a variety of fruits and nuts in large quantities. This includes apples, almonds, walnuts, pistachios, kiwis, pears, dates, grapes and others. Other farm products already imported by India include cotton, natural rubber, certain cereals, coffee, cocoa beans, and certain spices, which are not produced domestically in sufficient quantities, like some types of pepper and cardamom.

As per the latest data, India imported agricultural and farm produce worth approximately US $38 billion in total in the year 2024-25. Imports have been rising because domestic production of certain items, especially edible oils and pulses, falls short of domestic demand.

These imports address shortages in edible oils and protein-rich foods, supporting food security without undermining local farmers.

UP records massive drop in accidents and fatalities on National Highways: Read how CM Yogi Adityanath’s policies brought the transformation

श्रवण शुक्ल
-
0
UP records massive drop in accidents and fatalities on National Highways: Read how CM Yogi Adityanath’s policies brought the transformation

India remains the most affected country in the world in terms of road accidents. The National Highways (NHs), though they form only about 2.3% of the total road network, account for more than 36% of all road accident deaths in the country, but 2025 marked a major turning point. For the first time in three years, the rising trend in accidents and deaths on National Highways was reversed, with both figures falling by more than 11%.

According to data placed in the Lok Sabha by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), there were 1,34,307 accidents and 57,482 deaths on National Highways in 2025. This was a sharp improvement compared to the year 2024, when 1,50,958 accidents and 64,772 deaths were reported. These numbers clearly indicate a nationwide improvement in highway safety.

Uttar Pradesh leads the national decline

Among all states, Uttar Pradesh played the biggest role in bringing down the national figures. Under the leadership of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, road safety has remained a top priority since 2017. Continuous work on road quality, better engineering, stricter enforcement and faster emergency response has delivered visible results.

Deaths on National Highways in Uttar Pradesh fell from 9,560 in 2024 to 6,973 in 2025. This means 2,587 lives were saved in just one year, the highest reduction achieved by any state in the country. Officials say this improvement reflects long-term planning rather than short-term action.

Five states drive the overall improvement

Provisional MoRTH data, based on inputs from states uploaded on the eDAR portal, shows that total accidents on National Highways fell by 16,651 and deaths by 7,290 in 2025. This reduction was mainly driven by five states: Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Chhattisgarh and Telangana. Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh together contributed to a reduction of 6,072 deaths.

State level key indicators

  • Uttar Pradesh: Deaths fall from 9,560 to 6,973 (2,587 less)
  • Madhya Pradesh: Deaths fall from 4,644 to 2,882 (1,762 less)
  • Punjab, Chhattisgarh and Telangana also showed significant improvement

States where numbers increased

While many states showed progress, some regions reported a rise in accidents and deaths.

  • Gujarat: accidents increased from 3,519 to 3,944 and deaths from 2,192 to 2,380.
  • Jharkhand: It reported a slight rise in both accidents from 2,039 to 2,056 and deaths from 1,686 to 1,783
  • Uttarakhand: It also saw higher numbers of accidents from 828 to 875 and deaths from 543 to 605
  • Delhi:  It recorded a sharp jump in accidents on National Highways, from 593 to 1,827, drawing concern from road safety experts.

Why Uttar Pradesh stands apart

Officials point out that Uttar Pradesh’s performance is the result of steady and systematic reforms. From the very beginning of his first term in March 2017, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath treated road safety as a “social challenge” and pushed for a strong and balanced approach based on the 4E model: Education, Enforcement, Engineering and Emergency Care.

Pothole-Free roads as the first big push

Soon after being appointed on 18th March, 2017, Yogi Adityanath issued strict instructions on road quality. On 25th March, 2017, he ordered that all state roads be made pothole-free within two and a half months. Officials were given clear responsibility, and regular reviews were conducted to ensure results on the ground.

At that time, potholes were a major cause of accidents in Uttar Pradesh. The pothole-free drive not only improved road quality but also sent a strong message that road safety was being taken seriously. This campaign did not stop after 2017. Every year, especially before festivals, fresh instructions were issued.

In September 2025, departments such as municipal corporations, the Public Works Department (PWD) and the Rural Development Department were again directed to ensure pothole-free roads across cities and villages.

Better roads helped reduce skidding, tyre bursts and sudden braking incidents. The impact was seen not just on National Highways, but also on state highways and rural roads, giving the policy long-term benefits.

Special focus on fog-related accidents

Winter fog is a major cause of accidents in Uttar Pradesh. After a fatal accident on the Yamuna Expressway in Mathura in December 2025, where 13 people lost their lives, the Chief Minister immediately reviewed the situation and ordered strict safety steps.

  • Increased patrolling on expressways, deployment of teams at accident-prone black spots
  • Installation of reflectors, and 24×7 availability of cranes and ambulances.
  • Proposal to reduce speed limits from 120 km/h to 80 km/h during fog.
  • Toll plazas were directed to provide shelter, blankets and basic facilities for two-wheeler riders, along with real-time safety announcements.
  • On-street parking was banned, street lighting checks were intensified, and faulty lights were repaired quickly.

These steps were implemented on major expressways, including Yamuna, Agra-Lucknow, Purvanchal, Bundelkhand and Gorakhpur Link Expressways. Officials reported a clear reduction in rear-end collisions during foggy conditions. Arrangements for night shelters and bonfires for the homeless were also made as part of a broader humanitarian approach.

AI-based road safety Initiative

In August 2025, Uttar Pradesh became the first state in the country to receive central approval for an AI-based road safety pilot project. An amount of ₹10 crore was allocated for this initiative in the 2025-26 budget.

  • Collaboration with ITI Limited and mLogica.
  • Data related to accidents, vehicles, weather, road conditions and driver profiles to identify accident patterns.
  • AI models are being used to predict risks and prevent future accidents.
  • The pilot is planned for six weeks, after which a detailed report will be submitted to the central government.

Officials say this step shows the state’s readiness to use modern technology along with traditional safety measures.

January is declared as ‘Road Safety Month

On December 21, 2025, Yogi Adityanath announced that January 2026 would be observed as Road Safety Month across Uttar Pradesh. Clear instructions were issued to turn the campaign into a mass movement.

  • Awareness drives were planned from the tehsil to the district level
  • Use of real accident case studies.
  • Volunteers from NSS, NCC, Disaster Mitra and Scouts-Guides
  • Strict action was ordered against repeat offenders, including licence cancellation and vehicle seizure.

Permanent repair of black spots, road safety audits, vehicle fitness checks, and faster emergency response during the golden hour were also emphasised. Illegal parking and encroachment were targeted, and steps were taken to keep liquor shops away from schools and colleges.

Towards a model state in road safety

With the biggest decline in National Highway deaths in 2025, Uttar Pradesh has shown that strong leadership and a multi-pronged strategy can bring real change. From pothole-free roads and fog-specific measures to AI technology and mass awareness, the state’s approach covers every aspect of road safety.

Officials say the reduction is not just about numbers, but about saving families from lifelong loss and pain. Uttar Pradesh’s experience is now being seen as a model that other states can learn from to improve road safety across the country.

Bangladesh’s silent surrender: How secrecy, speed, and foreign pressure are rewriting the state

Dr. Prosenjit Nath
-
0
Bangladesh’s silent surrender: How secrecy, speed, and foreign pressure are rewriting the state

Bangladesh is set to sign a tariff agreement with the United States on February 9, just three days before the country’s national elections. However, the content of the agreement aimed at reducing tariffs on Bangladeshi exports to the USA will not be made public; it will be a secret deal signed by a government not elected democratically. This is because the deal will come under a non-disclosure agreement signed by the interim government with the US.

On 13 June 2024, Bangladesh’s interim government under Dr Muhammad Yunus signed the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with the United States. The justification was familiar and deliberately vague: urgency, economic pressure, and the need to ease so-called “reciprocal taxes” imposed during the Donald Trump administration. But in politics, how something is done often matters more than why. And in this case, the manner of the agreement tells a far more troubling story than the official explanations ever did, as explained by Aminul Hoque Polash, a Bangladeshi political activist, researcher and former government official, in an article published on News18.

The NDA was rushed through without meaningful consultation with Parliament, industry stakeholders, or the public. Because it was classified as a non-disclosure agreement, citizens were told they had no right to know what was promised, traded, or quietly conceded. The interim government repeated a single defensive line, nothing in the deal goes against national interest, while carefully avoiding the obvious question: if there was truly nothing to hide, why hide it at all?

That claim collapsed when a draft leaked from Bangladesh’s National Board of Revenue. The 20-page document did not read like a routine confidentiality instrument. It was expansive, intrusive, and asymmetrical. Page after page diluted Bangladesh’s policy autonomy. Decision-making authority linked to national security, trade policy, natural resources, and even foreign relations appeared, in effect, subordinated to the preferences of a foreign state. This was not secrecy for efficiency; it was secrecy to avoid accountability.

What followed makes the pattern unmistakable.

At the time the NDA was signed, media reports suggested that Bangladesh had committed to buying 25 Boeing aircraft and importing wheat from the United States. In August, Commerce Adviser Sheikh Bashir Uddin publicly claimed that US officials did not seem serious about selling Boeing planes. Biman Bangladesh Airlines echoed that it was unaware of any such plan. And yet, just four months later, on 30 December 2025, Biman’s board approved the purchase of 14 Boeing aircraft.

This was no coincidence. Under the interim government, a massive and arguably unnecessary procurement valued at around Tk 37,000 crore taka, or roughly 3 billion dollars, is now being fast-tracked. To grease the wheels, Sheikh Bashir Uddin was appointed Chairman of Biman on 27 August 2025. Soon after, Dr Yunus’s closest associates — Security Adviser Khalilur Rahman, Special Assistant Faiz Ahmed Taiyeb (with the rank of State Minister), and senior bureaucrat Akhtar Ahmed — were inducted into Biman’s board. Institutional independence gave way to personal loyalty, and procurement decisions followed accordingly. The purchase of US Black Hawk helicopters for the armed forces fits neatly into the same pattern.

Food security tells a similarly grim story. In July 2025, the interim government signed an MoU with the US Wheat Exporters Association to import 3.5 million tonnes of wheat over five years at a base price of 308 dollars per tonne. This would be defensible only if global prices were comparable. They are not. Wheat is currently available on the international market for around 226–230 dollars per tonne. Bangladesh has already imported 220,000 tonnes under this deal, locking in inflated costs that will inevitably push up flour prices. That increase will cascade across food markets, hitting the poorest households first and hardest.

Then there is the absurdity of the shipping deal. On 12 August 2025, the interim government approved the purchase of two bulk carrier ships from a US firm for nearly 1,000 crore taka. The United States is not even among the world’s top shipbuilding nations. The punchline is cruel: both ships will be built in China. Bangladesh is effectively buying Chinese-made ships through an American intermediary at above-market prices, a perfect metaphor for policy capture disguised as diplomacy.

Energy decisions under the interim government may prove even more damaging. A 15-year LNG purchase agreement with Excelerate Energy, worth around 1 lakh crore taka, has handed effective control of Bangladesh’s LNG imports to a single US company. Under previous governments, Bangladesh diversified supply through competitive long-term contracts with Qatar and Oman. Excelerate was initially meant to introduce competition. Instead, after August 2024, it became dominant.

The sequence is revealing. Former US ambassador Peter D. Haas left the State Department in September 2024 and joined Excelerate as a strategic adviser. In October, Excelerate’s CEO met Dr Yunus in Dhaka. Soon after, the interim government revised the agreement, fixing LNG prices at 15.69 dollars per MMBtu, at least 2.5 dollars higher than prevailing spot rates, and dramatically higher than the 9.5–9.93 dollars Bangladesh paid in April 2024. Competition was replaced by dependency, and consumers will pay the price for years.

The December decision to buy short-term LNG from SOCAR Trading S.A. adds another layer of concern. The deal followed a personal intervention by Dr Yunus after a high-profile visit by Azerbaijan’s president’s daughters. Once again, national energy policy appeared to hinge not on transparent evaluation but on personal networks and opaque diplomacy.

This spree is not confined to the United States. The interim government has announced or explored an astonishing range of defence and industrial procurements: JF-17 jets from Pakistan, Eurofighter Typhoons from Europe, J-10CE jets and drone factories with China, submarines from South Korea, T-129 ATAK helicopters from Turkey, and even a defence agreement with Japan. For an unelected interim administration, this is strategic overreach on a historic scale, commitments that will bind future elected governments for decades.

Ports and terminals, the arteries of sovereignty, are being signed away with equal haste. A 33-year deal with APM Terminals for Laldiya, a 30-year handover of the New Mooring Container Terminal to DP World, and a 22-year lease of the Pangaon inland terminal to Medlog SA together lock Bangladesh into long-term dependencies that future governments may find impossible to unwind.

Taken together, these decisions form a coherent picture. Dr Yunus has concentrated governing authority and used it to serve two masters at once: personal networks and foreign interests. The costs will not be abstract. They will appear as higher food prices, costlier energy, reduced policy autonomy, and a weakened economy. Ordinary Bangladeshis will bear the burden.

The final act is political insurance. A referendum-style electoral exercise is being prepared to manufacture a “Yes” mandate, followed by constitutional changes designed to make these decisions irreversible. Western powers, far from objecting, appear comfortable with this outcome, which secures influence, contracts, and strategic leverage.

The purpose for which Dr Yunus took control of Bangladesh’s governance has now been fully executed. The staged election on the 12th is meant to seal the deal. What remains is a country locked into agreements it never consented to, carrying costs it never approved, and living with consequences that will last far beyond the tenure of an interim government.

Who is Mohammed Zamri Vinoth, born a Hindu, now a converted jihadi, trying to sabotage PM Modi’s Malaysia visit: Exclusive details about this disciple of Zakir Naik, spreading hate against Hindus

Dibakar Dutta
-
0
Who is Mohammed Zamri Vinoth, born a Hindu, now a converted jihadi, trying to sabotage PM Modi’s Malaysia visit: Exclusive details about this disciple of Zakir Naik, spreading hate against Hindus

Ahead of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s historic visit to Malaysia on Saturday (7th February), a radical Islamic preacher named Mohammed Zamri Vinoth has threatened to organise a rally against Hindu temples in the Islamic country.

In a Facebook post on Friday (7th February), he stated, “Don’t be fooled by their propaganda and tactics. We (will) fight (against) intruders. Tomorrow’s (rally is) on at 8pm in front of Sogo KL”

Vinoth’s open display of Hinduphobia continues despite the directives of the Malaysian government to call off his rally.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is on a 2-day State visit to Malaysia between 7th and 8th February. He was invited to the Islamic Republic by his counterpart Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim. This will be the Indian PM’s first visit to Malaysia after the 2 nations elevated their bilateral ties to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in August 2024. The two leaders will enhance collaboration in trade, defence, education, tourism, connectivity and agriculture.

A notorious Islamic preacher, Mohammed Zamri Vinoth, is now attempting to sully the bilateral ties of both nations and spread hate against the Hindu minorities living in Malaysia. For the unversed, Vinoth is of Malaysian Tamil descent and was originally born a Hindu. He was previously known as Vinoth Kalimuthu.

The 41-year-old radical has been making vitriolic remarks about Hinduism and dehumanising the minority community in the country ever since converting to Islam. Interestingly, he is a staunch follower of the Indian fugitive and hate preacher Zakir Naik, who has been given asylum in Malaysia by its government.

In April 2019, the Malaysian government arrested Mohammed Zamri Vinoth after he made derogatory remarks about Hinduism. He was booked for spreading disunity and hatred among people. According to Star TV, the radical preacher also has a criminal past.

The action against him followed after members of the Hindu community and NGOs filed 867 complaints with the police. A case was lodged against Vinoth under Section 298A of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

A few months later, Mohammed Zamri Vinoth vowed to give up his Malaysian citizenship if his mentor, Zakir Naik, was extradited to India by the government. “If the government wants to send back Zakir Naik or extradite him, I will not hesitate to hand over my IC,” he had claimed in June 2019.

Mohammed Zamri Vinoth and his repeated targeting of Hindu religion

Over the years, the hate preacher has targeted Hinduism on several occasions. In March 2024, Vinoth made a TikTok video insulting Hindus deities, particularly Lord Shiva. Malaysian MP RSN Rayer had demanded strong action against Vinoth at that time.

“In a series of TikTok videos, Zamri is seen giving explainers about several deities worshipped by Hindus in the country. This is because his explanation of the deities is a form of insult (to Hindus) as Lord Shiva is worshipped by the Hindu community. We would like to appeal to the home minister to order that Zamri be charged immediately,” he had said then.

However, no action was taken against him.

A year later in March 2025, the Islamic preacher made a disgraceful mockery of the Hindu kavadi ritual. In a Facebook post, he claimed that Hindus performing the kavadi ritual appeared possessed and drunk while chanting ‘Vel Vel.’

The Deputy President of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), Saravanan Murugan, had remarked, “(His comments) were extremely disrespectful and deeply offensive to the Hindu community. This is clearly against the Madani government’s stance on 3R (race, religion and royalty) matters.”

Although his posts were taken down by Facebook, Mohammed Zamri Vinoth got away with no legal consequences. This further bolstered him to continue his tirade against the Hindu community, which constitutes only 6% of the population.

The new anti-Hindu campaign

The follower of Zakir Naik is back in the news with a new campaign targeting Hindu places of worship and branding them ‘illegal’. Mohammed Zamri Vinoth had demanded action against Hindu temples. To coerce the authorities into submission, he had vowed to organise a rally along with his radical followers ahead of PM Modi’s visit to Malaysia.

He had dehumanised Malaysian Hindus as ‘parya‘, a derogatory reference to the pariah caste. “Are you guys aware that Parya in India are also not eligible for free land? This means the illegal temple gang is more despicable than the Parya for they want everything free,” Vinoth had remarked.

In the meantime, DAP Socialist Youth (DAPSY) chief Woo Kah Leong has appealed to authorities to stop the rally of the hate preacher as it would fuel racial and religious tensions. He had requested everyone to stop using the slur ‘kuil haram‘ (illegal temple).

He pointed out, “These places of worship carry long and complex histories, and should be seen as part of the nation’s cultural fabric and proof that Malaysia’s diverse communities can live together peacefully. Rallies intended to spark controversy or inflame public sentiment are not solutions. Instead, they risk worsening misunderstandings and damaging racial unity.”

“Malaysia was built on a long-standing spirit of unity among all races. All parties must reject discriminatory narratives and prioritise humane, constitutional, and inclusive solutions,” Leong concluded.

Similar demands have been made by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) of Malaysia.

The Malaysian government has directed him against participating in any public demonstrating during the 2-day visit of the Indian Prime Minister. The Indian community had also urged the police to take action.

A government spokesperson named Fahmi Fadzil informed that PM Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim will not allow anyone to jeopardise the country’s security.

It must be mentioned that no action has been taken against Mohammed Zamri Vinoth yet despite filing of a whopping 894 complaints. The Islamic hate preacher and fan of Zakir Naik remains undeterred in his resolve to peddle Hinduphobia and further divide the Malaysian society.

‘Leave Iran now, make your own arrangements’: US govt alert to its citizens exposes a deeper reality – Of abandonment, hostility and the Balochistan question

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
‘Leave Iran now, make your own arrangements’: US govt alert to its citizens exposes a deeper reality – Of abandonment, hostility and the Balochistan question

Things are getting heated between the US and civil unrest-hit Iran once again, and the verbal attacks ongoing between the Iranian Mullah regime and the American megalomaniac President for weeks might finally escalate into a military conflict. While the US under Donald Trump claims to care about freeing Iranians from the oppressive Khamenei regime, the Trump administration’s alert issued to its citizens comes across as an extension of America’s history of abandoning its citizens in war zones.

The US government’s Iran alert gives a stark picture of isolation, peril and abandonment for American citizens, turning most of Iran’s land borders into de facto no-go zones amidst escalating tensions. While the Iranian frontier spans more than 5,800 kilometres across seven neighbouring countries, the US government advisory confines safe exit options to only a handful of narrow corridors, with Armenia and Turkey being the primary options, while Turkmenistan is a rather complicated alternative requiring special permissions. The Trump administration has explicitly warned against approaching the borders with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The advisory added that Azerbaijan’s land borders are closed to routine traffic, and therefore not available for use to leave Iran.

The warning cited widespread security measures, including road closures, public transportation halts, and severe internet and mobile network restrictions. Many airlines have cancelled or limited flights into and out of Iran, severely impacting air travel options. “Leave Iran now”, the alert says, adding, “Have a plan for departing Iran that does not rely on US government help. 

Given the hostility between the US government and the Iranian regime, US citizens face heightened threats of arbitrary questioning, arrest, and long-term detention, particularly when presenting American passports or showing US ties, the alert reminded people. Iran does not recognise dual nationality, placing dual US-Iranian citizens at additional risk. The alert asks people with dual citizenship to use only their Iranian passport when leaving the country.

The US government informed its citizens that as of 5th February 2026, the Armenian land border at Agarak/Norduz is open. The Turkish land border crossings with Iran are open. Turkmenistan’s land borders with Iran are also open, but US citizens need special authorisation from the government of Turkmenistan before approaching the border, the alert said.

While keeping long stretches of Iran-Iraq border (1,599 km), and Iran-Afghanistan border (921 km) off-limits is understandable due to their current situations and historical equations with the US, the Trump administration urging its stranded citizens in Iran to avoid leaving the country via Pakistan border, despite the White House’s longstanding portrayal of Islamabad as a main ally in counterterrorism and regional stability, is quite intriguing.

Despite Pakistan exporting nothing but Islamic terrorism to the US, and squeezing dollars out of Washington in the name of counterterrorism in Afghanistan for years, USA never severed ties with Pakistan. However, the public displays of camaraderie via military aid, joint operations, diplomatic niceties, and the over-dramatic Trump sycophancy of the Sharif-Munir duo, have not masked the underlying distrust.

Basically, America does not trust its ‘ally’ Pakistan to protect American citizens leaving Iran. Besides the Pakistani leadership’s ‘all talks and no action’ nature, the major cause for America’s distrust is the fact that the Iran-Pakistan border is essentially the Iran-Pakistan-occupied-Balochistan interface. The Iran-Balochistan border is a volatile zone wherein Baloch freedom fighters undertake operations attacking oppressive Pakistani forces. Besides, Iran and Pakistan have also indulged in military skirmishes with both countries accusing each other of harbouring terrorists.

The US government’s warning to its citizens stranded in Iran to steer clear, America has acknowledged, though implicitly, that Balochistan remains a problematic territory where even its explicitly subservient Pakistan military and its controlled political leadership cannot guarantee safety. Apparently, the US-Pakistan friendship is confined to fetching the natural resources of Pakistan-occupied Balochistan and declaring Baloch liberation outfits like the Majeed Brigade as ‘terrorist organisations’. Perhaps the Trump administration does not trust the Pakistani forces to protect stray Americans in a crisis when they cannot protect their own troops otherwise.

Despite the Iran-Pakistan lawless frontiers with the Sunni jihadist outfit Jaish-al-Adl active in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan and Baloch militant groups giving a tough time to occupying Pakistani forces in Balochistan, it is embarrassing for Islamabad that the US does trust its ‘major non-NATO ally’ with the safety of its citizens.

In fact, the US government’s own travel advisory on Pakistan rates occupied Balochistan as a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” zone, admitting that they have limited ability to assist American citizens or dual-citizenship holders there.

US can bomb countries afar but not assist its stranded citizens in warzones: Superpower devoid of compassion and accountability for its own people?

The United States is undeniably a superpower, an economic giant and has one of the world’s finest militaries. However, the US government’s recent advisory to its citizens in Iran is the latest chapter in American foreign policy of prioritising strategic withdrawal over citizen welfare. This is not the first time that America essentially said ‘Apna apna dekh lo’ (everyone for themselves) to its citizens stranded in a crisis-hit foreign country. The US has a history of abandoning stranded nationals when push comes to shove.

Among the most inhumane and disgraceful abandonments of American citizens by the US government was in 2021 during the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. The US government, led by President Joe Biden, made an abrupt decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, and after initial evacuations, the US left thousands of its citizens and allies scrambling as the Taliban expanded control. Biden’s ‘over-the-horizon’ counterterrorism promise rang hollow.

If we go back in history, in 1975, the fall of Saigon marked the end of the Vietnam War and the final collapse of South Vietnam as North Vietnamese forces and their allies captured the capital. This situation arose because in 1973, the American military withdrew forces, leaving their Vietnamese allies to their fate after years of making promises of establishing a ‘unified’, ‘democratic’, and ‘stable’ Vietnam.

The 2012 Benghazi Attack also serves as a stark reminder of how the self-declared biggest superpower of the world failed to protect its citizens, including diplomats in the conflict-torn Libya. A Benghazi House Committee report found that the US military failed to immediately send a force to Benghazi, even eight hours after the attack at the US diplomatic mission began, and two American citizens were killed.

In April 2023, American citizens stranded in crisis-hit Sudan raged against the US government for its apathy towards its own nationals stranded there. They expressed disbelief and anger against the American government for outrightly abandoning them and leaving them on their own to navigate their way out of Sudan alive and safe. “I am incredibly shocked and disgusted by the American lacklustre response to the health and safety of their citizens,” an American citizen said back then.

While several countries were rescuing their stranded citizens, the US government maintained that the situation was not ‘conducive’ to sending rescue teams for civilian evacuation. While civilians were not prioritised, the US government evacuated its military personnel a week in advance. The US government kept throwing the usual ‘we are in close contact with our citizens’ and ‘we are actively facilitating their departure’; however, nothing was moving in reality.

The stranded American citizens revealed that they received “barely any assistance” from the US State Department since the violent clashes between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) broke out.

“To be honest with you, the State Department was useless, utterly useless throughout this entire period. We expected the Department to provide some kind of guidance, but the guidance was the template, just shelter in place, no critical information being provided,” another American citizen told the media at that time.

America’s opprobrious history of abandonment of Americans also extends to civil-war hit Yemen. Back in 2015, when the Yemeni civil war was at its peak, and thousands of American citizens stranded there were essentially abandoned by the US government.

While India and China conducted massive evacuation drives to rescue their citizens, the US did not launch any such operation. Excuse? The usual ‘security concerns’ and ‘situation not conducive’ claims.  “Designating an evacuation point for a large group of U.S. citizens has the potential to put those individuals’ safety and security at risk,” a State Department official said in a statement back then.  

Sudan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Ukraine and beyond, India rescues Indians

Countries like India, on the contrary, have consistently been launching evacuation drives whenever and wherever required. India’s Operation Sankat Mochan evacuated over 2,000 Indian nationals in South Sudan in 2016.

Under Operation Raahat, India airlifted its 4,600 citizens from Yemen in 2015. In fact, while the US failed to rescue even American citizens, India evacuated over 1000 nationals from more than 41 countries, including those from France, the US, the UK and even Pakistan, from Yemen that year.

In June 2025, the Modi government launched ‘Operation Sindhu’ to evacuate 115 Indian nationals, stranded in Iran, amid an increase in hostilities with Israel. They were first taken from Iran to Armenia and then brought back to New Delhi via a special flight. An additional 117 Indians were brought to New Delhi through another special evacuation flight from Turkmenistan. By the end of the operation, India rescued over a thousand of its nationals from Iran.

In 2024, India rescued 5 Indian nationals who were stuck in Syria, following the overthrow of President Bashar Assad by rebels.

In 2023, the Modi government launched Operation Kaveri to evacuate Indians from war-hit Sudan, bringing back 3,862 people in less than 2 weeks.

In 2022, India started one of its biggest rescue missions named Operation Ganga, under which 25000 Indian nationals were rescued from Ukraine amid the outbreak of war with Russia. India also rescued 147 foreign nationals. While the US often remained reluctant to even deploy military missions to evacuate its citizens, the Indian government sent 4 Union Ministers to coordinate this rescue operation. India rescued several Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals as well.

In 2021, India launched Operation Devi Shakti to bring back over 800 Indians stranded in Afghanistan after the Taliban took over the country in 2021. In June 2014, India rescued 46 Indian nurses from ISIS captivity in Iraq.

Countries like India and China have orchestrated large-scale extractions from countries afar and in highly challenging circumstances, to pull out their citizens without hesitation or reluctance. It is not that America is incapable of rescuing its citizens in crisis-hit countries or nations it is about to bomb; however, the blunt “have a plan that does not rely on US government help” directive is nothing but a candid admission of America’s hands-off approach. After Sudan and Yemen, Americans in Iran are left to fend for themselves in a high-risk environment where detention, kidnappings or worse, killings, are routine threats.

Koraput and Malkangiri districts in Odisha are finally free of Naxalism: Read how Operation Kagar and a strategic river bridge made this possible

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Koraput and Malkangiri districts in Odisha are finally free of Naxalism: Read how Operation Kagar and a strategic river bridge made this possible

In a major success under the ongoing anti-Naxal operations, two Odisha districts of Koraput and Malkangiri were recently declared Naxal-free by the authorities. The Koraput district was declared Naxal-free on Thursday (5th February) after the surrender of Maoist ACM cadre Mamta Podiami to DIG, South West region, Dr Kanwar Vishal Singh. Podiami surrendered with an SLR (Self-Loading Rifle) and 10 rounds of ammunition.

“After declaring Malkangiri district Naxal-free yesterday, today we are declaring Koraput district Naxal-free. Today, a Naxal cadre of ACM rank, Mamata, surrendered with an SLR rifle, ten rounds of ammunition, and other materials. There was a reward of Rs 5.5 lakh for her, and Rs 1.65 lakh for her SLR. She will receive these benefits… A few days ago, 22 Naxals surrendered in Malkangiri, where our DGP of Odisha Police was present… Even after declaring Koraput Naxal-free, we will remain fully alert…” said DIG, South West region, Dr Kanwar Vishal Singh, speaking to the media.

According to DIG Singh, Podiami, a resident of Chhattisgarh, was involved in many anti-government activities in the bordering areas of Odisha and Chhattisgarh. She was booked in 2023 by Katekalyan police in Bijapur district for violence. Podiami will now be given the amount of reward that she carried along with the amount of reward on the weapon she surrendered. “She will be entitled to financial assistance of ₹5.5 lakh announced on her head, along with an additional ₹1.65 lakh for surrendering the weapon. Besides, she will get all benefits under the state’s surrender and rehabilitation policy,” the DIG said, urging the remaining Naxal cadres in other areas of the state to lay down the weapons and join the mainstream.

Odisha’s Director General of Police, Y B Khurania, assured full support of the Odisha government to the Naxals who chose to surrender. “I appeal to the CPI cadres and leaders to come and join the mainstream society. The Odisha government assures that all cadres who choose to surrender will receive full support, protection and assistance under the comprehensive rehabilitation and reintegration programme, enabling them to rebuild their lives in a peaceful and dignified manner,” DGP Y B Khurania said.

According to police, Koraput has become the fourth district under the south-western police range, after Malkangiri, Nuapada and Nabarangpur, to become Naxal-free. The development comes ahead of the March 31, 2026, deadline of eradicating the Left Wing Extremism from the country.

A day before, on Wednesday (4th February), the Malkangiri district was declared Naxal-free following the surrender of Maoist leader Sukhram Markram, who carried a reward of ₹21 lakh. Days before, the Nabrangpur district was also declared Maoist-free after nine Naxals laid down weapons in Chhattisgarh. Sukhram Markam was the area committee member of the banned CPI(Maoist). He surrendered one SLR rifle, ammunition and other articles to the police.

According to police, Markam was involved in a series of violent incidents across Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. However, now that he has laid down his weapons, he will receive full assistance from the state government in leading a normal life. Malkangiri SP Binod Patil said that Sukhram Markam will get benefits under the Odisha government’s rehabilitation policy.

Major anti-Naxal operations in Koraput and Malkangiri

In May 2025, dreaded Maoist leader Kunjam Hidma was arrested by the Odisha police in a special operation in the dense Petguda forests of the Koraput district. He was arrested after the district police received the input that he had been hiding in the forest area after escaping from Chhattisgarh. Hidma, originally from the Janaguda village in Chhattisgarh’s Bijapur, was wanted in Koraput, Odisha, for multiple crimes over the years. One AK-47 rifle, 35 rounds of ammunition, 117 electric and non-electric detonators, walkie-talkies, gunpowder, and Maoist literature were seized from Hidma’s possession.

In December 2025, 22 Maoists, carrying a combined bounty of ₹2.18 crore, surrendered in the Malkangiri district. Among the Maoists were 10 women, including a divisional committee member (DCM) and six area committee members (ACMs). 19 of the surrendered Maoist cadres belonged to the Dandakaranya special zonal committee (DKSZC), while two were from the Andhra-Odisha border special zonal committee (AOBSZC) and one from the Gadchiroli area committee. They were all involved in a series of violence in Odisha and Chhattisgarh.

Anti-Naxal operations assisted by infrastructural improvement

Crucial infrastructural development and the resultant connectivity to remote Naxal-infested areas provided a much-needed operational ease to the Centre’s anti-Naxal strategy. The 910-metre bridge built over the river Gurupriya in 2018 in the Malkangiri district, once considered a Naxal breeding ground, was a part of this crucial infrastructural enhancement. The Malkangiri district shares a border with Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and was affected by Left-wing extremism.

The Swabhiman Anchal area of the Malkangiri district was isolated in the early 1960s due to the construction of a 65-km water channel as part of the Balimela reservoir project. The isolated geography offered a perfect hideout to Maoists, who thrived in the area. In 2008, they carried out an ambush attack against security personnel near the Balimela reservoir, killing 39 of them. In February 2011, Maoists abducted the then Malkangiri District Collector R Vineel Krishna and a junior engineer while they were inspecting works in the cut-off areas. They were and kept hostage by the Maoists for eight days, and were released only after securing the release of top Maoist leader Ganti Prasadam. Later on, four BSF personnel, including a commandant, were killed in a landmine blast. The isolated and challenging geography of the area emboldened the Naxals, who intensified attacks on security forces.

However, the construction of the Gurupriya river bridge proved lethal for the Naxals in the Malkangiri district. The bridge connected around 170 villages in the Naxal-affected areas. Its construction started in the mid 1980s with an estimated cost of ₹8 crore, but ended up taking over four decades at an expenditure of ₹172 crore. The reason for the delay in the construction of the bridge was the resistance of Maoists, who could foresee that the construction of the bridge would lead to the eradication of their strongholds. Subsequently, the central government deployed BSF personnel in the area in 2015 to complete the construction of the bridge.

After the bridge, the government constructed all-weather roads in the villages, accommodating over 30,000 people. As a result, almost all habitations in the Swabhiman Anchal were connected with all-weather roads. This dealt a major blow to the Maoist dominance in the area. This was followed by the BSF setting up multiple company operating bases (COB), which are heavily-armed outposts, to combat Maoists in the Swabhiman Anchal.

Operation Kagar and the centre’s commitment to a Naxal-free India

Over the last decade, the central government has amped up operations in Naxal strongholds to entirely uproot the Maoist cadres. The government has adopted a two-pronged strategy of eliminating the Maoist cadres through military operations clubbed with development-oriented works such as expansion of roads, transport facilities, water, electricity and other welfare schemes of the government reaching the villagers.

As part of this strategy, the central government launched Operation Kagar in January 2024 to eradicate Naxalism in Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra (Gadchiroli), Odisha, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Telangana. Under the operation, around 1 lakh para-military troops, including the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), its elite CoBRA units, District Reserve Guards DRG), and state police, equipped with modern technology, have been deployed in the left-wing terrorism affected areas to completely uproot the naxal terrorism from its last remaining strongholds.

The success of the centre’s anti-Naxal operation can be estimated from the fact that from 2015 to 2025, the number of Naxal-affected districts came down from 106 to 18. Out of these districts, 12 were considered the worst affected by Naxalism. However, this number further dropped to just 6 worst Naxal-affected districts, including Bijapur, Kanker, Narayanpur, and Sukma in Chhattisgarh, West Singhbhum in Jharkhand and Gadhchiroli in Maharashtra.

Last month, the Centre released a detailed 10-point plan to ensure that areas cleared of Left-Wing Extremism remain peaceful. The plan is meant for the post-Left-Wing Extremism phase and focuses on stabilising districts that have lived through years of violence. It aligns with the development-oriented part of the Centre’s two-pronged strategy for eliminating Naxalism.

Indonesia bets big on Indian manufacturing: Mahindra and Ashok Leyland deals mark a significant leap in Make In India’s success story

Dhruv Mishra
-
0
Indonesia bets big on Indian manufacturing: Mahindra and Ashok Leyland deals mark a significant leap in Make In India’s success story


Two recent deals announced in early February 2026 involving Mahindra & Mahindra’s largest-ever export order and Ashok Leyland’s defence and EV partnership signed a clear shift in India’s manufacturing story. What Indonesia is buying is not just vehicles but Indian-built systems designed to run at scale. The message is unmistakable that Make in India has moved from aspiration to international credibility.  

Mahindra’s 35,000-vehicle order: A rural logistics game-changer

Mahindra & Mahindra has landed its biggest export deal to date, announcing the supply of 35000 pickup vehicles to Indonesia in 2026. The order was issued and placed by Indonesian state-owned enterprise Agrinas Pangan Nusantara for the Koperasi Desa/Kelurahan Merah Putih (KDKMP) project. It is notable as it surpasses Mahindra’s total vehicle exports in FY25, underscoring the scale and strategic nature of the deal.

The truck will be distributed throughout Indonesia’s village-level cooperative (Koperasi) to improve rural logistics and supply chain efficiency. It is designed to function in harsh rural environments; the Scorpio pickups will handle first-mile aggregation by transporting produce directly from farms to cooperatives, as well as support intra-village movement of goods. This is projected to reduce post-harvest losses, increase farmers’ market access, and allow for more efficient distribution of key goods.

The Scorpio LCV, manufactured entirely in India at Mahindra’s Nashik facility, is world-renowned for its durable design, high payload capacity, and low running costs, all of which are critical for large-scale rural deployment. The vehicles for the Indonesian project have been modified to fit local operating needs, such as rugged country roads and agricultural paths, making them ideal for long-term, high-utilisation operation.

Beyond its business value, the transaction has broader strategic implications. It portrays Mahindra as a reliable mobility partner in Indonesia’s national development goal while also emphasising India’s expanding role as a provider of scalable, made-in-India mobility solutions. The deal also provides a significant boost to Mahindra’s international operations, bolstering India’s manufacturing reputation in foreign markets and increasing the worldwide footprint of the Make in India effort. 

Ashok Leyland and PT Pindad: From exports to co-development

Ashok Leyland has signed a strategic MoU with PT Pindad, Indonesia’s government-owned defence and industrial company, going beyond traditional exports. The agreement focuses on the combined development and production of electric buses and defence vehicles that are specifically adapted to Indonesia’s mobility and national security needs.

Unlike a typical buyer-seller contract, the collaboration focuses on co-development. Ashok Leyland brings competence in commercial vehicles, electric mobility and defence platforms, while PT Pindad provides local technical capabilities, manufacturing facilities, and deep integration with Indonesia’s defence ecosystem. The end result is a strategy that integrates Indian technology into locally made platforms, aligning with Indonesia’s goal of self-reliance.

The MoU was signed in the presence of Prof. Sigit P. Santosa, CEO of PT Pindad; Mr Amandeep Singh, President of International Operations, Defence, LCV, and PSB at Ashok Leyland; and Lord Tariq, Advisor to the Board of Hinduja Auto, on 4th February 2026.

A key pillar of the partnership is Switch Mobility, Ashok Leyland’s electric mobility subsidiary. Switch Mobility has created electric bus platforms with global applications; under this MoU, these platforms will be tailored to Indonesia’s geography, climate, infrastructure, and operational requirements. The electric buses are designed to help Indonesia shift to clean, energy-efficient public transportation, lowering emissions and boosting urban mobility.

On the defence side, the collaboration focuses on tactical and military vehicles, which are strategically important. Co-development of defence vehicles demonstrates a high level of trust by sharing design expertise, performance criteria, and operational know-how. For Indonesia, it supports the goal of locally made defence platforms. For India, it indicates rising acceptance of Indian defence mobility solutions in international markets.

Strategically, the MoU represents a significant shift in how Indian manufacturing is seen abroad. Ashok Leyland does not present itself as a low-cost exporter but rather as a technological partner capable of developing future-ready mobility and defence solutions. For Make in India, this agreement reinforces a clear message: Indian companies are increasingly co-creating complex systems abroad rather than simply delivering finished items.

Why this is big for Make In India 

Taken together, the Mahindra and Ashok Leyland purchases represent a watershed moment for Make in India. Vehicles designed and constructed in India are already powering foreign national initiatives ranging from Indonesia’s village-level logistics network to its public transportation and defence mobility plans. It demonstrates that Indian manufacturing operates on a national scale abroad rather than simply satisfying overseas orders. The emphasis has switched from exporting finished goods to exporting capabilities. Mahindra produces durable, cost-effective vehicles for widespread rural deployment, while Ashok Leyland introduces EV platforms and defence mobility knowledge into domestic manufacture. Crucially, Indian businesses are increasingly viewed as dependable long-term partners rather than low-cost alternatives, as evidenced by extensive partnerships on electric and defence vehicles, which demand faith in engineering quality and lifetime support. Together, these transactions show that Make in India now competes on scale, trust, and technology, indicating a shift from a local manufacturing mantra to a globally certified industrial competency.

Conclusion

From improving rural logistics to enabling electric mobility and co-developing defence platforms, India is moulding full-fledged mobility ecosystems around the world rather than just exporting vehicles. The Mahindra and Ashok Leyland deals mark a significant shift in how the Indian industry is seen abroad. Make in India has advanced beyond size to credibility, and its adoption by countries such as Indonesia is not a coincidence, but a determined strategic decision.

MoA signed to establish Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority: Read what the breakthrough agreement means for peace and development in the region

Rukma Rathore
-
0
MoA signed to establish Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority: Read what the breakthrough agreement means for peace and development in the region

On 5th February (Thursday), the centre, Nagaland government and representatives of the Eastern Nagaland Peoples Organisation (ENPO), the highest authority representing eight identified Naga tribes in the six eastern districts of the state, signed a historic Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) in the national capital. The move has indicated another notable breakthrough in achieving Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s aspiration for a flourishing and peaceful Northeast.

The tripartite agreement was inked in front of Nagaland Chief Minister Dr Neiphiu Rio, alongside Union Home Minister and Cooperation Minister Amit Shah. It will facilitate the establishment of the Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority (FNTA) for the six districts of Nagaland, including Tuensang, Mon, Kiphire, Longleng, Noklak and Shamator. The pivotal step is set to result in the devolution of authority with regard to 46 FNTA subjects.

Image via idsa.in

Senior officials from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and state government, including Yanth Ungo Patton, the deputy chief minister of Nagaland, his cabinet colleagues and other dignitaries were also present during the momentous event in New Delhi.

The prime minsiter lauded the “historic agreement” which will improve the growth track of Eastern Nagaland and offer new opportunities and prosperity to its people. He added, “It reflects our unwavering commitment to peace, progress and inclusive growth in the North East.”

Amit Shah referred to the agreement as a measure for “resolving decades-long pending issues of Eastern Nagaland.” He remarked, “It is a giant step towards realising Modi Ji’s vision for a peaceful and prosperous Northeast by resolving all contentious issues.”

The chief minister of Nagaland also shared the news of the important pact involving his government, the centre and ENPO.

A substantial move towards a harmonious North East

“PM Modi has envisioned a North East that is free from insurgency, violence, disputes and developed. Today, we have taken one more step forward in realising that vision,” Shah declared on the occasion. According to him, the accord is crucial to end conflict and informed that the Modi government has entered into 12 significant arrangements in the region since 2019.

He assured the ENPO delegates that the centre will both support and bear responsibility for the development of Eastern Nagaland. He conveyed that a certain sum will be determined annually, and the Ministry of Home Affairs will also cover the establishment’s initial costs.

Image via Freepik

Shah further mentioned that he had assured the ENPO representatives in 2021-2022 that PM Modi is committed to the cause of a peaceful North East and will address their concerns, urging them to maintain faith and take part in the democratic process, as they are going to receive justice and the respect they deserve.

He expressed happiness over the settlement of the dispute and highlighted how the officials from the Home Ministry served as a bridge between ENPO and the Nagaland government for a considerable amount of time.

The home minister also emphasised the strategic importance of the ENPO area and congratulated the entire state, its citizens and government, including Rio and his cabinet, as well as the two parliamentarians from Nagaland, for their contributions in bringing the negotiations to a logical end. He stated that the governments of the state and India will join hands to accelerate Eastern Nagaland’s development.

“Today’s agreement is a victory for Naga society, and I hope that mutual trust among all sections of people will increase. I also thank the Government of India for bringing the matter to a conclusion and hope we will keep on getting cooperation from the central government in the future,” Rio similarly voiced during the landmark program.

Image via Mokokchung Times

The agreement stipulates that Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority will have a mini-secretariat led by an additional chief secretary or principal secretary, and its development expenditures will be shared proportionately by area and population. However, it remains completely compliant with the terms of Article 371(A) of the Indian Constitution.

This special framework aims to promote Eastern Nagaland through improved decision-making, financial autonomy, expedited growth of infrastructure, economic empowerment, and optimal resource use. According to Home Secretary Govind Mohan, the MoA will help in putting an end to protracted negotiations and guarantee that institutionalised governance, along with development mechanisms, fulfil the local expectations of eastern Nagaland.

Separation to inclusion: How the Modi administration addressed the prolonged dispute

There has been a persistent demand for the eastern Nagas to be separated since independence. The Tuensang Mon People’s Organisation, which was renamed the Eastern Naga People’s Organisation in 2005, started out in 1994 as a formal protest against the backwardness and alienation of the eastern Naga tribes.

The creation of a Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority, which would include the six eastern districts of Kiphira, Longling, Mon, Noklang, Shamator and Tuensang, was initiated by the ENPO in 2010. They called for a separate political system to tackle development and governance imbalances in Eastern Nagaland and wanted financial, legislative and executive independence. They also complained about the under-representation of eastern Naga tribes in the government.

The confrontation was fraught with election boycotts, strikes, several meetings with the shareholders, assurances and more. Progress was made many times, only to encounter roadblocks. However, the Modi government continuously engaged in discussions and listened to the demands of ENPO.

Image via Drishti IAS

A formal dialogue between the MHA and the ENPO was started in 2022 by a high-level committee in an effort to reach a consensus. However, the latter’s insistent demand for a separate state prevented the talks from reaching an agreement. However, the group eventually agreed upon the centre’s proposal for a territorial authority with more autonomy under the FNTA structure.

The ENPO provisionally nodded to the Modi government’s plan to create the FNTA under Article 371(A) during the inaugural meeting in December 2024, handing over executive, legislative and budgetary authority to the eastern Nagas. A series of meetings followed and the outfit cut down its demands.

Its desire for an independent state was ultimately suspended during last year’s final negotiations, and a proposition for founding a special autonomous administrative entity dubbed the FNTA within the state of Nagaland was approved. This is scheduled to be reviewed in ten years, and controversial issues will be worked out through democratic political processes.

Conclusion

The North East had been plagued by severe neglect under the Indian National Congress regime. However, the Modi government has brought about positive changes, undertaking extensive actions to mainstream and connect the entire region with the rest of the country while also promoting development in its most remote areas.

Furthermore, there have been repeated attempts to find an amicable solution to issues raised by opposing factions, which have helped to alleviate long-standing feelings of marginalisation, political upheaval, violence and unrest, thus delivering stability and a pathway to a better future.

It is due to the relentless efforts of the government that the ENPO’s quest for a distinct state drastically dropped and it welcomed a special administrative structure (FNTA) with restricted autonomy under Article 371(A). Now, an incredibly contentious segment of history has come to an end, giving way to a new dawn filled with hope and devoid of a drawn-out conflict in the region.

Anti-Brahmin tirade, support for urban naxals, downplaying discrimination against general castes and more: Who is Disha Wadekar, the ‘hypocrite’ lawyer representing petitioners in UGC case

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Anti-Brahmin tirade, support for urban naxals, downplaying discrimination against general castes and more: Who is Disha Wadekar, the ‘hypocrite’ lawyer representing petitioners in UGC case

The Supreme Court of India stayed the implementation of the draconian University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations of 2026 on 29th January. However, outrage against the UGC guidelines and counter-narratives in support of it are keeping the debate alive and heated. In her desperation to justify the implementation of the caste-discrimination guidelines, advocate Disha Wadekar gave an absurd argument that if caste-based discrimination guidelines are made caste-neutral, then “What is the point of that provision of discrimination?”

In an interview with The Telegraph India published on 2nd February, Disha Wadekar said, “Now everyone is pointing out that there is a separate definition of caste discrimination. Section 3(C) defines caste discrimination as caste-based discrimination, based on caste or race against Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and OBCs. Caste-based discrimination definition that everyone has a problem with, who should it include?”

“If that should be a caste-neutral definition is what the question is, then are you saying that alongside SC, ST, and OBCs, caste-based discrimination definition should also include other categories, and it should be caste neutral, then what is the point of that provision of discrimination then? Then there is no discrimination, right? That actually means that there is no discrimination,” she added.

Disha Wadekar drew parallels between a caste-based discrimination definition and a gender-based discrimination definition and said, “It is like saying that gender-based discrimination definition should have men who say that I am being discriminated against on the basis of gender.”

She inadvertently exposed her hypocrisy by making such a claim since the UGC Regulations of 2026 did not identify discrimination on the basis of gender exclusively for women. However, discrimination against the general castes has been specifically excluded.

She further attempts to discredit the legitimate concerns raised by those protesting against the caste-based discrimination guidelines, saying that punishments will be civil remedies, and no one will be outrightly lodged in jail, and the committee will hear both sides before decidinga punishment proportionate to its findings in a matter.

Outrageously flawed gender-discrimination analogy, presumed guilt and a deliberate overlooking of how the UGC caste-based discrimination definition only widens the societal divide

Advocate Disha Wadekar compared the definition of caste-based discrimination in question to gender laws by saying that “It is like saying that the gender-based discrimination definition should have men, who say that I am being discriminated against on the basis of gender.”

 The comparison that ‘upper caste’ groups or the general category should not be included in the caste-based discrimination definition, just as men should not be included in any gender-based discrimination definition of protective laws, essentially kills even the possibility of the acknowledgement of the general category facing discrimination due to their ascriptive identity. Similarly, Wadekar’s argument implies that men can never be discriminated against based on their gender.

While prevalence does shape opinions, and even policies and laws, it does not mean that the non-protected groups are immune to discrimination based on their caste or gender-based identity. Wadekar’s logic plays into the general notion that if caste-based discrimination has taken place somewhere, the victim must by default be from the SC, ST, or OBC category while the discriminator must be from the general category. It is like legitimising the coarse argument of presumed guilt, “Ye purush hai, isne toh kia hi hoga [discrimination/harassment]” and “Ye upper-caste wala hai, isne kia hi hoga caste-based discrimination].

However, there have been incidents, and there is an undeniable possibility of ‘upper-caste’ individuals being subjected to discrimination and harassment based on their caste identity. There have been incidents in the past where genocidal slogans have been raised on campus, calls for Brahmin exodus have been made, and other similar incidents have been reported.

Interestingly, while Wadekar suggests that gender-based discrimination happens only against women and thus men should not be included in such definitions, the UGC rules on gender-based discrimination are gender-neutral. The UGC rules cover discrimination against all humans, be it women, men, or the third gender.

Regulation 3(d) of the UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015, and other related clauses explicitly require higher educational institutions (HEIs) to act on sexual harassment complaints from male, female, and third gender individuals. This gender-neutrality also extends to broader grievance mechanisms, including the UGC Redressal of Grievances of Students Regulations, 2023, which although keeps women in central focus, says, “Act decisively against all gender-based violence perpetrated against employees and students of all sexes recognising that primarily women employees and students and some male students and students of the third gender are vulnerable to many forms of sexual harassment and humiliation and exploitation”.

The UGC has to a great extent managed to make gender-based protections gender-neutral without losing their core purpose, which is to address the structural and more prevalent discrimination while still ensuring redress for men or transgender individuals in cases that occur.

If this logic can successfully be applied to gender-based discrimination, where despite the prevalence being overwhelmingly against the rules remain inclusive.

In another interview, Wadekar says that she does suggest that upper-caste students do not experience harassment or victimisation at all, but cases are “typically individual-specific and not rooted in ascriptive group identity.”

A simple question arises here: how did she arrive at the conclusion that cases of harassment or victimisation of upper-caste students are ‘typically individual-specific’, and not ‘rooted in ascriptive group identity’? Can or have not Brahmins or other upper caste individuals not targeted for their pure vegetarian food preferences, or their Shikha (tuft of hair) or for wearing Janeu (sacred thread) by those linking their harmless religious practice to caste supremacism?

Back in 2022, “Brahmin-Baniyas, we are coming for you. We will avenge”, “Go back to Shakha”, “Brahmins Leave the Campus”, “Brahmin Bharat Chhodo”, “Now there will be blood” and other such slogans were spray-painted on the walls of Delhi’s Jawaharlal University by leftist groups. The professors targeted by the miscreants included Nalin Kumar Mohapatra, Raj Yadav, Pravesh Kumar, and Vandana Mishra.

In April 2022, “Kashmir to bas jhanki hai, poora Bharat baaki hai” (Kashmir is only the beginning, whole India is still there) and “Brahman Teri kabr khudegi BHU ki dharti par” (Graves of the Brahmins will be dug at the BHU campus), slogans were written inside Banaras Hindu University.

In 2024, Ashoka University students shouted anti-Brahmin-Baniya slurs during demonstrations on 26th March. Social media users shared videos of the students chanting “Brahmin-Baniyawaad Murdabad” and other similar provocative phrases. In addition to abusing the Baniya and Brahmin communities, they chanted “Jai Savitri-Jai Fatima” and “Jai Bheem-Jai Meem”, while also demanding on-campus caste census and reservation.

In Karnataka, there have been incidents wherein Brahmin students were asked to cut off their Janeu before appearing for the CET exam. In Shivamogga, a Brahmin student was forced to cut his Janeu, throw it in the dustbin and only then was he allowed to appear in the exam, even as there was no rule that Janeu or any such religious objects were banned. Not to forget, despite what the Dharma says, Janeu/Janivara/Poonool is often associated with Brahmins and is described by ‘left-liberal’ cabal as a symbol of Brahminism and Brahmin caste superiority. In fact, Tamil Nadu has a history of the Poonool of Brahmins being forcibly cut to mock them, and such incidents continue to occur.

These incidents indicate that the so-called upper-caste groups are also subjected to harassment or discrimination based on their ascriptive group identity. The ‘Brahmins Leave Bharat’ or ‘Graves of Brahmins will be dug’, or ‘avenge Baniyas’ slogans invoke genocidal and expulsion rhetoric rooted in supposed historical group roles, reflecting the structural discrimination Disha Wadekar attributes only to SC, ST and OBCs.

Not all incidents of victimisation of upper caste students are ‘individual-specific’, some are rooted in group-based animus, and not all incidents of victimisation of SC, ST, or OBC students are caste-based discrimination or harassment, but individual-specific. Yet, Wadekar chose to dismiss caste-based discrimination against upper-caste individuals in HEIs as non-ascriptive. The only difference is that while the reserved groups would have the framework under the currently stayed UGC 2026 rules to have their real, imaginary, alleged or exaggerated grievances heard and redressed, the upper caste groups do not have such a specific framework.

With caste-based discrimination getting narrowly defined as unfair treatment against SC/ST/OBS with emphasis on structural or ascriptive identity harm, the UGC gave stronger institutional teeth, preventive duties, and symbolic recognition to complaints from the reserved categories, while similar grievances of the ‘upper-caste’ students would fall under the general 2023 rules.

Wadekar’s argument that the uproar by the general category people over the lack of a redressal is invalid since the 2023 regulation has been incorporated in the UGC 2026 regulation, and they can file complaints. This would not essentially address caste-based discrimination, as she herself admitted. Basically, not only Disha Wadekar, but the UGC itself is legitimising the unfair idea that upper caste individuals can never face harassment or victimisation based on their caste identity even as casteist slurs are hurled against them, calls for their violent ouster and genocide are given, and can only face individual-specific verbal and/or violent attack or harassment.

Since the UGC 2026 guidelines do not symmetrically recognise caste-based discrimination against general category students as a specific category of harm, a one-way street is created wherein the ascriptive caste discrimination is presumed unidirectional, while bidirectional or individual caste-specific from general category individuals is relegated to less specialised and less deterrent mechanism. Is this not in violation of Article 14, since the framework here essentially treats similar harms differently based on caste origins, rooted in the misconception that upper-caste students cannot face real caste-based discrimination due to their supposed historical caste ‘privilege’? Is it not a case of presumed guilt wherein GCs are labelled as inherent ‘oppressors’? Is there an intention to keep the ‘upper caste’ individuals guilt-trapped in the oppressor-oppressed matrix?

In conversation with The Telegraph India, advocate Disha Wadekar further suggests that those protesting against the UGC 2026 guidelines are doing a hue and cry over a non-issue like the misuse of the rules. This argument came even as there is a massive example of the general misuse of the SC/ST Act against upper-caste people. She said that it is not like a reserved category student would file a complaint before varsity authorities accusing anyone from the general category, and the accused person would immediately be stuffed in jail. Rather, she says, due process will be followed and the accused student will have the opportunity to present his/her case and present evidence etc, and only if the Committee finds the allegation to be true that warnings, or fines, etc., would be imposed.

However, what if a reserved category student files a complaint alleging caste-based harassment/discrimination against a general category student, the university’s committee dismisses the complaint as frivolous and the reserved category student ends up accusing the committee members of bias and files a case against them under the SC/ST Act? This may sound far-fetched and alarmist but in times where an entire village of Brahmin residents has been booked under the SC/ST Act over a wage-related dispute in Bihar’s Darbhanga, even as many of the accused men reside in Delhi-Mumbai for work, anything is possible.

The origins of the UGC regulations on equity, notification of the guidelines and the Supreme Court intervention

The 2025 draft regulations emerged out of a PIL filed in 2019 by mothers of students of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who died in 2016 and 2019, respectively. Their families alleged that the students committed suicide after being subjected to caste-based discrimination. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, along with advocates Prasanna S. and Disha Wadekar, sought the implementation of anti-discrimination measures in educational institutions. Wadekar drafted the 10 suggestions to be included in the UGC Bill, and most of those suggestions were accepted by the Central government. This came after the Supreme Court passed an order in September 2025, recording the ten specific suggestions made by the petitioners represented by Wadekar, Jaising and Prasanna S., and directed the UGC to revise the draft.

The PIL did not reportedly demand an entirely new set of regulations, but a strict enforcement of the existing University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012. The 2012 rules required universities to establish Equal Opportunity Cells to handle complaints of discrimination, particularly against Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) students.

However, the petitioners were not happy with the 2025 draft regulations, and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising proposed ten core changes in the draft. The proposed reforms included grievance committees with substantial marginalised representation and grant withdrawal for non-compliance. The Supreme Court fixed an 8-week deadline for the finalisation of the regulations. Finally, the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, were notified on January 13, 2026.

The 2026 regulations ruled out the general castes as victims of caste-based violence by restricting the category of victims to SCs, STs, and OBCs. There is no provision for general category students to raise a complaint when subjected to caste-based discrimination. The 2026 regulations not only assume that caste-based discrimination is only directed towards people from the SC, ST, and OBC communities, but, in a way, promote reverse caste-based discrimination by excluding general castes, which form a large section of the academic community, from protection.

As outrage erupted over the draconian rules, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which put a stay on the implementation of the UGC 2026 guidelines.

While a final decision in the matter is pending, the outrage around the UGC 2026 guidelines in the context of caste-based discrimination is justified not only because of its inherent flaw but also because this matter will set a precedent. It must not be forgotten how the suicide of Rohith Vemula was politicised, used by anti-Hindu elements to villainise ‘upper caste’ groups, and Karnataka Congress is coming up with caste-discrimination laws in Rohith Vemula’s name, while the closure report filed by Telangana Police states that Rohith Vemula did not even belong to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. He was just using an SC certificate. The police concluded that he killed himself, fearing the exposure of his true caste identity.

In fact, advocate Disha Wadekar calls the day Rohith Vemula committed suicide “Shahadat Day”, suggesting that he was a ‘martyr’.

Disha Wadekar and her past shenanigans

Disha Wadekar is a Supreme Court lawyer with specialisation in personal law, caste discrimination, and anti-discrimination jurisprudence. She obtained her law degree from Columbia Law School in the US and is a co-founder of the Centre for Equity, Diversity and Equality (CEDE).

Unsurprisingly, Wadekar harbours deep disdain for the Brahmin community, as evident from her social posts. In one such post, she wrote, “Satyashodhak Jotiba Phule’s rationality and logic could make the Brahmin’s onions cry!”

In a post insinuating that Hinduism, the faith of the majority community of India, is oppressive, Wadekar wrote, “Not many know this- 51 years after Babasaheb’s revolutionary embrace of Buddhism, in May 2007, close to 25 thousand Nomadic and Denotified Tribals embraced Buddhism by reciting the 22 vows at Mumbai’s Mahalakshmi Racecourse. My family was amongst the many Pardhi, Kaikadi, Dombari… Mariaaiwale, Gondhali, Kadaklakshmiwale, Vasudev, Dawri Gosavi, Madari, Aswalwale, Waghri families who decided to break free from the shackles of Hinduism.”

Disha Wadekar is also a fan of urban naxal GN Saibaba, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Gadchiroli sessions court in 2017 for waging war against India for his Maoist links and involvement in anti-national activities. He was convicted under sections 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA. G N Saibaba was first arrested in May 2014 on charges of being a member of the banned CPI-Maoists, plus providing logistics and carrying out recruitment for them.

Wadekar has earlier tried to bring in her ‘caste’ narrative even in the martyrdom of the soldiers of the Indian Army, and highlighted an article in the Caravan magazine on the “caste composition of the foot soldiers who die at the front”.

It must be recalled that the CRPF had strongly criticised the disgraceful caste-composition analysis of the martyrs of the 2019 Pulwama Islamic terror attack. CRPF chief Moses Dhinakaran had said that Jawans of the army are only “Indians” and that any caste, colour, and religion divide is non-existent in the Army.

Notably, Disha Wadekar is also opposed to the reservation given to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) group, arguing that it is nothing but an “upper caste reservation”.

Naseeruddin Shah’s ‘disinvitation’ drama: How the actor turned an Urdu event snub into a political polemic

Jinit Jain
-
0
Naseeruddin Shah’s ‘disinvitation’ drama: How the actor turned an Urdu event snub into a political polemic

Naseeruddin Shah’s recent op-ed, published in the Indian Express, triggered by his alleged “disinvitation” from a Mumbai University Urdu Department event, is less a statement of fact and more a familiar performance of grievance politics. The actor claims he was first invited to Jashn-e-Urdu on February 1 and then informed a day before that his presence was no longer required. He further says no official explanation was offered and that the organisers publicly suggested he had declined the invitation himself, a claim he disputes.

Up to this point, the matter is straightforward: an invitation was issued, later withdrawn, and the communication around that reversal was, at best, clumsy and opaque. That is the sum total of what is actually known. Everything else in Shah’s op-ed is inference, speculation, and political colouring.

It is also hard to miss the irony: Shah is casting himself as a victim of “intolerance” for being disinvited from an event meant to commemorate Urdu, a language and literary tradition that has, for centuries, thrived in India’s plural cultural space. If anything, the very existence of such a university event undercuts the sweeping civilisational gloom he tries to paint. Yet he presents this episode not as an administrative lapse or institutional muddle, but as proof of a broader ideological crackdown.

In his defence, Shah claims a very senior university official reportedly told him that he openly makes comments against India but such unverified random remarks cannot be taken as the University’s official stance to what Shah describes as ‘disinvitation’ for the Urdu event.

Instead of seeking a formal clarification from the university or placing the correspondence in the public domain, Shah chose to leap straight to motive. He framed the episode as an act of ideological retaliation, attributing it to his “sharp political views” and to what he described as a climate of “rising intolerance.” In doing so, he converted an administrative or organisational decision, about which no confirmed reason is on record, into a morality play with himself cast as the silenced dissenter.

This is precisely where Shah’s argument weakens. There is, at present, no public evidence establishing why the invitation was withdrawn. Universities cancel speakers for a host of reasons: scheduling conflicts, internal disagreements, funding issues, pressure from multiple sides, or simple bureaucratic dysfunction. None of these possibilities is flattering, but neither do they automatically amount to ideological censorship. By skipping the basic step of demanding a clear explanation and instead publishing an op-ed that imputes political motives, Shah replaces inquiry with insinuation.

In his column, he goes further, rehearsing a familiar catalogue of complaints about the current political climate, the Prime Minister, “thought police,” “doublespeak,” and a country supposedly unrecognisable from the one he grew up in. None of this, however, establishes that Mumbai University disinvited him for these reasons. It merely uses the incident as a springboard to restate his long-standing political positions and to reinforce a narrative of personal and community victimhood.

This pattern is not new. Shah has, for years, positioned himself as a cultural dissenter against what he sees as a majoritarian, nationalist turn in public life. He has repeatedly attacked films like The Kashmir Files and The Kerala Story as propaganda and a “dangerous trend,” even invoking Nazi Germany to describe the popularity of such cinema. He has also blamed audiences for not supporting filmmakers he considers ideologically aligned with his own worldview. In other words, he is not a neutral commentator suddenly shocked by intolerance; he is an active participant in a deeply polarised cultural debate.

That context matters because it explains why his op-ed reads less like a careful account of an administrative slight and more like a political manifesto built around a personal grievance. The episode becomes useful not as a question to be resolved but as a prop to reinforce a broader ideological narrative: that dissenting voices (of a particular kind) are being systematically squeezed out, and that Muslims and liberal critics are uniquely imperilled.

The irony deepens when one recalls that Shah himself has, in the past, been dismissive of very real threats when they did not fit his preferred narrative. His comments downplaying the danger posed to Nupur Sharma by Islamist threats, later grotesquely contradicted by the Udaipur beheading of Kanhaiya Lal, stand as a stark reminder that his moral alarm system is highly selective. When violence or intimidation comes from quarters he is reluctant to confront, the threats become “hollow.” When he faces an unexplained professional setback, it is immediately elevated into proof of systemic persecution.

None of this is to say that disinviting a speaker at the last minute without a clear explanation is acceptable. It isn’t. Institutions owe invitees transparency and basic professional courtesy. But there is a difference between demanding accountability and constructing a political narrative in the absence of evidence. Shah chose the latter.

If the actor genuinely wanted the truth, the obvious course was to seek a written explanation from the university and make that public. If the reason turned out to be political pressure or ideological vetting, the case would be far stronger and far more damaging to the institution involved. By pre-emptively assigning motive and publishing a polemic instead, Shah ensured that the episode would generate heat rather than light.

In the end, this controversy says less about Mumbai University, whose decision-making remains unexplained, and more about Shah’s reflex to interpret every personal slight through the lens of ideological victimhood. Conjecture is not evidence. And grievance, however eloquently written, is not a substitute for facts.

1...113114115...7,649Page 114 of 7,649