The Supreme Court, on Tuesday (18th November), overturned its earlier judgment passed on 16th May, which declared the grant of ex-post facto or retrospective Environmental Clearances (ECs) by the Centre to building projects and constructions a “gross illegality” and an “anathema”. In the impugned judgment, the Apex Court had directed the demolition of public projects worth ₹20,000 crore, which had received ex-post facto ECs after paying a penalty. The projects included AIIMS in Odisha, a greenfield airport in Karnataka, and a huge effluent treatment plant.
The review order of a bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Ujjal Bhuyan, with a 2:1 majority, was delivered in a review petition filed by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI) seeking recall of the previous Supreme Court verdict. The impugned order annulled a notification, dated March 14, 2017, issued by the then Ministry of Environment and Forest (now the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change), which provided for ex-post facto ECs.
Demolition of public projects would cause hardships
The petitioner contentioned, inter alia, that the judgment would result in extreme hardships, including shutting down and demolition of already completed and operational infrastructural projects. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Steel Authority of India (Union Government), submitted before the Apex Court the details of central projects worth Rs 8,293 crore and another 29 projects worth Rs 11,169 crore in states, which have already received EIA (environmental impact assessment) clearance, are lagging due to a lack of final EC. He added that if these projects are demolished, it would have a devastating impact on public interest and the exchequer.
Demolition of large buildings will add to pollution and loss of public money: CJI Gavai
To arrive at the decision, CJI Gavai examined the question, “Whether it would be in the public interest to demolish all such projects and permit the money spent from the pocket of the public exchequer to go in the dustbin?” CJI Gavai allowed the petition, noting that it the earlier judgment of the court is not recalled, it will lead to the demolition of various buildings/projects constructed out of public exchequer to the tune of nearly ₹20,000 crore. “If the judgment under review is not recalled, it will have serious consequences in terms of demolition of projects which are either completed or about to be completed soon and which are of vital public importance constructed out of the public exchequer… and thousands of crores of rupees would go to waste,” CJI Gavai remarked, adding that demolition of a large number of buildings would create more pollution.
He pointed out that the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court suffered from a contradiction, as on one hand it permitted mining companies to halt their operations, seek ex-post facto ECs and then resume operations after paying compensation, and on the other hand, it straightaway ordered the demolition of public projects that obtained ex-post facto ECs after paying adequate penalty. Concurring with the CJI’s opinion, Justice K Chandran observed that the judgment under review was per incuriam as it did not take into account the aspects of the power conferred under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EP Act) and the legal principles regarding an undertaking given in derogation of the statutory provisions.
Justice Bhuyan wrote a dissenting opinion, criticising the majority’s decision
Justice Bhuyan, who was part of the bench that delivered the impugned verdict, penned a strong and lengthy dissent. Criticising the majority opinion, Justice Bhuyan termed the review judgment as a “step in retrogression”. “It is unfortunate that a false narrative is being created, pitting the environment against development… Environmental law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto clearance. This is contrary to both the precautionary principle as well as the need for sustainable development,” Justice Bhuyan said.
I would like to painfully observe that the deadly Delhi smog reminds us everyday about the hazards of environmental pollution. Supreme Court, as the highest constitutional court of the country has the duty and obligation under the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder to safeguard the environment. It cannot be seen backtracking on the sound environmental jurisprudence that has evolved in this country, that too, on a review petition filed by persons who have shown scant regard for the rule of law,” he strongly remarked.
Each year, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) releases what it calls an “independent assessment” of global religious freedom. In practice, the report functions less like a neutral evaluation and more like a geopolitical cudgel, selectively deployed against nations that refuse to conform to the organisation’s ideological preferences or America’s fluctuating strategic priorities. India, a civilisational democracy of 1.4 billion people, has long been a favourite target.
Predictably, this year too, the USCIRF placed India under “Countries of Particular Concern” and even recommended a review of U.S. arms sales. The political motivations are transparent: Washington is displeased with India’s oil purchases from Russia, a position dripping with hypocrisy, considering the United States itself continues trade with Moscow. Into this environment arrives USCIRF’s 2025 report, a document remarkable not for insight, but for its distortions.
The most startling example is its description of the Ram Mandir consecration ceremony in Ayodhya. The report claims that PM Modi inaugurated a temple “built on the ruins of the Babri Masjid,” as if the event were an act of majoritarian triumphalism rather than the lawful culmination of a centuries-old dispute resolved by India’s Supreme Court.
This portrayal conveniently omits all archaeological and historical evidence that the Babri structure had been raised atop an earlier Hindu temple, a fact documented by the Archaeological Survey of India’s extensive excavations and corroborated by British-era records in the National Archives of India, which openly referred to the site as “Masjid-i-Janmasthan.” Even after Mughal encroachment, Hindus continued to worship at the spot, preserving its identity as Shri Ram’s birthplace.
The 2019 Supreme Court verdict, delivered after decades of hearings, weighed all evidence before awarding the land to the Hindu claimants. For USCIRF to insinuate wrongdoing in a ceremony conducted pursuant to that judgment amounts to a casual dismissal of India’s constitutional institutions. Is the organisation suggesting that a democratically elected government and a unanimous Supreme Court are incapable of adjudicating their own domestic disputes? Or does USCIRF believe it possesses superior civilisational and historical knowledge?
Whitewashing the Delhi riots: Turning extremists into peaceful protesters
The report next attempts to rewrite the events of the 2020 Delhi riots. It claims that Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Meeran Haider were imprisoned merely for “peacefully protesting” the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). This characterisation is not only false but fundamentally dishonest.
The violence that engulfed Delhi in February 2020, killing more than 50 people and injuring hundreds, was not a spontaneous outburst by peaceful demonstrators. It was a coordinated attack deliberately staged during a high-profile diplomatic visit to embarrass the Indian state. Umar Khalid has been identified as a key conspirator, with the chargesheet containing transcripts, mobilisation evidence, and testimonies revealing an organised plot.
Sharjeel Imam’s recorded speech calling for the blockade of the Siliguri Corridor, India’s vulnerable “Chicken Neck”, shows the secessionist impulse underlying his activism. To describe these men as benign protesters is to insult the victims of the riots and to reveal USCIRF’s eagerness to rehabilitate individuals whose actions fall far outside the realm of peaceful dissent.
The bulldozer lie: Distorting law enforcement as communal persecution
Equally misleading is USCIRF’s accusation that India “demolished Muslim-owned properties, including mosques, deemed illegal.” This framing is divorced from reality. Demolition drives across multiple states, from Delhi to Madhya Pradesh to Uttarakhand, targeted illegal encroachments constructed on public land, riverbeds, pavements and government-owned plots. These were not actions driven by faith or identity but by the need to enforce land-use norms and public safety.
In some instances, mosque committees themselves admitted that parts of certain structures were built on encroached land and even volunteered to remove them. The USCIRF narrative transforms routine civic enforcement into a communal conspiracy, conveniently ignoring the legal and administrative realities that apply uniformly regardless of religion.
Anti-conversion laws: USCIRF’s refusal to acknowledge ground realities
The report’s attack on anti-conversion laws reveals similar ideological rigidity. These laws, enacted by states from across the political spectrum, seek to curb fraudulent, coercive or inducement-based conversions, practices widely documented in FIRs and testimonies across several regions.
India’s anti-conversion laws do not prohibit voluntary change of faith; they regulate coercion, fraud and exploitation of vulnerable populations. Moreover, the federal structure of the Indian governmental model offers states to frame their own laws to deal with specific menaces, including the scourge of religious conversions, which have increased dramatically with the use of newer deceptive methods by missionaries to entrap unsuspecting and vulnerable sections of the society.
Yet USCIRF reduces this complex social phenomenon to an “anti-minority” campaign, choosing to ignore testimonies from victims of conversion rackets and the widespread concerns expressed by communities themselves. This signals a refusal to engage with India on its own lived social realities.
Cow protection: USCIRF’s willing blindness to cultural context
Its criticism of cow protection laws reflects the same unwillingness to acknowledge cultural context. The cow holds both civilisational and constitutional significance in India, with the Constitution’s Directive Principles calling for its protection. Just as Western societies regulate or forbid the consumption of culturally sensitive animals, whether horses, dogs, or whales, India’s cow protection laws are a reflection of long-standing societal ethos. But USCIRF’s ideological lens does not permit such nuance. Instead, it mechanically classifies these laws as expressions of majoritarian oppression, revealing more about its cultural incomprehension than about India.
A report driven by ideology, not evidence
The fundamental weakness of the 2025 USCIRF report lies not simply in its factual errors but in the worldview that shapes it. Year after year, the commission mirrors U.S. foreign-policy anxieties, criticising nations that assert strategic autonomy while overlooking rights violations by America’s favoured partners. Its analysis of India reads not like a neutral evaluation but like an ideological mandate drafted by activists who neither understand nor respect India’s pluralistic civilisation. It demands that India conform to American models of secularism, ignoring the reality that Indian secularism is premised on equal respect for all faiths, not forced invisibilisation of the majority.
What the report offers is not a survey of religious liberty but a political text wielded with increasing clumsiness. It attempts to delegitimise India’s courts, elected institutions, and law-enforcement mechanisms through selective outrage and motivated framing. In the name of protecting religious freedom, USCIRF ends up undermining the sovereignty and cultural rights of one of the most diverse democracies in the world.
How the 2024 and 2023 reports reveal USCIRF’s multi-year propaganda campaign
The 2025 report does not stand alone. It is the newest chapter in a multi-year pattern of targeted hostility, made evident in the 2024 and 2023 USCIRF and State Department reports.
The 2024 report followed the same formula. It claimed that India’s religious freedom was “deteriorating,” repeated allegations about hate speech during elections, and recycled the bulldozer, anti-conversion, and cow-slaughter narratives. It even recommended classifying India as a “Country of Particular Concern” and floated the idea of sanctions, precisely what the 2025 report now amplifies. India rejected that report in its entirety, stating that USCIRF was operating with a preconceived political agenda rather than a human-rights mandate.
India’s reaction to the 2023 report was even more explicit. In June 2024, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal condemned the document as “deeply biased,” “vote-bank driven,” and an exercise steeped in “misrepresentation, imputations and selective use of facts.” He pointed out that the report went so far as to question the validity of India’s constitutional provisions, laws, and even Supreme Court judgments, a level of overreach that no sovereign democracy can accept. Jaiswal also highlighted USCIRF’s hypocrisy in criticising India’s FCRA and foreign-funding norms when the United States itself enforces even stricter regulations.
He reminded Washington that while the U.S. lectures India on hate crimes and religious freedom, the Indian government has repeatedly documented racial attacks, temple vandalisation, hate crimes against Indian-origin citizens, and police excesses inside the United States itself, none of which USCIRF has ever meaningfully addressed. That silence speaks volumes.
Viewed together, the 2023, 2024 and 2025 reports demonstrate a consistent pattern. USCIRF relies on the same fringe activists, riot-accused individuals, separatist sympathisers, and Maoist-linked personalities as its “victims.” It repeats the same allegations with minimal variation year-to-year. It frames India’s legal and cultural landscape through an ideological lens imported from American academia. And it attempts to weaponise the CPC designation as a diplomatic tool rather than offer a nuanced or factual assessment.
The years-long campaign of vilifying India
The 2025 USCIRF report is not simply biased; it is the culmination of a years-long campaign to frame India as a violator of religious rights irrespective of evidence or judicial fact. When an organisation repeatedly recycles the same allegations, relies on discredited sources, ignores court verdicts, and disregards cultural context, the problem lies not in the country being assessed, but in the assessor.
USCIRF is not documenting religious freedom in India. It is manufacturing a narrative. And it’s credibility is as low as the IQ of a popular opposition leader in India.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, was hanged to death in 1979, and a hardcore Islamic fanatic military general, Zia-ul-Haq, took the reins of power into his hands. Fast forward to 2025, a redux of that dubious trial and execution tactic is playing out in Bangladesh, wherein a controversial tribunal has sentenced ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to death in absentia for ‘crimes against humanity’.
Hasina has been sentenced to death for allegedly masterminding the brutal state crackdown on last year’s student-led ‘July Uprising’ that toppled her 15-year rule. The crackdown on the protestors resulted in over 1,400 deaths. It must be noted that while the initial protests were indeed student-led, the movement was eventually hijacked by Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and other Islamist outfits.
The sham trial of Sheikh Hasina: A political farce
The International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), established under the interim government led by Mohammad Yunus, sentenced Sheikh Hasina and former Bangladesh Home Minister Assaduzaman Khan to death. While the ICT and Mohammad Yunus claimed that a fair trial would take place, it turned out to be a sham trial orchestrated by a rigged judicial system. The tribunal’s conduct throughout the trial and its absolutely biased verdict indicate that the entire trial was driven by political vengeance and the imperative of completely obliterating Sheikh Hasina and her political influence. Justice and accountability were the least of this tribunal’s concerns.
These are not mere sweeping allegations; rather, the legal proceedings in this case indicate that Sheikh Hasina’s trial was fundamentally flawed from its inception. There was a lack of basic due process. The trial bore the hallmark of a kangaroo court constituted only to dismantle political opposition.
Sheikh Hasina has been living in exile in India since her unceremonious ouster in August 2024. The former Bangladesh Prime Minister was tried without her presence or proper legal representation. The ICT rejected Hasina’s multiple requests for delays to allow her to appear, denying her the right to cross-examine witnesses or the presented evidence.
While the Yunus government did ask the Modi government in India to extradite Hasina to face the court in Bangladesh, India essentially denied such requests, given the obvious threat to Hasina’s life in her once-homeland and now a territory taken over by fundamentalists baying for her blood.
Sources close to Sheikh Hasina have described the evidence presented by the prosecution as “fake and fabricated”. It is being said that the evidence presented in the court against Hasina carried no forensic or documentary proof establishing her direct connection with the orders for using lethal force against the protestors. Several international human rights bodies have also raised questions over the impartiality of the tribunal.
Not to forget, the ICT, originally set up in the year 2009 to prosecute 1971 war crimes, was repurposed overnight by the Yunus-led unelected government to target and prosecute Awami League leaders, especially Sheikh Hasina.
The fact that the “International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh” is a sham, rigged body can be understood from the fact that Awami League leaders were exclusively put on trial for alleged human rights violations, only after the unelected Yunus government made sure that all senior judges and advocates who were not blatantly hostile to Sheikh Hasina were sacked.
The unelected Yunus government amended the laws to empower the ICT through executive fiat, as such amendments would otherwise have required parliamentary approval. The ICTA 2024 amendment expanded the scope and powers of the ICT ridiculously, as if the changes were being made only to tighten the noose around Sheikh Hasina’s neck.
In a nutshell, the “International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh” is neither impartial nor international in any way.
Bangladesh’s former Information Minister, Mohammad Ali Arafat, has dubbed the trial and the verdict against Sheikh Hasina “scripted” and a “sham”.
“This is a scripted, sham trial… The entire proceeding was controlled by Muhammad Yunus and his administration, he said, adding that Bangladesh has been taken over by Jihadists, including those from the Jamaat-e-Islami, led by Muhammad Yunus.
Meanwhile, Sheikh Hasina has also dismissed the trial and her conviction as a sham and also rejected the tribunal’s legitimacy.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan, Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh: Different timelines, similar trials
The farce of a trial against Sheikh Hasina bears a striking resemblance to the 1978 trial and execution (in 1979) of Pakistan’s Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto under the regime of military dictator General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Much like Sheikh Hasina in 2024, Bhutto, the founder of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), was ousted in a 1977 coup. Her ouster came amidst disputed elections.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was charged with orchestrating the assassination of a political rival, Ahmed Raza Kasuri. He was tried by the Lahore High Court, and the proceedings were riddled with irregularities.
The saga of Bhutto’s downfall began in 1977, when he was accused of committing fraud in the parliamentary elections. Protests erupted, and on 5th July 1977, military general Zia-ul-Haq spearheaded a coup and overthrew Bhutto.
In no time, General Zia imposed military rule, political activities were brought to a complete standstill, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was arrested. Just as in the case of Sheikh Hasina, Bhutto’s trial was marred with bias, restrictions and heavy influence of the Jihadist General Zia-ul-Haq. Most of Bhutto’s trial took place in secret sessions, further confirming that the proceedings were indeed unfair and were only a sham that eventually led to Bhutto’s judicial murder.
The only difference remains that Bangladesh’s Yunus pretends to be a tolerant and progressive leader, all while pandering to Islamists. Zia-ul-Haq, on the contrary, did not care to hide his Jihadist mindset behind any progressive-liberal veneer.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (Image via Dawn)
Bhutto’s unfair trial in the Lahore High Court went on, and he, along with four other accused, was convicted and sentenced to death. The PPP leader challenged the verdict in the Supreme Court. However, in an outrageous 4-3 decision delivered on 6th February 1978, the apex court of Pakistan upheld the death sentence. While then Chief Justice Anwarul Haq, Justice Nasim Hasan Shah, Justice Dorab Patel, and Justice Muhammad Afzal Cheema upheld the death sentence, the three dissenting judges, Justice Safdar Shah, Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain, and Justice Qaiser Khan, wanted to acquit Bhutto or at least commute the sentence.
It is said that the Supreme Court bench that upheld Bhutto’s death sentence was stacked with General Zia’s loyalists. Much like in Sheikh Hasina’s case of in-absentia farce, while Bhutto’s trial went on for months, the verdict was pre-decided. With all avenues of clemency exhausted as President General Zia-ul-Haq refused to intervene, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged to death at the Rawalpindi Central Jail on 4th April 1979.
Bhutto’s hanging remains one of the most controversial episodes in the judicial and political history of Pakistan. Many political leaders, human-rights groups, and Supreme Court judges have criticised the sheer lack of due process in Bhutto’s trial.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto being taken to Lahore High Court in 1978 (Image via The F.E. Chaudhary Gallery)
In March 2024, nearly four decades after Bhutto’s hanging, the Pakistani Supreme Court observed that the former Prime Minister did not receive a fair trial.
Announcing the unanimous during the hearing of case moved by then President Asif Ali Zardari in 2011 to revisit his father-in-law’s (Bhutto) conviction, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa said, “The proceedings of the trial by the Lahore High Court and the appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan do not meet the requirements of the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process enshrined in Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution and later guaranteed as a separate and fundamental right under Article 10A of the Constitution.”
While none of the Pakistani top leaders have ever had a truly secular mindset, which is also reflected in the anti-India and bigoted rhetoric, Bhutto was any day a better and progressive leader than Zia-ul-Haq.
Pakistan’s descent into Islamic fanaticism under Zia-ul-Haq
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s departure marked the onset of General Zia’s full-throttle Islamisation of Pakistan. He pivoted Pakistan from a fragile democracy to an Islamic theocratic-militarist state that sowed the seeds of Islamic extremism that continues to hold the South Asian nation in its clutches.
Whatever secular element was left in the Pakistani law was erased as General Zia introduced Federal Shariat Courts in the year 1980 to enforce Islamic law.
In 1979, Zia-ul-Haq enacted the Hudood Ordinances, a set of laws which not only criminalised adultery, theft, and alcohol but also imposed punishments as per the Islamic Sharia, including whipping, amputation, and stoning. One of the most controversial of these ordinances was the Offence of Zina Ordinance. This ordinance criminalised sex outside marriage, disproportionately targeting women and non-Muslims. These laws made it difficult for women, especially rape victims, to seek justice as the burden of proof required four Islamic religious witnesses for a charge of rape to be filed against the accused.
General Zia-ul-Haq during a rally Peshawar 1978 (Image via Wikimedia Commons)
Instead of delivering justice to the victim, these laws resulted in the prosecution of rape victims for ‘Zina’ or unlawful sex. While in 2006, some amendments were made to this law, its core outrageous and discriminatory provisions remain unchanged. In addition, Zia also brought Qisas and Diyat laws. Notably, as per Sharia, blood money or Diyya or Diyat is accepted by the victim’s family from the murderer in case the death was unintentional or accidental or if the deceased victim’s family decides to forgive the murderer and not seek retribution or Qiyas or Qisas. Zia introduced laws that valued women’s testimony and blood money compensation (diyat) at half that of a man.
To further Islamise Pakistan and ensure that any real or fabricated insult to Islam is met with the harshest punishment, under Zia’s regime, the blasphemy laws in Pakistan were expanded, carrying mandatory death penalties. The strengthening of the blasphemy laws has impacted Pakistan in such a way that decades after Zia-ul-Haq died, Islamic vigilante killings persist in the country, with Hindus and other non-Muslim communities, even some Muslim castes, being its victims.
Although Zulfikar Ali Bhutto backed the Operation Gibraltar in Kashmir and led Pakistan into the 1965 war, only to lose against India, Zia-ul-Haq played his role in the creation of an Islamic terrorism arc in the region that has benefitted Pakistan’s de facto rule, the Pakistan Army, while taking the lives of countless innocent people in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In his bid to consolidate power, Zia-ul-Haq funnelled American and Saudi aid via the CIA’s Operation Cyclone to the Afghan Mujahideen, radicalising the Pakistani people. Under his Islamisation program, Zia-ul-Haq widely promoted Deobandi madarsas, with reports saying that such radical madarsas exploded from around 900 in 1971 to 8,000 by 1988. These madarsas had one objective: to indoctrinate Pakistanis with fundamentalist Wahhabi-Salafi Islamic ideology. Zia-ul-Haq essentially turned Pakistan into the staging ground, recruitment centre, training hub and arms conduit for the anti-Soviet Jihad that went on for a decade from 1979 to 1989.
With over $10 billion in US and Saudi money, the ISI under Zia-ul-Haq formed the deadliest Islamic Jihadi infrastructure in the world.
General Zia’s Islamisation project eventually contributed to the birth of the Taliban and al-Qaeda networks that continue to carry out terrorist attacks on non-Muslims. Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamic fanaticism and its application as state policy pushed Pakistan into a spiral of military coups and dominance, terrorism and sectarian violence. His push for establishing Sunni orthodoxy led to the creation of several Sunni violent outfits like Sipah-e—Sahaba, which carried out terror attacks and killings of Shias.
In fact, a faction of the Islamic terrorist entities created, fostered and harboured by the Pakistani military regime since Zia’s tenure has become a Frankenstein’s monster harming its very creators. The very Islamic terror groups Pakistan created, funded, shielded and used against India have gone out of the Pakistani military’s control. The situation has reached a point where the Pakistani military and its puppet government call these terrorists ‘Fitna-al-Khawarij’, ‘Fitna al Hind’, Afghani terrorists and whatnot to pin the blame on foreign entities, while in reality, these ‘demons’ are the Pakistani military establishment’s own creation.
General Zia’s ambition of coalescing Islamism into the core of Pakistani society’s consciousness was not confined to erecting madrasas, recruiting and arming Jihadis. The entire education system of Pakistan was turned into a Jihadi extremism factory. The Zia regime got textbooks rewritten to glorify Islamic Jihad, portray Hindus and India as eternal enemies, and his military rule as ‘divine obligation’. With little changes here and there, Pakistan continues to teach distorted history and Islamic extremism to produce generations radicalised from childhood. Anyone who calls out this systemic radicalisation there is deemed as someone ‘not Muslim enough’, ‘enemy of Islam’ and whatnot.
This is the opprobrious legacy Zia-ul-Haq left. The damage done by General Zia continues to drag Pakistan deeper into the abyss of extremism and anarchy. In Pakistan, the civilian government, elected government and terms like democracy are nothing but a farce. Elections continue to be rigged, political parties continue to require the Army’s blessing and backing to come, and most importantly, stay in power. Any deviance from the Army-prescribed agenda results in ouster from power, jailing, and even killing of the elected or selected leaders.
PTI’s Imran Khan remains a prime example of this. He won the elections, had the Army’s support initially, but his attempts at curbing military dominance in governance and policymaking led to his abrupt ouster from power. Khan landed in jail and continues to languish there while a military-backed puppet regime has been installed.
In fact, a new Zia-ul-Haq is emerging in Pakistan, the self-appointed madarsa-bred ‘Field Marshal’ Asim Munir. While violence, bombings have always been a ‘normal’ in Pakistan, such is the dominance of the army that despite thousands of soldiers killed in various attacks by TTP and Baloch freedom fighters, among other militant groups, as well as a humiliation at the hands of Indian Armed Forces during the Operation Sindoor in May this year, Asim Munir appointed himself as ‘Field Marshal’. Not only this, Munir has, through the puppet government led by Shehbaz Sharif has also secured constitutional amendments to ensure his grip on power remains tight till he breathes his last.
After Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan is once again falling into the hands of an Islamic fanatic military dictator, Asim Munir, whose Islamic extremist rhetoric, particularly his vitriolic speeches against India and Hindus, echoes the jihadist mindset of the previous military dictators.
While Pakistan never had a secular leader, it was always about lesser extremist verses more extremist. Even Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, despite being a leftist-socialist, was no saint. Bhutto in his UNSC speech of 1965, declared that Pakistan would “wage a thousand-year war” against India. Bhutto’s successor, military dictator and the reason behind his death, Zia-ul-Haq, was no different. General Zia only took forward Bhutto’s ambition in a more aggressive fashion and vowed to “bleed India with a thousand cuts”.
Be it socialist Bhutto or military dictators Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, Pervez Musharraf or now the dictator-in-the-making, Asim Munir, all have been equally hateful towards India while the degree of their Islamic fanaticism varied.
The byproduct of having hatred and religious fanaticism as state policy has been the economic downslide of Pakistan. The country is surviving on loans from the IMF and foreign countries. Pakistan has not seen political stability for many years. And now, Bangladesh is heading in the same direction.
Bangladesh heading the Pakistan way
Bangladesh, which came into existence in 1971 with India’s military support against Pakistan’s oppressive rule, is rapidly becoming the very menace it fought against and freed itself from. Just as it was in the case of Zia’s 1977 putsch against Bhutto, Sheikh Hasina’s ouster empowered Islamists overnight. In Pakistan, religious minorities and sects within the Muslim community not deemed ‘Muslim enough’ by Sunni hardliners became victims of Zia’s Islamisation project. In Bangladesh, Hindus and other religious minorities became the first casualty in the student protest-turned-Islamist-takeover-mission.
Bangladesh is witnessing a drastic rise in Islamism and anti-India sentiment after Yunus came to power. He first revoked the ban on the radical Islamist outfit ‘Jamaat-e-Islami’, which was involved in leading the anti-Hindu pogrom after Sheikh Hasina’s ouster last year. Thereafter, he released the leader of the radical outfit ‘Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT)’, Muhammad Jasimuddin Rahmani.
At the same time, Muhammad Yunus downplayed the targeted attacks on the Hindu community by violent Muslim mobs. He has gone on record, from lamenting about attacks on Hindus to saying that the claims of atrocities are ‘exaggerated‘.
In that way, the controversial US asset was able to placate Islamic extremists. Given that the Awami League was against Islamism, the interim government first banned its student wing, ‘Chhatra League,’ and then the parent party.
Under the watch of Muhammad Yunus, Bangladesh saw a drastic rise in vigilante Muslim mobs or Tawhidi Janta, which unleashed violence under the pretext of protecting the tenets of Islam.
The Yunus regime introduced new textbooks for primary and secondary students, which falsely claimed that the first declaration of independence of Bangladesh was made by Ziaur Rehman (a favourite icon of Muslim hardliners in Bangladesh).
Islamist leaders and ex-army officials like Fazlur Rahman publicly made anti-India remarks, with some even daydreaming about capturing India’s northeast states. Similarly, an ‘adviser’ to the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government of Bangladesh named Mahfuz Alam had threatened to capture India on the occasion of Vijay Diwas on 16th December 2024.
To appease Islamists, the Yunus regime stopped the recruitment of music teachers in government primary schools. In November this year, the Yunus regime scrapped the posts of assistant teachers for music and physical education in primary schools. This came after Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami leader Mia Golam Parwar had lashed out at the decision to recruit music and dance teachers. He dubbed it ‘completely unacceptable’ and ‘a suicidal move for the nation’. Islami Andolon Bangladesh (IAB), Hefazat-e-Islam and Khelafat Majlish, among Islamic extremist outfits, also declared music as ‘un-Islamic’ and threatened to unleash violence and chaos.
In July this year, the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government issued an ordinance plunging Bangladesh into authoritarianism. The ordinance eliminated the right of employees to protest against the government. He also issued a notice stifling criticism of his regime by students and educational institutions.
The descent of Bangladesh under Yunus into the swamp of Islamism is multi-faceted. Besides empowering Islamists, antagonising its oldest friend and protector, India, the Yunus regime is leaving no stone unturned to push the Islamist agenda in all institutions of the country. In this vein, the ‘Bangladesh Bank’ gave a farman (diktat) barring female employees from wearing ‘short dresses’, ‘short sleeves’ and ‘leggings’ in July this year. The directive by the Central Bank of Bangladesh also recommended that women wear headscarves and hijab. Earlier, Islamists had unleashed havoc on university teachers in Bangladesh by labelling them as ‘anti-hijab.’
In July 2025, an Islamic outfit named ‘Jamaat-Char Monai’ announced its plans to turn Bangladesh into a Sharia-compliant nation like Afghanistan.
In April this year, Muslims belonging to the radical outfit ‘Hefazat-e-Islam’ hung the effigy of a woman, stripped and defiled it with shoes to demand the abolishment of the Women Affairs Reform Commission in Bangladesh.
Previously, OpIndia had reported on the alarming rise of rape cases in Bangladesh under the watch of Muhammad Yunus. In the meantime, Islamists who committed heinous crimes against women were freed by the top court of the country.
While Bangladesh was no ‘utopia’ under Sheikh Hasina’s rule, the country was witnessing economic growth, improved standard of living, had political stability and good relations with neighbouring countries. Bangladesh’s textile industry was booming, and infrastructure projects were taking shape of reality; however, Sheikh Hasina also sparked criticism for centralising power.
And, now with Hasina gone, the country, instead of witnessing the restoration of democracy in its truest form, considering the anti-Hasina agitators dubbed her a ‘dictator’, is grappling with an economic slump. The inflation is over 8% and food prices are surging dramatically. Reduced investment, shrinking revenue, empty markets and skyrocketing inflation are the present reality of the ‘post-revolution’ Bangladesh under the Yunus regime.
As per the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates, Bangladesh’s GDP growth has slumped from 4.2% in the fiscal year 2024 to 3.7% in the FY2025. Bangladesh grapples with low tax collection, banks lacking capital and slowed economic reforms.
Beyond the economic front, unlike Muhammad Yunus, who is mollycoddling Pakistan despite the latter’s outright refusal to apologise for the horrific atrocities the Pakistani Army committed against Bengalis before 1971, Sheikh Hasina never rushed to embrace her people’s oppressors.
While the Yunus regime is busy erasing the contributions and legacy of ‘Bangbandhu’ Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and India’s decisive role in Bangladesh’s liberation, Hasina acknowledged India’s military help against Pakistani oppressors, and also resolved several of the Indo-Bangladesh issues amicably through dialogue. Unlike Yunus, who downplays anti-Hindu violence and dismisses criticism as ‘India’s propaganda’, Sheikh Hasina tried to keep Islamic extremism and violence against minorities in check.
Apparently, Muhammad Yunus is trying to pull off a ‘Zia-ul-Haq’ playbook before the elections in Bangladesh. Although by banning Hasina’s Awami League from contesting elections, Yunus had already done half the work. In only a few months long rule, the Yunus regime is erasing the legacy of Mujibur Rehman, the leader of Bangladesh’s liberation movement and Sheikh Hasina’s father, destroying the secular fabric of the country, dismantling Hasina’s party Awami League and antagonising traditional allies like India.
The parallels between the sham trials of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Hasina
While decades separate Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Sheikh Hasina, there are parallels in their cases. Both reached the pinnacle of power and popularity in their respective countries, and both ended up getting accused of centralising authority. Both faced allegations of electoral fraud and dictatorial conduct by the opposition. Both of them were abruptly and forcibly removed from power, and their departure plunged their countries into the jaws of Islamist fanatics and triggered chaos.
Both Bhutto and Hasina faced legal proceedings marred by political vendetta and bias. Both received death sentences, and their countries underwent coup-fuelled Islamisation. In both cases, the judiciary was weaponised. The adversaries of both Bhutto and Hasina used courts and special tribunals for sham trials to end their political careers and even their lives.
However, there are also differences in the situations of Bhutto and Hasina. Firstly, the nature of charges brought up against them differs. While Bhutto was arrested and tried before the court physically, Sheikh Hasina was forced to flee her country on 5th August 2025 and was thus prosecuted in absentia. Bhutto was hanged to death in 1979 after all avenues of clemency were exhausted. Hasina, on the contrary, resides in India under the protection of the Indian government. It is highly unlikely that the Modi government would extradite Sheikh Hasina to Bangladesh. The India factor remains decisive in Hasina’s case.
Interestingly, the public perception about Bhutto and Hasina also varies. While Bhutto eventually was elevated to the status of a martyr of military justice, or rather injustice, Hasina, other than her loyal support base, is subjected to criticism by her country now under the heavy influence of Islamists. It remains to be seen how Sheikh Hasina, who once led Bangladesh’s economic turnaround, will engineer her political resurrection.
On 18th November (local time), Texas Governor Greg Abbott officially designated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation and a Transnational Criminal Organisation under state law. The proclamation lists CAIR alongside the Muslim Brotherhood, which Abbott identified as its “successor organisation”. Following the designation, both groups have now been restricted from acquiring land in Texas. It has opened the door to enhanced civil and criminal penalties for anyone aiding their activities.
Source: X
What the proclamation says
The order outlined the history and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and described it as a transnational Islamist movement founded on calls for armed jihad and the establishment of a global Caliphate empowered to enforce Sharia law. Abbott cited both early doctrinal statements by founder Hassan al-Banna and later declarations by Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie to establish continuity in its objectives. He also pointed to the international footprint of Brotherhood-linked groups, including Hamas, which originated as its Palestinian branch.
Then, the proclamation talked about CAIR and positioned it as part of a US-based network of the Muslim Brotherhood. Abbott provided references to federal investigations, legal findings of the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing case, and academic research that linked CAIR to Hamas and its broader support structure.
It mentioned that in 2008, the FBI cut formal ties with CAIR and the Biden administration distanced itself from the group by removing references to CAIR from certain federal documents in 2023.
The most extensive section of the proclamation details individuals tied to CAIR who were later prosecuted or exposed for terrorism-related activities. Abbott used these cases to argue that CAIR’s organisational ecosystem is not merely ideological but operationally connected to extremist networks.
Individuals linked to CAIR cited in the proclamation
The proclamation listed a series of individuals who served in CAIR’s leadership, staff, or fundraising network. These persons were later convicted or implicated in terror-related offences. Abbott stated that there is evidence of a long-standing pattern of CAIR employing or elevating people with active links to terror outfits.
The proclamation listed one of the most prominent names in the CAIR circle, Ghassan Elashi. He is a founding board member of CAIR’s Texas chapter and Treasurer of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. He was convicted in 2009 for financial terrorism and sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison.
Another name included in the list is that of Abdurahman Alamoudi. He spoke at a CAIR-sponsored anti-Israel rally and publicly described himself as a supporter of Hamas and Hizballah. He was convicted of funding Al Qaeda.
The third name in the list was that of Randall Todd Royer, who is a former CAIR communications specialist and civil-rights coordinator. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2004 for conspiring to aid both Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
The next name in the list was that of Bassem Khafagi, who is a former community relations director at CAIR. He pleaded guilty in 2003 to federal bank and visa fraud after funnelling money to extremist causes and publishing material that advocated suicide attacks against the United States.
Furthermore, the list named Rabih Haddad, who was a CAIR fundraiser. He was arrested and later deported for his role in the Global Relief Foundation, which is an organisation shut down by the US Treasury Department in 2002 for financing Al Qaeda.
The proclamation then referred to Muthanna al-Hanooti, a Michigan-based CAIR director, who was convicted in 2011 for violating US sanctions by accepting two million barrels of Iraqi oil in exchange for assisting Saddam Hussein’s government.
Another significant name is Sami Al-Arian, a convicted terrorist and financier of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), whom CAIR honoured with its “Promoting Justice Award” in 2014. CAIR later featured him in a 2020 lecture where he urged support for the organisation.
Finally, the proclamation cited Nihad Awad, CAIR’s long-time Executive Director, who publicly praised Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack on Israel, saying he “was happy to see” it.
In response, CAIR threatened to sue Greg Abbott and called him an “Israel First politician” who has spent “months stoking anti-Muslim hysteria to smear American Muslims” who are critical of the Israeli government.
Source: X
CAIR and its anti-India propaganda
CAIR is an Islamist group that has spoken against India and Hindus on several occasions. It is noteworthy that CAIR has links with the terrorist organization Hamas. The organization has been vehemently pushing Hinduphobia and anti-Hindu propaganda in India. Previously, CAIR extended support for the extremely Hinduphobic ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva‘ conference.
In January 2022, CAIR launched Hinduphobic propaganda based on a report by alleged journalist Rana Ayyub. In a press release, CAIR demanded the movie theatres not to release Sooryavanshi, a Hindi movie. In the press release, CAIR alleged the movie spreads “disgusting and dangerous” anti-Muslim propaganda inspired by the fascist Hindutva movement.” The organization has also called for the release of 49-year-old Pakistani terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who is currently serving 86 years in prison for attacking US Army and FBI personnel in Afghanistan.
In the same year, CAIR released a report titled “Still Suspect: The Impact of Structural Islamophobia”, in which it said that there has been a rise in discrimination against Muslims living in the United States.
The CAIR, in its report, claimed that it had received 6,720 complaints nationwide last year involving a range of issues, including immigration, travel discrimination, law enforcement, government overreach, hate and bias incidents, custody rights, school incidents, and free speech incidents.
The CAIR claimed that government discrimination and bias continue to have a disproportionate effect on American Muslims and further demonstrate that our communities continue to be viewed with suspicion. The report also listed the impacts of severe structural and interpersonal Islamophobia in the United States.
Ironically, CAIR, which always complains about alleged Islamophobia in the United States, has been aggressively promoting Hinduphobia and anti-Hindu propaganda in India. We are aware of how CAIR had extended support for the extremely Hinduphobic ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva‘ conference.
Not only this, but in December 2022, CAIR had reportedly taken offence at the display of the names of the LeT terrorists and scenes from the deadly 26/11 terror attack that was displayed on a mobile billboard truck in New Jersey. While calling the movement of the vehicle ‘deliberate and well co-ordinated’, CAIR criticised the broadcast of 26/11 footage as ‘messages of hate.’ This was despite the fact that the mobile billboard truck did not display anything contentious but the truth.
The organization has also called for the release of 49-year-old Pakistani terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who is currently serving 86 years in prison for attacking US Army and FBI personnel in Afghanistan.
Interestingly, when Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, went to the US in June 2023, he was seen sitting in a discussion with Sunita Vishwanath, co-founder of HfHR, a radical Hinduphobic organisation that falsely claims to represent Hindus in the US. Sunita is known for hosting events for the likes of CAIR and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).
Furthermore, Gandhi had also met anti-India US lawmaker Ilhan Omar during his 2024 visit. Omar is a rabid Islamist. She hails Islamic regimes. She beats the drum of false Muslim victimhood and brands any action against Muslim criminals in secular nations as ‘Islamophobia’. She avoids criticizing even the most heinous acts of terrorism but hurriedly cries ‘Islamophobia’ when it suits her Islamist cause.
She is infamous for trivialising the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York as “some people did something”. While addressing the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in 2019. She has stated that just because “some people did something” (9/11), Muslims have started to lose civil rights in the USA.
The Islamic organisation and its link with Islamic terror outfit Hamas
It is noteworthy that CAIR has links with the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist terror organisation Hamas. Hamas has a long history of violating human rights. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organisation by several countries including The European Union, the United States, Canada, Israel, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom etc.
The emergence of a video featuring Red Fort suicide bomber Dr Umar un Nabi, speaking calmly about the philosophy and mechanics of suicide attacks, once again drags the global conversation to a truth that the world’s opinion-makers have spent decades avoiding.
Terrorism today, whether in the crowded streets of Delhi or the war-torn alleys of Gaza, whether in Paris, Kabul, or Baghdad, is not a random explosion of violence but a doctrinally driven, scripturally sanctioned, theologically justified, and institutionally manufactured phenomenon within popular strands of Islamic radicalism.
Yet, even as evidence piles up, a powerful intellectual ecosystem relentlessly attempts to gaslight the public, distort the discourse, and shield the ideological core of such violence from scrutiny. Instead, questions are raised on media for broadcasting such ‘poisonous rant’ and giving into ‘sensationalism’ to deflect attention from Islamism that turns both educated and the uneducated into a suicide bomber.
Dr Umar un Nabi’s video is chilling, not because of its shock value but because of its familiarity. He speaks like a man who has undergone years of ideological polishing. His words are not spontaneous or confused. They are methodical, structured, and anchored in a very popular form of jihadist jurisprudence, sanctioned by Islamic scriptures that ordain the faithful to annihilate non-believers, apostates, and atheists.
BIG: First video of Delhi Red Fort Suicide Bomber recorded ahead of the terror attack defending suicide attack as “martyrdom” as per Islam. This seems to be Jaish e Muhammad & Pakistan ISI’s desperate attempt for terror recruitment and motivate for terrorists in Kashmir valley. pic.twitter.com/4iu7fxqkwI
As he muses on the “mindset” required for suicide attacks, he echoes a long lineage of Islamist ideologues who have reformulated suicide, not as a prohibited act, but as a noble “martyrdom operation.” He directly cites suicide bombing as a “widely recognised practice within Islam,” referencing centuries of theological debates weaponised by extremist clerics to justify contemporary carnage.
This is crucial: the bomber does not see his act as a crime. He sees it as obedience. Obedience not to a terror outfit alone but to a doctrinal worldview that has for decades legitimised the killing of innocents as a path to heaven.
From Al-Qaeda to ISIS, from Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) to Hamas, suicide missions have never been framed as military strategies; they are framed as religious obligations. This is why radicalised men trained in Pakistani seminaries, Syrian camps, or Kashmir’s terror network all sound eerily similar. They draw from the same ideological reservoir.
A terror attack rooted in Islamist doctrine, not desperation
The Delhi suicide bombing on 10 November was not a desperate outburst by a disillusioned man. It was the output of a deeply entrenched infrastructure. Investigators uncovered that the module behind the attack involved white-collar professionals, including Kashmiri Muslim doctors trained in modern medicine yet indoctrinated into medieval theology. The inter-state JeM network orchestrating the operation had procured 2900 kilograms of explosives, pointing to long-term planning, logistical sophistication, and cross-border coordination.
Delhi’s Red Fort area was rocked by a blast on November 10, 2025 (Image Source: Times of India)
The scale of the plot is further illustrated by the tragedy that unfolded days later in Srinagar, where seized explosive material accidentally detonated at a police station, killing nine personnel and injuring dozens more. Again, this was not an isolated criminal enterprise. It was part of a continuous conveyor belt of Islamist radicalisation stretching from Pakistani handlers to Indian recruits, from digital indoctrination rooms to offline terror cells.
The ideological and operational linkages are too consistent, too repetitive, and too global to dismiss as a coincidence. These attacks all follow the same playbook because they have the same authors.
The Hamas blueprint: Terror upgrades its toolkit
Just when investigators were piecing together the details of the Delhi attack, the case took a darker turn. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) discovered that the module was not merely planning car bombs. It was studying and attempting to replicate Hamas’s drone tactics, most notably employed during the October 7 terror attack, where explosive-laden UAVs were used to overwhelm Israeli defence systems.
Israeli defence system Iron Dome intercepting drone attack by Hamas (Image Source: AFP)
The arrest of Jasir Bilal Wani, alias Danish, revealed how terror outfits in India were now blending jihadist motivation with technological adaptation. Danish was allegedly modifying commercially available drones to carry heavier explosive payloads, equipping them with larger batteries, and installing live-feed cameras to maximise precision. He also experimented with crude rockets, an unmistakable indication that the module was attempting to graduate from conventional explosives to aerial warfare.
This is a chilling reminder that modern terrorism is evolving from a low-tech insurgency to a hybrid form of doctrinal warfare combined with engineering innovation. Islamist groups have always been adept at adapting global technology, whether it was Al-Qaeda’s use of satellite phones in the 1990s, ISIS’s use of social media in the 2010s, or Hamas’s use of drones in 2023. Now Indian modules appear to be drawing from the same playbook.
The plan, according to investigators, was devastating in its simplicity: fly an explosive-laden drone over a densely populated part of Delhi and detonate it from above, ensuring maximum casualties. This would have marked one of India’s first mass-casualty drone attacks—and a direct importation of global jihadist tactics into Indian soil.
The intellectual gaslighting: Protect the ideology, attack the messenger
Whenever Islamist terror reveals its doctrinal foundation, a predictable pattern emerges in India’s secular–liberal discourse: denial, deflection, and moral posturing. Instead of confronting the ideology shaping such attacks, a segment of “intellectual Muslims” and their allies immediately shift their outrage toward the media, the police, or the political climate, anywhere except the ideology itself.
This was evident in the reaction of RJ Sayema, a well-known figure amongst Islamist circles, who launched a tirade not against the terrorist but against the news channels that aired the bomber’s video. She tweeted: “Why are mainstream news media sharing that chilling video of a terrorist! It’s so disturbing and triggering… This age of TRPs based on sensationalism is so disturbing! Absolutely condemnable.”
Why are mainstream news media sharing that chilling video of a terrorist! It’s so disturbing and triggering and I can’t imagine what the families of the victims would be going through, looking at it! This age of TRPs based on sensationalism is so disturbing! Absolutely…
The subtext was clear: If the public were to hear the terrorist openly citing Islamic justification for suicide bombing, the ideological foundation of jihadist violence would become impossible to deny. So the outrage was redirected, from the bomber to the broadcasters. The goal wasn’t to protect victims’ families; it was to shield the ideology from exposure.
Similarly, Vijaita Singh of The Hindu, tweeted: “Stop posting that suicide bomber’s video, all you are doing is amplifying his poisonous rant. #redfort”
Again, the concern wasn’t that the doctrine was poisonous, it was that the public might hear it, analyse it, and question its origins.
This selective outrage becomes even more absurd when juxtaposed with how the same individuals behave when the perpetrator is Hindu. In those cases, labels like “Hindu terrorism,” “Hindutva extremism,” and “saffron terror” are thrown around with breathtaking speed, often before investigations even conclude. Even when a crime has no religious motive, these commentators rush to generalise it as a reflection of Hindu majoritarian culture.
Yet when terrorists clearly cite Islamic scripture as inspiration, the same people suddenly preach restraint, accuse the media of sensationalism, and insist that ideology should not be blamed. Their vocabulary changes from “terrorist ideology” to “lone wolf.” Their tone changes from accusatory to apologetic. Their standards change entirely.
This is not an inconsistency. This is deliberate intellectual gaslighting.
The aim is to sanitise Islamist doctrine, protect communal vote-banks, and preserve the illusion that terrorism has no religious motivation, even when terrorists themselves confess otherwise. And by attacking media outlets, these intellectuals hope to create a climate where exposing jihadist indoctrination becomes socially risky and politically incorrect.
The core truth: Islamic theology is the cornerstone of modern-day terrorism
The bomber’s video, the drone-weaponisation plans, and the elite gaslighting that followed all point to a single inescapable reality: the world is fighting an ideology, not an isolated set of actors. The weapons may evolve, from car bombs to drones, but the fuel remains the same: Islamic theology, a doctrine that sanctions othering and dehumanisation of non-Muslims, glorifies death, rewards murder, and frames violence as a sacred duty.
Democracies cannot defeat this threat by policing weapons alone. They must confront the doctrine that mass-produces believers willing to use them. And they cannot confront that doctrine while being manipulated into silence by intellectual mercenaries who shield ideology under the guise of sensitivity and progressive politics.
The Red Fort attack was not merely a terror strike. It was a doctrine in motion. A technology in transition. And a narrative shield is in operation. The world will only begin to fight back effectively when it finally acknowledges all three.
The Bihar assembly election was one of the most unpredictable contests in recent years. Amid the traditional tug-of-war between the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and the Mahagathbandhan (MGB), a new entrant, Prashant Kishor’s Jan Suraaj Party (JSP), grabbed attention not by winning seats but by shaping outcomes in dozens of constituencies.
Jan Suraaj, founded by political strategist Prashant Kishor, entered the 2025 Bihar Assembly election promising clean governance, decentralised leadership and people-driven politics. But failed to translate its social media buzz into electoral success. Even though the party’s performance disappointed its followers, it offers insight into the difficulties of starting a political movement from scratch in India’s complex electoral environment. Even though the party’s performance disappointed its followers, it offers insight into the difficulties of launching a political movement from scratch in India’s complex electoral environment.
Where Jan Suraaj Contested and What Its Presence Actually Looked Like ?
Jan Suraaj’s entry into the 2025 Bihar Assembly election was wide in terms of seats but thin in terms of depth. The party fielded candidates across many constituencies, yet its vote share was uneven and scattered, lacking a concentrated base. Jan Suraaj contested 238 seats across Bihar but failed to open its account, securing zero seats while gaining 3.5% of the total vote share. In fact, the JSP received less than NOTA in about 60 seats, and its vote percentage was lower than that of Independents, who won about 5%. Even in the seats it contested, the pattern was inconsistent:
1. Some Jan Suraaj candidates received only symbolic support, barely registering in the final tally.
2. Some managed to pick up mid-level vote numbers, usually from non-aligned young voters or floating voters.
There was no constituency where Jan Suraaj emerged as a top-tier contender, nor did it secure dominant vote clusters in any region. Even the party came in second place in only one seat and third in 115 others, showing that it has some appeal, but not much strength anywhere in the state. It received 10,000–15,000 votes on 18 seats, 15,000–20,000 votes on 11 seats, 20,000–25,000 votes on three seats, 35,000–40,000 votes on two seats, and 58,000 votes on 1 seat, possibly because the NDA candidate’s nomination was rejected. Jan Suraaj was the default beneficiary in two of its top four candidate seats, where nominations for either the NDA or the Mahagathbandhan candidate were denied.
The larger electoral picture: A multi-cornered contest, not a three-way fight
Within the 36 constituencies where JSP’s vote count exceeded the final winning margin, there is a crucial distinction that defines the fundamental nature of its impact. Of these 36 seats, 10 were ultimately won by the same party that had won them in 2020, despite JSP polling more votes than the margin of victory. These seats show that JSP did not overturn the electoral outcome or shift the constituency’s political preferences. In the remaining 26 seats, a different story is portrayed simplistically. These seats saw a change in winner between 2020 and 2025, but the shift cannot be automatically linked to JSP alone.
While JSP’s vote count was higher than the margin in all of them, these contests were influenced by multiple factors, including the presence of stronger third-party players such as LJP, RLSP, AIMIM, and independents. Many of these seats had already become unstable due to local anti-incumbency, candidate switches, alliance breakups between elections, and shifting caste blocs. For example, in the 2020 election, the Sherghati constituency was won by RJD with a margin of 16690 votes over JDU, the runner-up. We also note that in the 2020 election, Chirag Paswan’s LJP was contesting alone in more than 100 seats and dented the NDA alliance.
In this seat, LJP had gained more than 24000 votes, but in the 2025 election, LJP was part of the NDA alliance and won the seat with more than 13000 votes, underscoring the importance of other parties.
Let’s take another example of the Cheria-Bariarpur constituency. In the 2020 election, RJD won this seat with more than 40000 votes, while LJP was the bigger factor, winning more than 25000 votes. But in this election, LJP was in the NDA; JDU Won that seat. Does that mean Jan Suraaj had no relevance? No, in some cases the winning party changed because the original 2020 winner lost ground on its own, and in others JSP was only one of several dividing forces that contributed to a close finish. Also, in some seats, it definitely dented the MGB parties’ support for the NDA.
Taken together, these 26 seats show change but not necessarily change driven solely by JSP. They illustrate that JSP acted as part of a wider pattern of vote fragmentation in Bihar. It contributed to tighter margins and added a layer of unpredictability, but a combination of different parties, local conditions, and competitive equations shaped the actual seat flips. Thus, while JSP’s vote share exceeded the winning margin in these 26 constituencies, the overall interpretation remains that JSP was one of the factors, not the factor, in determining how these seats shifted from their 2020 outcomes.
How PK’s campaign may have indirectly benefited the BJP?
While Jan Suraaj did not align with any alliance, one perceptible trend emerged across several constituencies: Prashant Kishor’s broad outreach and aggressive communication about Bihar’s governance issues unintentionally shaped voter psychology, potentially helping the BJP in certain areas. This influence was not through votes directly shifting to JSP but through the awareness environment created around the election.
PK’s campaign highlighted unemployment, migration, education gaps, and the failures of successive governments. However, for many voters, especially those who feared a potential return of what is commonly referred to as “Jungle Raj”, PK’s messaging did not translate into votes for Jan Suraaj. Instead, it amplified their sense that the election was entering a high-risk zone. This perception pushed many undecided, anti-RJD, and cautious voters to consolidate behind the BJP, which they viewed as the only strong counterweight to prevent an MGB resurgence.
This behavioural pattern emerged because:
1. Voters understood that a vote for Jan Suraaj would not change the government and might be “wasted” in a tight contest.
2. JSP did not look capable of defeating either NDA or MGB, so risk-averse voters chose the safer, more established alternative.
3. PK repeatedly attacked both alliances, but the fear of RJD’s past governance led many voters to interpret his criticism of JDU as a signal that only the BJP could stop MGB.
4. Anti-RJD voters became more alert due to PK’s state-wide padyatra narratives about systemic issues.
Conclusion
The numbers make one thing clear that Jan Suraaj did not emerge as a decisive political force in terms of winning seats, but its scattered vote share undeniably shaped the contours of the 2025 Bihar election. In 36 constituencies, JSP’s votes exceeded the winning margin yet only 10 of those seats kept the same winner from 2020, while the remaining 26 seats saw changes driven by a mix of JSP’s presence, stronger third parties like LJP and AIMIM, local anti-incumbency, and shifting caste alignments. At the same time, Prashant Kishor’s state-wide messaging created a heightened political awareness that, intentionally or not, pushed many risk-averse voters toward the BJP as a bulwark against the return of RJD-led governance.
In the end, the Bihar election was not decided by any one player but by a combination of tight margins, fragmented votes, and a political field more crowded than ever. Jan Suraaj did not change who governed Bihar, but it did change how competitive, unpredictable, and divided the race became and that influence, even without seats, is now part of the state’s electoral record.
On 18th November, security forces eliminated India’s most-wanted Naxal commander Madvi Hidma in an encounter in the Maredumilli forests of Alluri Sitharama Raju district of Andhra Pradesh. The security forces conducted an operation between 6 am and 7 am near the Chhattisgarh border. Hidma’s wife Raje and senior cadres including Chelluri Narayana and Tech Shankar were also killed in the encounter. According to officials, a group of Naxals led by Hidma was trying to flee Chhattisgarh when they were intercepted.
Top Maoist leader Hidma was killed in an encounter in the Maridmalli forest of East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh. His wife, Raji (R.A.J.), was also killed in the exchange of fire along with four others. In total, six Maoists were gunned down. These are the latest pictures… pic.twitter.com/Y19ps8PTlW
Hidma’s death is yet another decisive blow to the CPI (Maoist) in recent years. Home Minister Amit Shah has already stated several times that India will be free from Naxal extremism by March 2026. Notably, security agencies had set a deadline for Hidma’s capture by 30th November and he was eliminated just 12 days before.
A career defined by terror across Bastar
Hidma was a native of Purvathi in Sukma district of Chhattisgarh. He was one of the most feared and enigmatic Naxal commanders operating in the Dandakaranya region. Hidma was also known by aliases including Hidmalu and Santosh. He rose through the ranks over nearly two decades to become the head of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA) Battalion No 1, considered the Naxals’ most lethal strike unit.
Hidma was the youngest member of the CPI (Maoist) Central Committee and the only tribal from Bastar to reach that level. His rising influence earned him a cumulative bounty exceeding Rs 1 crore from central and state agencies.
Who was Madvi Hidma?
Hidma was born in 1981 in Purvathi village of Sukma district. He belonged to a poverty-stricken tribal community in south Bastar. As he rose through the ranks, Hidma became one of the most dreaded Naxal commanders in the country. In the late 1990s, he joined CPI (M). He was only a teenager and began as a ground-level organiser. Soon, he became an expert in guerrilla warfare and ambush operations.
While most of the top Naxal commanders chose to stay away from the fighting units, Hidma remained with such units and led ambushes himself most of the time. He gained the attention of the security agencies after the deadly 2010 Dantewada attack which marked him as the principal architect of Naxal violence in the region.
Hidma carried bounties worth over Rs 1 crore. However, he remained invisible to intelligence agencies. Earlier this year, a photograph finally surfaced. He continuously moved across forest areas and relied on dense jungle cover to remain hidden with his inner security ring of loyal cadres.
According to security agencies, Hidma was the central figure behind almost every major Naxal ambush in south Bastar. His involvement was confirmed in the 2010 Dantewada massacre that led to the deaths of 76 CRPF personnel, the 2013 Jhiram Valley attack that wiped out senior Congress leadership in Chhattisgarh, and the 2017 Sukma strike that left 26 CRPF personnel dead.
Hidma was also behind the Sukma-Bijapur ambush of 2021 where 22 security personnel lost their lives. His battalion operated with sophisticated weapons and manoeuvred through the rugged and little-charted Abujhmad forest belt.
He was also reportedly present at the site of the 2011 Tadmetla attack leading to the deaths of 75 CRPF personnel and assisted senior commander Papa Rao in planning the strike.
Why Hidma remained untraceable for years
According to the officials, Hidma had intimate understanding of the Abujhmad, Sukma and Bijapur forest corridors. Furthermore, his four-layered security ring made him nearly impossible to track. His unit was equipped with automatic rifles and was trained in guerrilla warfare. He consistently operated with extreme mobility, making him a headache for the security forces. His wife Raje was an active member of the same battalion and reportedly participated in several major attacks.
Thanks to Operation Kagar, Hidma’s security shield and ability to move freely across forest cover weakened. Security agencies ran coordinated operations across Chhattisgarh, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh that forced him to go deeper into the forests where his movements were eventually intercepted.
Speaking to the media, a senior Chhattisgarh Police officer said, “Hidma had acquired a heroic image among his cadres, and his elimination is a major step towards ending Naxal terror in the Bastar region.”
The state of the insurgency
According to Chhattisgarh Police IG Bastar P Sundarraj, the region witnessed decisive gains against the Naxal network. He said, “Left Wing Extremism has been a major security challenge for decades, but the past few years have been significant for security forces. In the last two seasons, over 450 Naxal bodies have been recovered, including those of top commanders like Basavaraju.”
He added that more than 300 cadres, including Central Committee and Divisional Committee members, have surrendered in recent months. Over 2,200 Naxals have joined the mainstream in the last 20 months.
Modi Government on path of ending Naxalism in India
According to reply received in response to an RTI filed by OpIndia, it was revealed that under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Left-Wing Extremism (LWE) has receded sharply across the “Red Corridor” over 11 years.
A reply to OpIndia’s RTI on Naxalism from the Left-Wing Extremism (LWE) Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, shows that Chhattisgarh recorded the highest LWE surrenders (6,153) and the highest LWE killings (1,129) among the ten tracked states from May 2014 to 30th September 2025.
The year 2016 registered the most surrenders (1,440), while 2025 (till 30th September) logged the most LWE killings (311), which indicates shrinking insurgent space and intensified, intelligence-led operations. Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah has publicly set March 2026 as the target to end the Naxal problem under Operation Kagar.
OpIndia received data on 10 states that are West Bengal, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Odisha, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. According to the data, a total of 8,751 Naxals have surrendered since May 2014 and 1,801 Naxals have been killed. A total of 548 security personnel have lost their lives during operations and 1,630 civilians have been killed during that period. Furthermore, security forces have recovered 5,277 arms from LWEs between May 2014 and 30th September 2025.
The figures align with the Centre’s policy shift to coordinate inter-state operations, development-led outreach and targeted rehabilitation, which reduced the conflict to limited pockets. In a recent statement, HM Shah mentioned that the Naxal movement has reduced to just three districts across the country.
On 16th November, Booth Level Officer (BLO) Aneesh George was found dead in his house. Aneesh, who was a 44-year-old school employee from Ettukudukka in Kannur, Kerala, was serving as BLO for ward no 18 during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state. The Payyannur Police has registered a case of unnatural death in the matter.
Before the basic facts of the investigation were even settled, a very specific storyline began to take shape on national televisions and digital platforms. The death was immediately presented as a direct consequence of “unbearable SIR workload” and the case was used to target the Election Commission of India and its ongoing revision of the electoral rolls.
Within the next 24 hours, what happened was not careful journalism but a textbook case of how a tragedy can be weaponised to malign an entire democratic exercise and to paint not only the Central Government but also the autonomous body that is the ECI in a bad light.
How national media framed the suicide as a SIR workload story
Several prominent media houses and journalists quickly cast Aneesh’s death as a result of SIR related workload. For instance, in its report, Times Now claimed that the BLO died by suicide as he was under “intense SIR related workload stress”. The report added that the district administration, in a later statement, said phone records showed no indication of work-related distress. That important nuance, however, was not what travelled widely on social media. It was the phrase “SIR related workload stress” that fit the emerging narrative.
A tragic incident has been reported from Kerala’s Kannur: BLO Aneesh has allegedly died by suicide. His family says he was under intense SIR-related workload stress.
In the latest update, the district administration has issued a statement saying 'no work-related distress was… pic.twitter.com/ZvYVbtF3vY
India Today aired a segment along the lines of “SIR pressure claims two lives; BLO suicides shake election roll revision”. The narrative was pushed by India Today’s anchor Rajdeep Sardesai who pushed the idea that the SIR exercise had turned deadly. In his own post, quoting the India Today report, he said “two alleged deaths by suicide and one suicide attempt of BLOs over SIR in three different states because of unrealistic targets and deadlines”, and accused the ECI of brushing the matter aside. He lamented that such stories were not seen on “prime time” where “noise and opposition bashing” supposedly dominated.
Get real India: 2 alleged deaths by suicide, one suicide attempt of BLOs over SIR in 3 diff states because of unrealistic targets and deadlines. Will @ECISVEEP as always brush it aside? Watch a story that you won’t find on prime time across so called news channels where noise and… https://t.co/z44f59PDQw
Digital portals followed the same script. The News Minute ran a news titled “BLO in Kerala dies by suicide, family alleges SIR work pressure”. They described SIR as the background and foreground of the tragedy. Selected parts of the family’s statements about stress were quoted to set the narrative.
Source: TNM
Dhanya Rajendran, founder of The News Minute, pushed the headline that a BLO in Kerala had died by suicide and that the family alleged SIR work pressure.
Source: X
In short, from television studios to digital newsrooms, the default conclusion was clear even while the probe had barely begun. The narrative was placed in the mind of the public that SIR killed the BLO.
What the administration actually said about workload and SIR
While social media debates raged, the district administration and the Chief Electoral Officer of Kerala issued statements that were not quite in line with the “SIR killed him” line.
The Chief Electoral Officer, Rathan U Kelkar, said no formal complaints about work pressure had been received from BLOs. He also stated that for a period of 31 days, BLOs were assigned only SIR duties so that there would normally be no question of additional workload. BLO duties, he added, were carried out in a team based manner and officers, including himself and district collectors, had joined field visits to support staff.
The Kannur district collector Arun K Vijayan pointed out that the information available so far from police and administrative enquiries did not establish a clear link between SIR duties and Aneesh’s death. In an official note, he clarified that Aneesh’s form distribution work was progressing satisfactorily. Out of 1,065 forms, Aneesh had already distributed 825, with 240 remaining, and when contacted on the morning of the incident he had said he would complete the work himself.
These are not stray WhatsApp forwards but formal observations from the authorities responsible for the very process that was being blamed. Yet, those statements did not receive the amount of the attention that the “SIR workload” tagline did.
The part many national outlets underplayed – allegation of CPM pressure
As the SIR story was getting traction on national platforms, another set of facts began to surface through local reporting and statements from the Congress in Kerala. In a press interaction, Martin George, District Congress Committee President of Kannur, released an audio clip of a phone conversation between Aneesh and a Congress Booth Level Agent (BLA).
According to Times of India and the New Indian Express reports, int the audio, Aneesh could be heard speaking about pressure from local CPM leaders regarding how he carried out door to door work during the SIR exercise. Notably, in an earlier report, The New Indian Express had also cited SIR pressure as the reason of suicide.
Congress leaders alleged that while political parties were allowed to depute their own booth level agents to accompany BLOs, CPM functionaries insisted that Aneesh drop the Congress agent and instead take CPM leaders along on his visits. It was claimed that a CPM booth level agent threatened Aneesh, allegedly warning him that a false complaint could be filed accusing him of distributing Congress pamphlets during official work.
The Congress demanded that a case be registered against the CPM functionary concerned, saying the suicide was not due to workload but due to political intimidation.
The New Indian Express report went further into the context. It described how Aneesh was not very familiar with the booth area he had been assigned, how he had limited interaction with the wider community, and how that unfamiliarity added to his stress when coupled with political pressure. Family members and acquaintances told the newspaper that he had been visibly tense, often awake till late night and pacing restlessly as he tried to finish his BLO duties.
In other words, an emerging picture suggested a mix of factors, with alleged pressure from CPM workers forming a significant part of the story. Yet the loudest national conversation still portrayed the tragedy almost purely as an example of “SIR workload killing BLOs”.
Congress’s shifting position raises questions about its motives
In a striking twist, while the Kerala Congress leadership publicly accused CPM workers of intimidating the BLO and even released an audio clip to support this claim, the national leadership of the party has now taken a completely different line. Congress General Secretary KC Venugopal issued a statement alleging that the very design of the SIR exercise is intended to “delete specific votes”, accusing the Election Commission of acting on behalf of the BJP and claiming that BLOs are “committing suicide due to extreme work pressure”.
Source: Indian National Congress/X
The same party that, at the state level, blamed CPM for threatening the BLO is, at the national level, using the incident to target the SIR process and the ECI. This contradictory stance not only exposes a political tug of war within the party but also raises serious questions about whether the tragedy is being selectively interpreted to suit different narratives in Kerala and in Delhi.
What the available facts actually say
Putting all the material together, a more balanced picture looks very different from the linear story sold initially. Aneesh George was a BLO during SIR in Kannur and he tragically died by suicide. His family and relatives did speak of stress related to his work and his difficulty in handling responsibilities in an unfamiliar area, and their grief and perception must be respected.
At the same time, the district administration and the Chief Electoral Officer have so far found no concrete indication of work related distress in phone records or formal complaints, and maintain that his SIR work was progressing on schedule. Local Congress leaders have released an audio clip and alleged that CPM functionaries put political pressure on Aneesh, insisting that he sideline Congress booth agents and threatening to file false complaints, while CPM denies these charges and blames the Election Commission for workload.
There is, therefore, no settled investigation backed conclusion that SIR workload alone was responsible for the suicide. Political pressure from CPM workers is a serious allegation that must be probed, and work strain is a factor mentioned by the family, but the final word must come from a proper inquiry rather than from prime time assertions.
Conclusion
Given the evidence available so far, the national media’s rush to blame SIR and the Election Commission for Aneesh’s death is premature and, in many cases, a deliberate narrative play. Outlets like The News Minute, India Today and commentators such as Rajdeep Sardesai ignored key facts, including the administration’s denial of any record of work related distress and the serious allegation that CPM functionaries intimidated the BLO. A complex case was flattened into a convenient anti SIR story. The exact reasons behind the tragedy require proper investigation, and the claim that SIR workload alone caused his death is not supported by facts.
Disclaimer: This report has been updated to include newly emerged statements from the Congress leadership and additional contextual information relevant to the ongoing investigation.
The Mahagathbandhan in Bihar suffered a spectacular defeat in the Bihar assembly election at the hands of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Afterward, amidst the unfounded claims of vote theft and unwarranted attacks on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drive, the reality behind their humiliation has been surfacing each day. The opposition fostered an atmosphere with the help of social media to indicate a substantial victory, but it was at odds with the reality.
The I.N.D.I. Alliance appeared to disregard the notion that the election is primarily an offline contest where the online narrative can only serve a limited purpose. It devoted all its energy in creating online echo chambers that merely reiterated the chosen propaganda. The opposition’s engagement on social media platforms was greater than its involvement on the ground.
This responsibility was delegated to social media influencers who might have declared the coalition’s triumph in the digital realm, however, the illusion was shattered when the latter awoke to the stark embarrassment of profoundly disappointing poll results. Now, the Mahagathbandhan has been defeated, however, those who labored on social media to deceive the public and influence their opinion with a fabricated narrative regarding the opposition’s potential grand performance in Bihar are now demanding their payment.
RJP hired YouTubers to disseminate their agenda, party officials abused their funds
Furthermore, the same was validated by part-time journalist and full-time propagandist Zakir Ali Tyagi who confirmed that multiple YouTubers were recruited by Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) under this plan. He further complained to Tejashwi Yadav that the party is currently declining to compensate for their immense “hard work.”
हेलो @yadavtejashwi ! मैं आपको एक बहुत ही महत्वपूर्ण जानकारी दे रहा हूँ!
आपकी पार्टी ने जिन लोगों को सोशल मीडिया (ख़ासकर यूट्यूब) पर पार्टी के समर्थन में माहौल बनाने व बनवाने की ज़िम्मेदारी सौंपी थी, उन्होंने दर्जनों बार दिल्ली के यूट्यूबर्स के साथ मीटिंग की और ट्रको में भर-भर…
“The individuals that your party entrusted with the responsibility of building and securing support on social media, especially on YouTube, organised a multitude of meetings with YouTubers in Delhi. They loaded these YouTubers into trucks and took them to Bihar, making them work relentlessly around the clock and completely exhaust themselves. Yet, when the moment arrived to remunerate their hardwork, the middlemen straightforwardly responded that no money had been allocated by the party,” Zakir wrote on X.
Ironically, he inadvertently highlighted how each element of RJD is saturated with corruption and mentioned that afterward several YouTubers returned to Delhi as the party intermediaries who helmed the entire campaign consumed the complete share allocated to the former and retained 15-20% of the amount, even if they paid some YouTubers. Meanwhile, these accused persistently flashed new vehicles such as the Creta and Brezza, during the polls.
“This not only caused electoral damage to your party but also tarnished its image, as a result of which the party got less space on social media,” Zakir added. He then pleaded to “hardworking” RJD MP Sanjay Yadav, who is currently in the spotlight following the allegations of Lalu Prasad Yadav’s daughter, Rohini Acharya.
“There can be no doubt regarding his integrity, however, those affiliated with his office have repeatedly violated his trust. He remains unaware of how his reliable associates have exploited his confidence, deceiving and cheating the diligent YouTubers. Certain people linked to the party have transformed this election into an opportunity for personal gain, putting every effort to secure substantial profits.” Zakir remarked.
Zakir implored Tejashwi and Sanjay to apprehend these culprits who not only duped the YouTubers but also the party, thereby causing harm not only in elections but also tarnishing the reputation. “The YouTubers are in distress and it would be preferable to retrieve their money and hand over it to them.”
The party’s personnel clearly cannot even be trusted with the small amount of money designated for those endorsing their manipulative agenda. Can the administration of a vital and large state like Bihar be entrusted to such individuals? Interestingly, the public has made a sound choice for their future through the power of their vote even without awareness of this incident.
Zakir Ali’s questionable past actions
On 24th October, Zakir posted an “early morning” photo of a Muslim man with Tejashwi in a helicopter and conveyed, “You were asking what did Muslims receive in Bihar? They got to sit in a helicopter,” during the peak of the election campaign.
The question arises as to why a statement of this nature would be issued to instruct his community members to feel content just because a skullcap donning person was able to accompany a top Mahagathbandhan leader in a helicopter.
आप कह रहे थे मुसलमान को बिहार में क्या मिला? सुबह सवेरे तस्वीर आ गई हैं हेलिकॉप्टर में बैठने के लिए मिला! pic.twitter.com/QeIf5urdmz
The man who accuses the BJP and its affiliates over trivial issues related to the community ironically wishes for them to be pleased and satisfied with a hollow helicopter ride which has no bearing on the life of any ordinary Muslim.
Their hypocrisy is evident to everyone and the leniency they extend to the opposition, considering its history of appeasing Muslims is well-known. Nevertheless, to create such an impression for the community during a critical election paints a very strong message for those who can read between the lines.
Similarly, a mere glance at Zakir’s profile would narrate the tale of his support for anti-NDA propaganda from various elements which he sought to amplify to create a narrative for his favoured coalition. While every person has the right to hold and express their views as well as opinions, there seemed to be a concentrated effort on his part to glorify the alleged failures of the NDA government.
Who could have benefited from his efforts had he succeeded? Hence, his allegation concerning the non-payment to YouTubers casts significant aspersions on many of his past actions as well. Does this suggest that the “journalist,” akin to his numerous others peers was also advocating for the opposition?
However, whether this is true or not, the fact remains that the opposition was not only defeated in the elections, but the YouTubers assembled for their propaganda also did not obtain their dues, ending up in a dual hardship for these people.
Opposition mocked PM Modi over his social media remark while hiring YouTubers for peddling narrative
Rahul Gandhi claimed, “Instagram reels are the 21st century addiction,” after Prime Minister Narendra Modi stressed that mobile data in India “is now within everyone’s reach.”
“Modi gave you addiction. Earlier, people would get addicted to alcohol and drugs. Today, Instagram and Facebook have the same effect. Youth today watch Reels and share with one another 24 hours. But does it fill your pockets,” the former announced in Purnia during an election rally.
नरेंद्र मोदी ने बिहार आकर युवाओं से कहा- हमने आपको सस्ता डेटा दिया है, ताकि युवा रील बनाकर पैसा कमा सकें।
जबकि सच यह है कि Reel, 21वीं सदी का नशा है। जब आप रील देखते हो तो पैसा अडानी-अंबानी और जियो की जेब में जाता है।
“He did not tell you that when you make reels and watch the videos, the money doesn’t come to your pocket. It goes to Ambani, it goes to Jio,” the Gandhi scion claimed. “If the unemployed are not engaged on Instagram and Facebook, they would reach Modi’s residence,” he reiterated later amid disparaging remarks against PM Modi.
“If Narendra Modi had a proper education, he would not discuss creating reels with the youth but focus on improving education and guiding them in the right direction. He would emphasise the importance of constructing an airport or a university, yet he chooses to say, create reels,” Congress leader Supriya Shrinate wrote while citing an interview of a “Bihari youth.”
“नरेंद्र मोदी पढ़े-लिखे होते तो युवाओं से रील बनाने की बात नहीं करते- बेहतर शिक्षा की बात करते, सही रास्ता दिखाते
यहां हवाई अड्डा या यूनिवर्सिटी बनाने की बात करते, लेकिन वो कहते हैं- रील बनाओ”
The controversial RJD spokesperson, Kanchana Yadav, whose party relied on social media to secure victory in the Bihar assembly elections, asserted that PM Modi was promoting reels as a means of employment and alleged that he advised the youth to create reels due to his inability to provide them with jobs.
पकौड़े के बाद अब मोदी जी ने रील्स बनाने को रोज़गार बताया।
बिहार के युवाओं से कहा कि नौकरी नहीं दूँगा, रील्स बनाकर रोज़गार करो।
“There was a time when 1 GB of data cost up to ₹269, but now it’s available for just ₹15. That’s cheaper than a cup of tea. Big connection at a small cost, that’s the digital revolution of the Modi government,” the prime minister outlined on 10th October.
“Now we have created a system where 1 GB of data costs no more than one cup of tea, this chaiwala has ensured this,” he voiced during a speech in Samastipur. “The youth of Bihar have benefited the most from this. The reels being made and all the creativity you see are because of the BJP-NDA government,” he mentioned, adding that several Biharis are generating good money by making reels on Instagram.
It seems that social media is not considered an addiction when it is utilized to promote the Mahagathbandhan’s narrative and to secure its success, even if it is rooted in falsehoods.
PM Modi was just emphasising how the digitisation policies of his government have benefited the youth, including via social media, which is a fact. Many individuals gained national recognition due to their online content and even entered the television or film industry. However, the entire opposition not only twisted his comment but attempted to depict that he was urging everyone to forsake employment, studies and other development in favour of solely engaging with social media.
It has become a source of income for many such as the YouTubers employed by RJD. Now, it is another issue that their earnings were taken over by party members, leaving them empty-handed.
The fabrications, their administrative failures, major corruption charges coupled with their hypocrisy contrasted against the significant growth and progress of the state under the NDA government, exemplify why Indian voters consistently choose PM Modi and NDA over them.
Conspicuous silence of YouTubers after the Bihar election results
Zakir refrained from naming any YouTubers who were associated with the party’s agenda. Nevertheless, some YouTubers including Ravish Kumar, appear to enter a state of hibernation after the results were declared on 15th November. Notably, Ajit Anjum was also dormant for two days and only shared a video on 17th November in relation to Prashant Kishor’s dismal performance.
There could be many reasons for this but one cannot help but wonder how their previously active online presence has suddenly faded. They are evidently very disheartened by the election outcome. Anjum, voicing his frustration even commented on how the leaders, ministers and workers of the Bharatiya Janata Party invested everything into the contest while remaining out of the social media limelight. The same was pointed out by another BJP detractor, Saba Naqvi.
बीजेपी ऐसे लड़ती है चुनाव दृश्य -1 25 अक्टूबर को बक्सर के एक होटल में मैं अपनी टीम के साथ डिनर कर रहा था . दूसरी टेबल पर बीजेपी का फटका डाले कुछ नेता टाइप के लोग बैठे थे . उनमें से एक सज्जन बार -बार मेरी तरफ़ देख रहे थे . मैं भी उन्हें पहचानने की कोशिश कर रहा था . तभी वो मेरे… pic.twitter.com/VAJp1h8pTW
His statement also implied that the opposition’s electoral visibility was primarily a product of constant online engagement and very little grassroots effort. However, Anjum swiftly clarified that he simply described the reality which does not mean that he will stop disseminating the opposition’s agenda under the guise of neutral journalism. The post was retweeted by Ravish.
Anjum and others might have underscored the BJP’s work ethics due to growing anger over repeated electoral losses but they continue to attack the Election Commission and avoid direct criticism of the Mahagathbandhan for their monumental failure. Even though they are aware of the truth as clearly illustrated by the aforementioned post, they refuse to openly accept that the opposition’s defeat stemmed from its own shortcomings and the NDA’s diligent efforts.
The same could be the reason for their reluctance to address the Mahagathbandhan’s disappointing number of seats, in their videos. Similarly, the exposure by Zakir exacerbated their problems regarding how their preferred parties aimed to skew the online narrative in their favor rather than committing to genuine work on the ground.
At this point, these “journalists” have no plausible justification to defend the opposition and continue to mislead the public to sway their opinion against the truth and gain more views.
NDA’s thumping victory in Bihar, RJD’s soap opera
Bihar assembly elections took place on 6th and 11th November and the results were announced on 14th November after a record-breaking voter turnout, attributed to SIR program.
The Bharatiya Janat Party won 89 seats followed by the Janata Dal (United) with 85 seats, the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) with 19 seats, the Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular) with 5 seats and the Rashtriya Lok Morcha with 4 seats. The Mahagathbandhan, on the other hand, had a terrible electoral showing and barely managed to reach the 35-seat threshold.
Now, while the NDA is occupied with portfolio discussions and finalising a date for the oath-taking ceremony, the Lalu-Rabri family is embroiled in an embarrassing family drama following Rohini Acharya’s severance of ties with her family and her announcement of leaving politics. Her other sisters have also reportedly distanced themselves from the family. Tej Pratap Yadav also extended support to his sisters.
Acharya previously shared a post on social media in which she named Tejashwi’s close associates Sanjay Yadav and Rameez Nemat Khan, outlining that they are the cause of the conflicts within the Yadav family and the RJD’s poor electoral performance. The discussion that should focus on the party’s astonishing loss in the election is now eclipsed by these events, effectively redirecting all attention and blame away from Tejashwi.
Likewise, Zakir’s post unveiled the fraudulent strategies, alienation from reality and the extensive corruption that has permeated every facet of the RJD. The alliance’s effort to trick the public not only resulted in their downfall but also yet again laid them bare before the voters.
On Sunday (16th November), the controversial Cable News Network (CNN) reported on rising anti-India racism in the United States but ended up quoting notorious Islamists and anti-India bigots.
The Amercian news media company, which otherwise has a history of pedding anti-India propaganda, published an article (archive) titled ‘Racists are now openly targeting Indian Americans.’
CNN highlighted how Indian-origin FBI Director Kash Patel, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy were abused by white Christian nationalists for wishing their followers on Diwali.
Screengrab of the article published by CNN
“Some Indian American conservatives seem shocked that segments of the political right are now taking aim at them,” the article noted.
CNN atributed the rising anti-India racism to the ‘political right’, rise of ‘fringe figures’, and US President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration. “Some members of the MAGA coalition are openly suggesting that only white Christians belong in America,” it added.
While it was evident that the American news channel published the article to berate the Republicans and champion the cause of anti-racism, CNN roped in individuals known for anti-India and anti-Hindu rhetoric.
1. Raqib Naik
One of the experts quoted by CNN happened to be Raqib Naik. He was referred to as the Founder and Executive Director of the ‘Center for the Study of Organized Hate.’
“Raqib Naik, the center’s founder and executive director, said that his team recorded nearly 2,700 posts promoting racism and xenophobia against Indians and Indian Americans in October alone,” the American news company claimed.
For starters, Naik is an Islamist and a vicious fake news peddler. He is the founder of anti-Hindu disinformation outlet ‘Hindutva Watch,’ the Twitter account of which was withheld in India in January 2024.
HW started as a Twitter handle in 2019, & its website also became operational in the same year. It had no fathers until owned by Raqib Hameed Naik in 2023 with the help of WaPo journo Pranshu Verma. Verma didn’t even check the dates claiming it was founded in April 2021!
The anti-India radical is infamous for denying the Hindu genocide perpetrated by Islamists in the Kashmir Valley in the early 1990s. Naik had previously mocked the Hindu ‘Shivling’ found inside the Gyanvapi mosque in Kashi.
Despite this, CNN presented Naik as a researcher on ‘anti-India bigotry’ on social media.
2. Rohit Chopra
The American news media company also quoted one Rohit Chipra, who was introduced as a Professor at Santa Clara University in the US.
“(He) studies far-right online communities and…co-authored the reports for the Center for the Study of Organized Hate with Naik,” it stated.
Chopra runs a Hinduphobic X handle by the name ‘IndiaExplained,’ which was previously suspended for calling for the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Nanrendra Modi.
The Twitter poll ran by Rohit Chopra.
Chopra encouraged his followers to participate in a poll about how the Indian Prime Minister would be killed by his own Home Minister Amit Shah.
In one tweet, the vile Professor shared a picture of Narendra Modi and claimed, “Dressed like he’s headed to rape a devotee, murder a wife or start a riot.”
After his tweets went viral, he was de-platformed by prominent global think tank Observer Research Foundation (ORF).
Tweet by Rohit Chopra
According to NDTV journalist Shiv Aroor, the same ‘Professor’ was being investigated for child pornography several years ago.
This explains why he had gone all out to defend ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ conference and downplay the explicit Hinduphobia generated throught the single event.
Interestingly, CNN had no qualms to rope him in as an ‘expert’ on anti-India racism in the US.
Chopra who has consistently fuelled anti-India and anti-Hindu rhetoric told the American news channel, “This should serve as a kind of wake-up call — that racism that’s directed at people of color and minority groups, you are not exempt from. And maybe that should spark some kind of reflection about questions of solidarity with other vulnerable groups.”
3. Siddharth Venkataramakrishnan
Another controversial ‘expert’ quoted by CNN in its article happens to be Siddharth Venkataramakrishnan, who works as an analyst at Institue for Strategic Dialogue (ISD).
He had previously attempted to donwplay ‘love jihad’ as a conspiracy theory, despite 1000s of documented cases. For the unversed, it is a ploy to convert non-Muslim women to Islam under the pretext of love (often by concleaing one’s true identity).
The propagandist, who is yet to squeak a word about ‘Bhagwa love trap‘ campaign and its far reaching effects, had targeted OpIndia for a hit-piece by ‘TheWired’.
“Siddharth tells WIRED that the narratives in these articles are then picked up and spread on other platforms such as X and Telegram, noting how “in some of these places there’s even more explicit calls for violence against Muslims or for the removal of Muslims.” Such narratives fall under the umbrella of Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism, a political ideology which claims that India is a Hindu nation under threat from outside influences such as Islam and Christianity,” an article by ISD pointed out.
The Institue for Strategic Dialogue, where Siddharth Venkataramakrishnan works as an analyst, has peddled lies not only about Hindutva and attempted to blame ‘Hindu nationalism’ (albeit without evidence) for the 2022 Leicester riots.
