The West Bengal unit of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation (CPI-ML) has moved the Calcutta High Court seeking urgent intervention to challenge the application of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950, by the recently elected BJP government. According to Live Law, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) will be heard by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen.
In the petition, the CPI-ML claimed that the implementation of the law was an assault on the religious freedom of the Muslim community, the rights of the farmers engaged in cattle trade and the citizens’ right to eat. “This is an assault simultaneously on the religious freedom of the Muslim community, on the livelihood of farmers engaged in cattle trade (who are mostly from the Hindu community), on the freedom of citizens to eat according to their choice and on the culinary diversity of West Bengal,” the CPI-ML said in a statement.
CPIML Liberation, West Bengal, (@CpimlWestBengal) has filed a PIL in Calcutta High Court seeking urgent judicial intervention to stop the order issued by the BJP Government invoking an outdated 1950 law to impose severe punitive restrictions on ritual sacrifice of livestock.…
— CPIML Liberation (@cpimlliberation) May 19, 2026
Describing the law as “outdated”, the CPI-ML alleged the implementation of the law would be tantamount to imposing “severe punitive restrictions” on the ritual sacrifice of livestock.
The Home & Hill Affairs Department of the Government of West Bengal issued a notice on May 13, 2026, reiterating strict enforcement of the West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950. Let’s take a look at the purpose and the provisions of the Act.
Why the Act was passed
The West Bengal Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1950, was passed by the West Bengal government with the objective of increasing the supply of milk and avoiding the wastage of animal power needed for agricultural improvement. This is the reason that the act does not put a blanket ban on the slaughter of all animals, but only on the slaughter of some specified animals and up to a certain age. The Act intends to regulate the slaughter of animals in the state so that milk-producing animals and their males are protected.
The Act specifically prohibits the slaughter of bulls, bullocks, cows, calves, male and female buffaloes, buffalo calves, and castrated buffaloes. The Act clearly states that an animal specified in it cannot be slaughtered without a certificate declaring the animal fit to be slaughtered.
Certificate for slaughtering animals
As per the provisions of the Act, the certificate declaring a specified animal fit for slaughter can be issued jointly by the President of the municipality and the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon only if the animal is above 14 years of age or if it has become permanently incapacitated from work or breeding due to age, injury, deformity, or incurable disease.
If the President of the municipality and the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon fail to make a decision, the matter goes to the Veterinary Officer, who will then decide whether the certificate will be issued or refused. The Veterinary Officer is required to pass a signed order allowing or refusing the slaughter.
Right to appeal against refusal
Any person who is aggrieved by the refusal to issue a certificate for slaughter can file an appeal against the refusal before the State Government, within 15 days from the communication of the refusal to him. The State Government has revisional powers under the Act, in exercise of which, it can examine the records of the case and can pass an order it deems fit. The decision of the State Government shall be final and cannot be called in question in a court of law.
Notably, the Act empowers the State Government to exempt from the operation of the Act, the slaughter of any animal for religious, medicinal, or research purposes.
Animals to be slaughtered at specified places only
According to the Act, the places where certified animals can be slaughtered can be specified by the State Government through a notification. As per the notification issued by the West Bengal government, certified animals can only be slaughtered at municipal slaughterhouses or facilities authorised by the local administration. Slaughter in public places is strictly prohibited.
Power of inspection
The Act confers the power of inspection on the President of a municipality, the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, or any other person authorised by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in writing. The abovementioned persons may enter premises within the local limits of their jurisdiction for inspection if they have reason to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is likely to be committed.
Punishment under the Act
Any person who contravenes the provisions of this Act can be granted imprisonment up to 6 months or a fine up to ₹1000 or both. All the offences specified under the Act are cognizable, which means that the police file an FIR, make an arrest and start an investigation into an alleged offence without the prior permission of a Magistrate. The Act also states that the abetment of an offence specified in the Act is also punishable.
Norway’s Aftenposten has offered a revealing reminder that despite repeated lectures from sections of the Western media on tolerance, diversity and cultural sensitivity, old prejudices have not entirely disappeared. Under the guise of political commentary, the newspaper published a cartoon depicting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a “snake charmer” with a headline describing him as “a sneaky and slightly annoying man” during his visit to Oslo.
The cartoon attempted to make a geopolitical point, but in doing so, it ended up exposing something far more significant: the persistence of an old and deeply patronising lens through which India continues to be viewed by parts of the Western commentariat and the deep-rooted racism towards countries that once lived under the yoke of European colonialism.
Let us be clear at the outset. Political criticism is not the issue here. Democracies thrive on criticism. Heads of governments across the world, whether in India, Europe or the United States, are routinely scrutinised, mocked and criticised by journalists, commentators and satirists. PM Modi, like any other political leader, is not beyond criticism. In fact, he has been on record to encourage criticism, viewing it as essential for a healthy democracy and a tool to keep the government accountable. His policies, his diplomacy and his governance record can all be debated and challenged. That is not merely acceptable; it is essential in a democratic society.
But Aftenposten did not merely criticise Modi’s politics. It chose to reduce India itself into a colonial stereotype. It chose the image of a snake charmer, a visual trope that for generations was used by outsiders to portray India as an exotic, primitive and backward civilisation. This is where the problem lies. Satire is expected to be intelligent. It is expected to punch upward and expose hypocrisy or contradiction. What Aftenposten produced was not sophisticated satire. It was a shortcut. Instead of engaging with substance, it relied on a caricature rooted in assumptions that belong to another age.
The “snake charmer India” image did not emerge accidentally. For decades, Western depictions of India often revolved around a very limited set of images: crowded streets, cows, poverty, snake charmers and mysticism. India was frequently portrayed not as a dynamic civilisation or a complex society but as an object of fascination and pity. A significant share of the responsibility for reinforcing this stereotype also rests with former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who, rather than actively challenging such perceptions of India, often appeared to accommodate them. During visits by foreign dignitaries and heads of state, displays involving snake charmers were included as part of showcasing India, inadvertently strengthening the very exotic imagery through which much of the world had come to view the country.
Such representations carried an implicit hierarchy. The West represented modernity, rationality and progress; countries like India were cast as developing spaces to be observed, interpreted and judged.
These portrayals were products of a colonial worldview. During the colonial era, reducing societies to simplistic and exotic images served a purpose. It justified the notion that Western powers were civilisationally superior and therefore entitled to guide, manage or dominate other nations. Even after formal colonialism ended, many of these assumptions continued to survive in subtler forms through academia, media narratives and cultural depictions.
One would assume that in the twenty-first century such imagery would have disappeared entirely. Yet the Aftenposten cartoon suggests that certain instincts remain remarkably persistent.
Perhaps what makes this episode particularly revealing is the timing. India today is not the India of decades past. The country is among the world’s fastest-growing major economies. It has emerged as a major technology and innovation hub. It has expanded its influence across international forums and increasingly pursues an independent strategic posture. Whether on energy security, defence partnerships or global diplomacy, India has shown a growing willingness to make decisions based on its own national interests rather than conforming automatically to Western expectations.
The global balance of power itself is changing. For nearly two centuries, economic and geopolitical power was concentrated largely in the West. European empires dominated much of the world before being succeeded by the United States as the principal global power after the Second World War. International institutions, financial structures and global narratives developed around this order.
However, the world today increasingly looks different. The centre of gravity is gradually shifting eastward. China has emerged as a global economic giant, and India is projected to become the world’s third-largest economy in the coming years. The rise of Asian powers represents one of the most significant geopolitical transformations of the modern era.
Power transitions rarely occur without discomfort. Nations and institutions accustomed to occupying the centre of influence often struggle with changing realities. The issue is not necessarily that Western societies fear India itself; rather, it is that the assumptions that shaped the post-war world are being challenged. The idea that power, legitimacy and leadership naturally flow from the West is increasingly under pressure.
It is within this broader context that some media narratives appear increasingly revealing. There often seems to be a tendency in sections of Western commentary to interpret India through frameworks that no longer fit reality. India is frequently judged through standards that appear inconsistent or framed through assumptions that feel outdated.
The anxiety is perhaps most visible in the media ecosystems of countries that historically occupied positions of influence. Political disagreements with India increasingly appear to carry undertones that extend beyond policy debates. There is often a subtle suggestion that India’s rise itself requires qualification or suspicion.
How Norwegian journalist’s confrontational performative activism reinforces anti-India prejudice
The Aftenposten episode also does not appear entirely isolated. It comes amid a broader pattern where parts of the Norwegian media ecosystem increasingly target PM Modi and India over unsubstantiated claims of democratic decline, majoritarian politics and alleged erosion of freedoms, while often paying comparatively less attention to India’s economic transformation, technological progress and strategic significance.
Recent events during PM Modi’s Norway visit further reinforced such perceptions. A Norwegian journalist Helle Lyng, who was later exposed as a China puppet, attempted to generate a viral moment by shouting questions at PM Modi during a joint statement where no media interaction had been scheduled. The episode was subsequently framed as evidence that the Indian Prime Minister had avoided difficult questions. However, later interactions involving Indian officials provided an opportunity for journalists to raise questions directly.
What stood out was not the asking of difficult questions but the manner in which the interaction unfolded. Increasingly, it appeared less like an attempt to seek information and more like an effort to create a confrontation designed for public consumption. There is an important distinction between adversarial journalism and performative journalism. The former seeks answers; the latter often seeks moments.
What further raises curiosity is the sudden intensity with which some voices appear to discover concerns regarding India. Publications and commentators with relatively limited engagement with India’s institutions or broader realities often seem to become deeply invested in the country when opportunities arise to portray it negatively on international platforms. This does not prove coordination or hidden motivations. Conclusions without evidence would be irresponsible. However, such patterns inevitably raise questions regarding editorial priorities and ideological predispositions
This is not a new phenomenon.
The NYT’s 2014 caricature mocking India’s Mars Mission highlighted western racism towards India
Back in 2014, India achieved something extraordinary through the Mars Orbiter Mission. The country became the first nation to successfully reach Mars orbit on its maiden attempt, and it did so at a fraction of the cost associated with many previous missions. It was a remarkable scientific and technological accomplishment.
Yet instead of simply recognising the achievement, The New York Times published a cartoon depicting a turbaned farmer leading a cow and knocking on the door of an “Elite Space Club,” where two men sat inside reading newspapers and appearing surprised by India’s arrival.
The message was difficult to miss. India was portrayed through stereotypes associated with rural poverty and backwardness, as though its entry into advanced scientific domains was somehow unexpected or amusing.
The backlash that followed was substantial enough for The New York Times to issue an apology. But apologies do not necessarily eliminate underlying attitudes. More than a decade later, similar imagery continues to emerge.
Now Aftenposten revives the snake charmer caricature.
The continuity is striking. The symbols may vary, a cow in one case, a snake charmer in another, but the underlying instinct appears similar. India is repeatedly framed not through the reality of what it has become, but through inherited perceptions of what it once was or what some continue to imagine it to be. India is continued to be looked down as a backward and underdeveloped land of snake charmers and subsistence farmers rather than a complex civilisation with immense intellectual, cultural and economic depth.
There is an irony in all of this. Western media institutions frequently position themselves as guardians of progressive values. They speak passionately about racism, representation and sensitivity. They advocate for challenging stereotypes and dismantling prejudices. Entire careers have been built around exposing harmful cultural depictions and unconscious bias.
Yet when India is involved, the standards often appear strangely flexible.
One is compelled to ask a simple question: would a similar caricature based on racial or cultural stereotypes associated with other communities or regions have passed through editorial scrutiny without controversy? Would newspapers feel comfortable employing imagery rooted in colonial assumptions if the target were different?
The answer is difficult to ignore.
This is precisely why the Aftenposten cartoon deserves criticism, not because it mocked a political leader, but because it revealed a deeper contradiction. It exposed how prejudice can sometimes survive beneath the language of satire and sophistication.
India’s rise is not a temporary event. It is not a statistical anomaly or a passing geopolitical moment. It reflects broader structural changes taking place across the global economy and international system. Countries that once occupied the periphery are increasingly moving toward the centre.
India is no longer standing outside the door asking for acceptance into elite circles. Nor is it a passive participant waiting for others to define its role in the world. It is increasingly helping shape the future itself.
And perhaps that is precisely what some find difficult to accept.
Because when old hierarchies begin to weaken, old instincts sometimes return. The real issue exposed by Aftenposten is not India’s rise. India’s trajectory is evident to anyone willing to observe it honestly. The real issue is whether parts of the Western media establishment can move beyond inherited prejudices and recognise that the world they once interpreted from a position of unquestioned authority is changing before their eyes.
The cartoon was intended as commentary on India. Instead, it may ultimately be remembered as commentary on the insecurities of those who created it.
A Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan grabbed attention on May 18, 2026, when they declared that ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception,’ even under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court expressed ‘serious reservations‘ over a January 2026 judgement by another Supreme Court bench that refused Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam bail in the bigger conspiracy case involving the Delhi riots. The comments were largely interpreted as a criticism of the previous decision, and they were readily welcomed by the so-called “young cockroaches.”
However, deserved and welcome are two different things. The way in which those observations were made is called into doubt by a deeper examination of what Justice Nagarathna’s bench actually did, and what it carefully did not do. Overruling and expressing reservations are two different things. Furthermore, there is legal cacophony rather than legal clarity when a bench criticises a binding order without following the proper procedures to formally challenge it.
What the January order actually said and why it was defensible
To respond to yesterday’s comments, one must first understand what Justice Aravind Kumar’s bench concluded in January 2026 and why it was not an error.
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied bail on January 5 by the two-judge bench, but five other defendants in the same case, Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, were granted it. The January order was not a general rejection, which is an important distinction that is sometimes overlooked in the narrative. Each accused person’s claimed role was assessed separately in this measured ruling.
The court concluded that the five individuals granted bail had performed facilitative functions, such as participating in rallies and coordinating locally. In contrast, Khalid and Imam were named as the suspected architects of the conspiracy, those who, according to the prosecution, planned, managed, and coordinated the bigger plan that resulted in the violence that killed 53 people in February 2020.
Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which states that a court cannot grant bail if it is satisfied that the accusations against the person are prima facie true, that is, credible on the face of the record, prior to trial, is the legal framework that the bench used. The bar is set high on purpose. Parliament raised the bar. The clause is in place because UAPA deals with crimes related to national security and terrorism, where releasing an accused person in the middle of an inquiry might have serious and permanent repercussions.
The idea that an accused person should be entitled to bail simply because they had been detained for a lengthy time was also discussed by Justice Kumar’s bench. It rejected that argument, ruling that a trial delay is not a trump card for automatic bail under the UAPA, especially in significant conspiracy cases where the investigation and proceedings are genuinely complex. The Supreme Court is required to implement a serious statutory framework that was passed by Parliament.
The problem with what Justice Nagarathna’s bench did yesterday
This does not imply that the January order is immune to criticism. Reasonable legal minds can argue on how Section 43D(5) interacts with the constitutional liberties , as well as whether a five year or longer imprisonment without a trial verdict, regardless of the legal language. However, there are proper and improper ways to register that disagreement inside the legal system, and what transpired on May 18 presents procedural issues that have been completely overlooked by the euphoric press coverage.
Andrabi’s case is not Khalid’s case:
The May 18 order resulted from Syed Iftikhar Andrabi’s bail application in a narco-terrorism case in Jammu and Kashmir, a factually and legally separate matter from the Delhi riots conspiracy. There may be differences in the charges, the evidence, the accused’s involvement, and the relevant precedents. When a bench decides one case and makes broad observations about another case with different accused and facts, the observations have no legal impact on the second case. In legal parlance, they are not the ratio, the legally binding rationale, of the ruling, but rather obiter dicta, or statements made in passing, and is not legally binding.
Procedural remedy was there:
The law offers a clear procedure where a two-judge Supreme Court bench feels that a previous decision made by a bench of the same strength is incorrect, the bench must submit the issue to the Chief Justice of India, who may then form a bigger bench to resolve the issue. The highest court in India resolves legal disputes in this manner. A smaller or equal bench can be decisively overruled by a bigger bench, three judges or more.
The bench of Justice Nagarathna did not mention it, instead, it merely expressed reservations, granted bail in another case, and proceeded. Khalid and Imam’s January bail denial is still in effect and not overruled. The more moral course of action would have been to initiate the formal referral process instead of leaving a competing set of observations floating in the legal void, offering comfort to no one and a solution to nothing, if the May bench truly thought the January order was unconstitutional, wrong enough to say so publicly.
Invocation of K.A.Najeeb is more complicated than it appeared
The Supreme Court’s three-judge decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which maintained that extended incarceration could allow bail even under UAPA, was pointed out by the bench. That is an actual precedent that merits consideration. However, the January bench was aware of it, the question was whether or not their cases fell under the Najeeb principle, given the particulars of the Delhi riots plot and the particular roles credited with Khalid and Imam as alleged masterminds rather than minor players. The January order, when correctly read, does not sustain the claim that Justice Kumar’s court simply ignored Najeeb.
Where this leaves the Delhi riots trial
The actual situation remains unchanged for Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid. The order issued in January 2026 remains in effect, as does the one year ban on new bail applications. Even though they were read with sympathy, yesterday’s observations do not grant a bail request, do not represent a review or reconsideration of the January ruling, and do not bind the trial court or any later bench considering their cases.
In future bail applications, defence counsel will refer to Justice Nagarathna’s statements. They will suggest that the statute needs to be reviewed because even the Supreme Court has questioned the validity of the January order. It remains to be seen if a future court would agree with that argument or note that obiter reservations stated in a different case are not equivalent to a legally binding decision. A referral to a larger bench will be necessary if the legal order is passed. The trial continues in accordance with the framework set forth in the January order until that time.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s observations from yesterday have been interpreted by many as a justification of liberty principles in UAPA cases, and the constitutional problem they represent is real. However, the way they were expressed, openly pointing out a coordinate bench in a different case, raises concerns about judicial conduct that are just as important as the message itself.
It’s simple to point up a mistake made by a fellow bench member. The more difficult, time-consuming, and institutionally responsible course of action is to formally refer the issue for a binding judgement by a bigger bench. The January order is still in effect, and the discussion it sparked is still unfolding.
In other news, Umar Khalid’s application for interim bail was rejected by the Karkardooma court in Delhi on May 19.
The Park Circus area of central Kolkata has once again come into focus after violence during protests over restrictions on roadside prayers and loudspeaker use led to clashes with police, damage to vehicles and injuries to security personnel. The latest confrontation has also triggered a larger political discussion around Park Circus, a locality that has repeatedly emerged as a major site of mass protests and mobilisations over the years, particularly during issues involving the Muslim community. West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has now issued a strong warning against those trying to disturb public order, saying the administration will no longer tolerate violence or attempts to create unrest.
CM Suvendu Adhikari’s warning after Park Circus violence
Reacting to the recent stone-pelting incident, Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari said the state government would take a strict approach against people involved in violence and warned that “hooliganism” would not be allowed to continue in Bengal.
#WATCH | Kolkata: On yesterday's incident of stone pelting in Park Circus area, West Bengal CM Suvendu Adhikari says, "Such incidents no longer occur in Kashmir. In Bengal, people had become accustomed to a certain laxity—they felt that the government would not take any action… pic.twitter.com/j0cvU5LLhO
He said law enforcement agencies had been given a free hand to act under the law and that the period when police personnel were left exposed without strong backing was over.
The Chief Minister said some people had become used to what he described as administrative softness and believed no action would be taken against them. He added that the government wanted to send a clear message that stone-pelting, disturbing public order or using religious slogans to create tension would not be accepted. He also mentioned that police were examining social media activity after claims that information about the disturbance had appeared online even before the incident happened.
Adhikari further spoke about plans to strengthen the Kolkata Police force through better infrastructure and logistics support. He also appealed to the Union Home Minister to allow the paramilitary companies already stationed in the state to continue for some time, saying their withdrawal could create manpower pressure. At the same time, he asked people to cooperate with the police and administration in maintaining peace.
Police action after clashes in Park Circus
The violence took place near the Park Circus Seven Point crossing where protests had been organised against the government’s restrictions on roadside namaz and loudspeaker volume limits.
Muslims ran riot at Park Circus, Kolkata, instigated by #ChorTMC leader Crime-Corruption-Communal hate-sponsor Mamata Banerjee. Reason? Ban on namaz on road, no loudspeakers, no slaughter in public places. Nice to see @KolkataPolice has found its long-lost mojo. Way to go KP! pic.twitter.com/rutUHAcRJH
Muslim protesters gathered in the area and blocked parts of the road, leading to traffic disruption. Police had already deployed forces after receiving prior information about the demonstration.
According to officials, tensions increased when police moved to clear the road blockade. The confrontation soon turned violent, with stones and bricks thrown at security personnel and vehicles present in the area. Police vehicles suffered damage and several parked vehicles were also hit during the unrest. Visuals from the area showed broken windscreens and damage caused by stones.
Police responded with a lathi charge to disperse the crowd and regain control of the situation. Additional forces were rushed to the location and traffic movement was restored around the Park Circus Seven Point area. Authorities later confirmed that several people had been arrested and flag marches were carried out in Park Circus and other sensitive locations. Senior officers were directed to strictly enforce the new public order measures.
Officials also linked the incident to tensions that had started earlier in Rajabazar during Friday prayers when police tried to implement the state government’s policy against offering prayers on public roads. That episode had also seen confrontations and police action after roads were blocked.
The present government has taken a tougher line on roadside religious activities. BJP leaders have publicly stated that prayers should remain within mosques and not affect public movement on roads. Restrictions on loudspeaker volume and public gatherings have also become part of the administration’s approach.
Park Circus and its history of large community mobilisations
The latest developments have revived discussion about Park Circus and its long history as a centre of large-scale protests. The locality has repeatedly emerged as a gathering point during community-driven movements, especially because of its location, connectivity and ability to attract large crowds quickly.
Park Circus is one of Kolkata’s better-connected neighbourhoods and sits close to several important roads and densely populated localities. The area also witnesses large gatherings around Friday prayers, which has often made mobilisation easier during periods of social or political tension. Over the years, many demonstrations linked to Muslim community concerns have either started here or built momentum in the locality.
Anti-CAA and NRC movement at Park Circus maidan
One of the biggest examples was the anti-CAA and NRC agitation that turned Park Circus Maidan into a major protest site during the winter of 2020. Inspired by Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh movement, Muslim women-led sit-ins continued day and night with protesters saying they would remain until the Citizenship Amendment Act, NRC and NPR-related concerns were addressed.
The Muslim women from the locality and nearby areas regularly gathered at the site. Many brought children and family members while students and activists joined them. Protesters raised slogans, organised cultural programmes and demanded facilities such as tents, toilets and loudspeakers as the demonstration expanded. The movement eventually became known locally as “Swadhinata Andolan 2” or the second freedom struggle by some participants.
Several participants said they had never joined political protests before but felt compelled to participate because of fears over citizenship issues. Cultural figures, activists and political leaders also visited the venue. The protest became one of Kolkata’s most visible anti-CAA demonstrations and turned Park Circus into a national reference point during the movement.
Rally against Rohingya deportation
Park Circus again became the starting point for another major mobilisation when over a thousand of Muslim people joined a rally opposing the proposed deportation of Rohingya Muslims to Myanmar. The march was organised by multiple Muslim organisations and began from the Park Circus ground before moving toward the Myanmar Consulate office.
The demonstration also sparked political reactions, with BJP leaders criticising the then state leadership and accusing it of vote-bank politics around the issue. The event further added to Park Circus’s image as a regular site for issue-based mass gatherings involving Muslim organisations.
The prolonged women-led sit-in and its social impact
The anti-CAA protest at Park Circus was not only political but also carried a strong social dimension. Thousands of women, many of whom had never been part of public demonstrations earlier, remained active in the movement for weeks. The protest saw participation from homemakers, students, working women and families.
The death of a Muslim woman participant, Sameeda Khatoon, after a cardiac arrest at the protest site became an emotional moment for the movement. Many protesters described her as one of the faces of the resistance. Writers and activists later reflected on how Park Circus had changed from being viewed mainly as a neighbourhood identified through stereotypes into a major political and social space during that period.
Participants frequently spoke about citizenship, belonging and fears linked to documentation. For many Muslim women at the protest, the movement was also about protecting what they described as their “home” and identity. The sit-in continued for an extended period and became one of the most discussed protest spaces in eastern India at the time.
Changing law-and-order approach after political transition
The recent police response in Park Circus is now being viewed by supporters of the present BJP government as a sign of changing administrative priorities after the end of TMC rule in the state. The government maintains that public order enforcement is becoming stricter and that groups involved in road blockades, stone-pelting or violent protests will face immediate action.
Supporters of the new administration argue that incidents which earlier ended without strong consequences are now seeing arrests, deployment of additional forces and visible police presence. Flag marches in sensitive areas, enforcement of roadside gathering rules and quick police intervention are being projected as examples of this shift.
With Park Circus once again at the centre of political and social debate, the latest episode has brought together multiple strands its history as a protest hub, its role in past mass movements and the government’s attempt to project a tougher law-and-order policy. The administration’s message, as stated by the Chief Minister, is that while peaceful activity will continue under the law, any attempt to turn protests violent or disturb public order will invite action.
Whenever we discuss India’s oil, we mainly focus on crude oil, but another imported commodity quietly enters almost every Indian household every single day: edible oil.
From street food stalls to luxury restaurants, from packaged foods to home kitchens, edible oil has become essential for Indian consumers. But why are we discussing this today? The answers lie in the series of events over the last three years that exposed how fragile India’s edible oil sector truly is.
In February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Within weeks, the import of sunflower oil from these two countries was entirely disrupted, making it unaffordable. Barely two months later, in April 2022, Indonesia, one of the largest exporters of palm oil, suddenly imposed an export ban to protect its own supplies. Since India relies on Indonesia for palm oil imports, the decision immediately drove up prices. Now, fresh geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and concerns around the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-third of global seaborne crude oil trade passes, have also raised concerns about shipping disruptions and freight charges. Both these events exposed the harsh reality that India’s Kitchens are deeply vulnerable to global conflicts, export bans, shipping disruptions, and geopolitical instability.
Today, India imports nearly 60% of its edible oil requirement. India is among the world’s largest edible oil economies, after countries such as the USA, China, and Brazil. The import bill is estimated to cost the country approximately USD 18.3 billion (around ₹1.61 lakh crore) in 2024–25.
Palm oil, which is used in processed foods, snacks, and bakery products, is largely imported from Indonesia and Malaysia. Soybean oil is largely imported from Argentina and Brazil, while Sunflower oil is supplied from Russia and Ukraine.
At the same time, edible oil consumption in India has exploded over the last two decades. The rising oil consumption is now linked not just to imports but also to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and fatty liver across the urban and smaller cities. In this article, we will discuss how what appears to be a simple kitchen ingredient has now become connected not just to public health, foreign dependence and economic security.
India’s total consumption vs. production
Today, India is one of the world’s largest consumers and importers of edible oil. More than 25-26 million tonnes of edible oil are consumed by Indians each year, but India produces only around 11-12 million tonnes.
Nearly 60% of India’s consumption requirements are met by foreign countries. As a result, India spent nearly Rs. 1.61 lakh crore (USD 18.3 billion) to import 16 million tonnes of edible oils in 2024-25. This is not a new pattern; in previous years, such as 2023-24, it spent around Rs. 1.32 lakh crore on 15.96 million tonnes of edible oils. It was a nearly 22% jump in value due to higher global prices.
Growing demand vs slow domestic production
Due to rising population, increasing urbanisation, fast-food consumption, and a growing restaurant culture, edible oil consumption has risen. However, the domestic production has failed to keep pace. Despite a heavy reliance on imports, India’s self-sufficiency in edible oil has gradually improved over the last decade.
Improvement in self-sufficiency
According to government data, self-sufficiency increased from nearly 36.8% in 2015 to around 44% by 2024, driven by higher domestic oilseed production and policy support.
Due to rising population, increasing urbanisation, fast-food consumption, and a growing restaurant culture, edible oil consumption in India has increased rapidly. However, domestic production has failed to keep pace with this growing demand.
Why is India dependent on imported edible oils
Despite being an agriculture-driven economy with vast cultivable land, India continues to struggle to achieve self-sufficiency in edible oil. A major reason behind this imbalance is the use of traditional crops. In India, farmers prefer to grow wheat and rice because they provide greater security through the MSP procurement, irrigation facilities, and subsidies. Meanwhile, oilseed crops are often riskier due to unstable prices, pest attacks and dependence on erratic rainfall.
Oilseed crops such as soybean, sunflower, mustard and groundnut did not receive the same level of support. Unlike rice and wheat farmers, oilseed farmers also face volatile market prices and weaker procurement systems, which discourage large-scale cultivation.
Another major issue is the low productivity. In many parts of India, oilseed crops are grown on marginal lands with poor soil quality and limited irrigation, resulting in lower yields than those of global producers. Countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia developed highly efficient palm oil industries over time, while India lagged in achieving large-scale self-sufficiency in edible oils.
Rising consumption and lifestyle changes
Another reason for the imbalance is the high consumption of fried, packaged, snack, bakery, restaurant, and fast food. As cities grow and food delivery apps become normal, edible oil consumption also increases. If we talk about data, in 2001, the average Indian consumed 8.2kg of edible oil per person annually, but it had increased to 23.5kg per person in 2023-24. Oil consumption increased by around 15kg per person over a few years. The growing gap between India’s edible oil consumption and domestic production has transformed cooking oil from a simple kitchen commodity into a major economic and strategic concern.
As the population grew, this widening gap between rising demand and slow production growth forced India to rely heavily on imports from countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Argentina, Brazil, Russia, and Ukraine.
Which oils India imports
India depends on different countries for different edible oils used in household cooking, packaged foods, restaurants, and the processed food industry. Palm oil is the most widely consumed edible oil in India and is primarily imported from Indonesia and Malaysia. Due to its low cost and long shelf life, palm oil is extensively used in processed foods, chips, biscuits, and bakery products. It accounts for over one-third of India’s edible oil consumption basket, making it the country’s most consumed edible oil.
India also imports large quantities of soybean oil, mainly from Argentina and Brazil, while sunflower oil is largely sourced from Russia and Ukraine. The Russia–Ukraine war exposed India’s vulnerability to global supply disruptions, as edible oil prices surged amid disruptions to sunflower oil exports. Although India produces oils such as mustard and groundnut domestically, domestic production remains insufficient to meet the country’s rapidly growing edible oil demand. As a result, India remains heavily dependent on imported edible oils.
The 1998 mustard oil scandal
One of the biggest turning points in India’s edible oil history was the 1998 mustard oil scandal. There was a time when mustard oil was widely used as a traditional cooking oil in North India. It was found to be adulterated with argemone oil, a toxic substance linked to epidemic dropsy. It is a serious disease causing swelling, breathing problems and heart complications. More than 60 people were killed, and around 3000 fell sick, creating widespread panic across the country. The incident severely damaged public trust in loose and locally sold mustard oil. As a result of the scandal, stricter government regulations and food safety checks were introduced. With time, branded refined oils and cheaper imported palm oils gained greater acceptance among consumers, restaurants, and food manufacturers. Many experts believe that this incident indirectly accelerated India’s shift towards refined and imported edible oils, permanently changing the country’s consumption patterns.
The Vanaspati story
Long before refined oil became common in Indian kitchens, Vanaspati was one of the country’s most widely used cooking fats. It was introduced as a cheaper substitute for desi ghee, vanaspati quickly became popular in sweets, bakery products, restaurants and street food. It was low-cost, had a long shelf life, and was easily available. One of the most recognised brands was Dalda, which eventually became almost synonymous with vanaspati in India. With time, hydrogenated fats became deeply embedded in Indian food culture, especially in commercial cooking and processed foods. However, Vanaspati contains high levels of trans fats, which are strongly linked to heart disease and obesity. As processed food industries expanded, cheap imported palm oil gradually began replacing vanaspati in many products because it was easier to import, cheaper for large-scale commercial use, and suitable for repeated frying. The shift led to an increase in dependence on imported palm oil and highly processed edible oils, thereby changing the country’s cooking and consumption patterns.
Economics of cheap palm oil: How palm oil became dominant
Today, India’s edible oil market is largely dominated by palm oil, which holds the single largest share at over 37% of total edible oil consumption. For decades, palm oil was among the cheapest edible oils available globally, a cost advantage built on the exceptional yield efficiency of oil palm trees, which produce nearly 3.3 tonnes of oil per hectare compared to just 0.4 tonnes for soybean and 0.7 tonnes for sunflower. However, by 2024, this price advantage had narrowed significantly, with palm oil prices rising 10% while soybean oil prices fell 9%, marking a rare shift in which palm oil was no longer the cheapest option in global markets. Despite this, its low cost, long shelf life, and high heat stability continue to make it highly attractive to food companies, snack manufacturers, bakeries, restaurants, and street food vendors. It is widely used in biscuits, chips, instant foods, frozen foods, and bakery items because it remains cost-competitive and helps lower production costs at scale. Due to its affordability over several decades, palm oil gradually became deeply embedded in India’s processed food industry and commercial cooking sector.
Health concerns around palm oil
India imports most of its palm oil from Indonesia and Malaysia, which together account for around 85% of the global palm oil supply, making palm oil one of India’s largest imported commodities by volume. Over time, cheap imported palm oil began replacing several traditional oils in large-scale food production because it was easier to source and more economically viable for the industry. Many blended and refined oils sold in Indian markets also contain palm oil, often without consumers realising it. However, excessive palm oil consumption has raised serious health concerns. At nearly 50% saturated fat, palm oil is linked to higher LDL cholesterol levels and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, according to the WHO and multiple independent studies. Despite these concerns, key industries, including cookie manufacturers, restaurants, and hotel chains, continue to rely heavily on palm oil due to its price and availability, further deepening India’s reliance on imported edible oils.
The health crisis behind rising oil consumption
The rising oil consumption is not only an economic issue but also, over time, becoming a health emergency. Over the last two decades, the consumption of edible oil in India has grown rapidly, which we already discussed in the previous section. In previous years, changing food habits and modern lifestyles have sharply increased oil intake across India. From fried street food to fast food, and from processed snacks to bakery products, each meal requires a large amount of edible oil. And in recent times, Food delivery apps and restaurant culture have accelerated the consumption of oily food. We have discussed the economic impacts of large oil consumption, but what about the health of Indians?
It has become clear that consuming large amounts of oil can lead to health issues and diseases. Let’s talk about the per capita edible oil consumption. In the 1960s, India’s per capita edible oil consumption was just 3-4kg annually, which has increased to nearly 25.3kg in 2024-25 and is projected to increase to 40kg by 2030-31. In just 60 years, India’s oil consumption has grown nearly 7 times. If we go more precisely, the data shows that in 2001, the average edible consumption was around 8.2 kg per person per year. This data also showed that consumption has almost tripled over the last two decades.
It becomes more concerning if we check the ICMR-recommended limit. Indian Council of Medical Research, the apex body in India for the formulation, coordination, and promotion of biomedical research, recommends a daily intake of 20–30 grams of visible edible oil per person, which translates to a maximum of roughly 12 kg per year. Currently, Indians are consuming almost twice as much edible oil. Overconsumption of oils leads to different health diseases like Diabetes, obesity and Hypertension.
Reused cooking oil and hidden risks
According to the NFHS-5 Data, Nearly 24% Women and 23% men are considered overweight or obese. India ranks among countries with rapidly rising obesity rates. According to the World Obesity Atlas, India has the second-highest number of overweight and obese children globally. By 2040, it is projected that nearly 56 million Indian children may become obese. And it is not limited to obesity, but it is also true for other diseases like diabetes. According to the diabetes, India currently has around 89.8 million adults with diabetes, and by 2050, India’s diabetes cases may reach 156.7 million, which is huge in numbers. If we look at the data, diabetes cases in India increased massively over time.
Diabetes prevalence in India had nearly doubled over the last three decades, rising from around 3% in 1990 to nearly 6% by 2021. According to doctors and researchers, unhealthy diets, excessive oil consumption, processed foods, and obesity are mainly the reasons for the increase in diabetes cases. India is also witnessing a sharp increase in heart disease and cardiovascular diseases, which are linked to unhealthy dietary habits and excessive oil consumption. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a broad term for conditions affecting the heart or blood vessels. It has now become one of the leading causes of death in the country, accounting for nearly 28% of all deaths in India as of 2016, according to the Global Burden of Disease study, and responsible for 45% of all deaths in the 40–69 age group, according to WHO India data. For the last few decades, the number of cardiovascular disease deaths in India has exploded. In 1990, there were around 2.26 million CVD deaths annually, which had nearly doubled to 4.77 million by 2020. According to health experts, this rise is strongly linked to overconsumption of oily and processed foods.
At the same time, hypertension, or high blood pressure, has become increasingly common across the country. More than one in four Indians now suffers from hypertension, but a large number of cases remain undiagnosed, untreated, or poorly controlled. According to the reports, nearly 80% of Indian households reuse frying oil multiple times. The reheated oil generates harmful trans fats, free radicals and toxic compounds that can increase inflammation inside the body and raise the risk of heart disease, fatty liver disease and even certain cancers.
How global events affect Indian kitchens
In India, the sheer size of the population dictates our import dependency and in effect, is vulnerable to supply shocks due to global events. India is heavily dependent on imported edible oil, making it vulnerable to global geopolitical crises. As India imports a large quantity of edible oil, international conflicts directly affect Indian households. For instance, the Russia-Ukraine war clearly exposed this vulnerability. India imports large quantities of sunflower oil from Russia and Ukraine. Due to the war, global supply chains were disrupted, leading to higher edible oil prices in India. Since India depends heavily on Indonesia and Malaysia for palm oil imports, export restrictions immediately increased prices. Global fluctuations in palm oil, soybean oil, and sunflower oil prices can quickly affect the prices of packaged foods, restaurants, and household cooking across the country.
Currency fluctuations further worsen the problem. Since edible oils are purchased in dollars, a weaker Indian rupee increases import costs even if international prices remain stable. Basically, the rising dependence on imported cooking oil means Indians kitchens are closely linked to global wars, export bans, and shipping disruptions. As a result, even geopolitical conflicts thousands of kilometres away can directly raise cooking oil prices for Indian consumers. This growing dependence has transformed edible oil from a basic kitchen commodity into a major strategic and economic concern for India.
Government response and PM Modi’s appeal
The rise of imported edible oil and the rapid increase in lifestyle diseases have also prompted government intervention. PM Narendra Modi has repeatedly urged Indians to reduce their oil consumption. Recently, he urged reducing oil consumption by 10% and said, “Isse desh seva bhi hogi aur deh seva bhi hogi,” meaning it would serve both the nation and the body.
First, he highlighted this issue on Independence Day, while addressing the nation, warning that obesity and lifestyle diseases could become major challenges for India in the coming years. Later, on World Health Day, he again stressed that reducing excessive oil consumption is not merely a personal health choice but also a social responsibility.
According to health experts, excessive edible oil consumption is directly linked to rising obesity, diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, and cardiovascular problems across the country. Therefore, reducing excessive oil consumption can improve public health while lowering import dependence and reducing pressure on the import bill. Alongside public awareness campaigns, the government has also launched initiatives such as the National Mission on Edible Oils–Oilseeds (NMEO-OS) and the National Mission on Edible Oils–Oil Palm (NMEO-OP). These missions aim to increase domestic oilseed production, improve farmers’ incentives, strengthen self-sufficiency in edible oils, and reduce India’s long-term dependence on imports. The government’s approach now treats edible oil not just as a food commodity, but also as an issue connected to economic security, public health, and national self-reliance.
What you can do: Practical steps to reduce excessive oil consumption
According to health experts, reducing oil consumption requires both individual self-awareness and long-term lifestyle changes. One of the simplest steps one can take is to measure daily oil consumption rather than pouring it freely during cooking. Doctors also suggest that reusing or reheating the cooking oil can lead to many diseases, as reheating generates harmful trans fats, free radicals and toxic compounds that can increase the risk of heart attack, diabetes, fatty liver and certain cancers. Moreover, experts recommend switching to less-processed, cross-pressed oils wherever possible and rotating among different oils rather than relying on a single type for all cooking.
To make your life easier, you must start reading labels on packaged foods, as many processed foods contain hidden fats and refined oils. Reducing the consumption of deep-fried snacks, fast food, bakery products and heavily processed foods can significantly lower long-term health risks. At the same time, healthier cooking methods such as steaming, grilling, roasting, and air frying can help reduce unnecessary oil intake. It is also important to teach healthier eating habits to children from an early age, especially as obesity and lifestyle diseases are rising in the younger population. According to doctors, balanced diets, moderation, and home-cooked food remain among the most effective ways to improve long-term health and reduce excessive reliance on edible oils.
Conclusion
Cooking oil may seem like an ordinary kitchen ingredient, but behind every bottle lies a much larger story of foreign dependence, changing food habits, rising health risks, and economic vulnerability. Today, India imports a large share of its edible oil requirements. Despite being an agriculture-driven country, India leaves Indian households increasingly vulnerable to global wars, export restrictions, supply chain disruptions, and international price shocks. At the same time, excessive edible oil consumption has contributed to rising obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and other lifestyle-related illnesses across the country. Therefore, it is no longer limited to agriculture or food consumption alone. It has become deeply connected to public health, economic security, food inflation, and national self-reliance. While government missions and policy reforms aim to improve domestic oilseed production and reduce import dependence, long-term change will also require healthier food habits, balanced consumption, stronger support for farmers, and greater public awareness. The future of India’s edible oil challenge will depend not only on increasing domestic production but also on changing how the country consumes food.
The United States has a peculiar habit of waging unwarranted wars and manufacturing crises and then behaving as though the rest of the world must applaud Washington for selectively easing the pain caused by its own actions. The latest example came from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who took to X to announce that the United States was issuing a “temporary” 30-day general licence allowing “vulnerable nations” to access Russian oil stranded at sea.
.@USTreasury is issuing a temporary 30-day general license to provide the most vulnerable nations with the ability to temporarily access Russian oil currently stranded at sea.
This extension will provide additional flexibility, and we will work with these nations to provide…
— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) May 18, 2026
The wording of the announcement itself exposed the deeply patronising worldview through which Washington sees the world. The US Treasury Secretary effectively presented sanction waivers not as a correction of flawed American policy, but as a benevolent favour bestowed upon desperate nations by a global overlord. The implication was unmistakable: the world must remain dependent on American permissions for its energy security, even when the instability threatening that security was itself triggered by Washington’s reckless geopolitical adventurism.
Bessent claimed that the waiver would “stabilise the physical crude market” and ensure oil reached “energy-vulnerable countries.” But the obvious question is this: if allowing nations to access Russian oil helps stabilise global energy markets, why is the access merely temporary?
After all, the Treasury Secretary also attempted to justify the move by claiming it would reduce China’s ability to stockpile discounted Russian oil. If that is indeed America’s strategic concern, then permanently allowing broader access to Russian crude would logically weaken Beijing’s leverage even further by increasing competition for Russian exports. China would likely be forced to pay more as more countries enter the market for discounted Russian oil.
Instead, Washington chose a 30-day “temporary” waiver. That alone demolishes the moralistic framing of the announcement.
The reality is far more straightforward. This is not a principled recalibration of sanctions policy. It is damage control.
The Trump administration’s war against Iran has triggered serious disruptions in global energy markets, particularly for countries dependent on the Strait of Hormuz for oil shipments. Iran’s growing control over maritime movement through the Strait, including reports of additional charges and disruptions affecting oil transit, has created uncertainty across global supply chains. Countries far removed from the battlefield are now paying the economic price for a war they neither approved nor wanted.
Washington appears to have grossly underestimated the wider consequences of military escalation with Tehran. Oil-importing economies across Asia and beyond have been forced to confront rising freight costs, supply anxieties, and market volatility because of a conflict initiated by the United States. The resulting anger against Washington is no longer confined to diplomatic whispers behind closed doors.
Bessent’s carefully worded “humanitarian” waiver announcement appears less like generosity and more like an attempt to calm increasingly frustrated capitals around the world.
Notably, India has already made it clear that it does not require American approval to secure its energy interests.
On 18th May, the Modi government unequivocally stated that India would continue procuring Russian crude irrespective of whether the United States grants sanctions waivers or not. Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Sujata Sharma, bluntly underlined that India’s crude purchases are driven by commercial logic and economic sustainability, not geopolitical pressure from Washington.
“Regarding American waiver on Russia, I would like to emphasise that we have been purchasing from Russia before waiver also, during waiver, and now also,” Sharma stated.
She further clarified that there is no shortage of crude supplies and India’s procurement decisions are based entirely on national interest and economic viability.
That position is neither new nor ambiguous.
India imports more than 80 per cent of its crude oil requirements. Any responsible government in New Delhi would naturally prioritise affordable and reliable supplies over Western geopolitical theatrics. Russian crude became attractive after 2022 primarily because it was available at discounted rates. India purchased it because it made economic sense, not because Washington approved or disapproved of it.
In fact, the United States itself previously acknowledged that India’s purchase of Russian oil helped stabilise global crude prices. India’s Ministry of External Affairs had revealed last year that American officials privately conveyed to New Delhi that continued Indian imports of Russian oil were beneficial for keeping global energy markets sustainable.
Washington’s position only changed when it decided to weaponise tariffs and sanctions pressure once again.
This contradiction exposes the sheer opportunism underlying American foreign policy. One day, India buying Russian oil is considered essential for stabilising markets. The next day, the same activity becomes grounds for punitive tariffs and sanctions rhetoric. The principles shift depending on Washington’s immediate geopolitical compulsions.
Now, after the Iran war has created turbulence across global energy markets, the United States is once again quietly relaxing restrictions while pretending it is performing a noble service for “vulnerable nations.”
The condescension embedded in that posture is impossible to ignore.
The world is expected to believe that the same superpower which destabilised West Asia through military escalation is now magnanimously rescuing poorer nations from an energy crisis. Washington wants credit for temporarily easing constraints that became dangerous only because of its own actions in the first place.
More importantly, the very issuance of this waiver is an unstated admission that the American strategy has backfired.
If sanctions architecture needs emergency exemptions to prevent economic distress across the world, then the sanctions regime itself is failing. If countries require temporary licences merely to access affordable crude during wartime disruptions caused by the United States, then the war planning clearly ignored the broader consequences for global energy security.
India, meanwhile, has demonstrated strategic clarity throughout this episode. New Delhi has repeatedly asserted that energy security is a sovereign matter. It has refused to subordinate national interest to Western political messaging. And despite repeated attempts by Washington to project itself as the arbiter of acceptable global trade behaviour, India has continued to make decisions based on economic pragmatism.
The Treasury Secretary’s announcement therefore reveals something far larger than a temporary sanctions waiver. It reflects an increasingly desperate American attempt to retain geopolitical control over a world that is steadily resisting Washington’s unilateral dictates.
The waiver is not a sign of American generosity. It is evidence that the consequences of Washington’s Iran war have become too severe to ignore.
On 18th May (local time), a Norwegian “journalist”, Helle Lyng, went viral on social media after she claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi “refused” to answer her questions on “human rights violations” in India. Helle Lyng, who is associated with a lesser-known media house, Dagsavisen, had only 800+ followers, and her social media handle on X was fairly dead, with the last post from April 2024, before she heckled PM Modi and proudly posted about it.
Source: X
Within hours, Helle reached over 14,000 followers, and the opposition and left-liberals cheered her across X. Notably, the media house she is associated with has not posted on X since 22nd January this year. However, they are quite active on Facebook, where the video was posted. The publication has also published an article targeting India, suggesting that while India’s economy will soon secure 3rd place in the world, its democracy is “declining”.
The newspaper, which has been active since 1975, published a report by journalist Kenneth Lia Solberg on PM Modi’s Norway visit. In the report, initially, Solberg talked about how India is growing, but halfway through, the report took the path of criticising India’s democratic record under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In his report, Solberg claimed that while India’s economy has grown rapidly, its democracy has weakened. He cited V Dem’s Liberal Democracy Index to claim that India’s democratic level has fallen to its lowest since 1950.
Source: dagsavisen
The report also criticised BJP’s dominance in Indian politics and “Hindutva politics”, calling Hindu nationalism “scary”. He argued that Muslims, who form around 15% of India’s population, have faced increasing discrimination, a fake claim that has been spearheaded by international and local anti-India actors since PM Modi took charge of the office for the first time in 2014.
Source: dagsavisen
He further argued that Norway should not ignore these concerns while signing trade agreements with India, even if such deals benefit both countries.
The report written by Solberg is on the same lines as Lyng’s questions. First of all, it was not a press briefing but a joint statement. Both the Indian and Norwegian Prime Ministers were not supposed to take questions. There was a panel of Ministry of External Affairs officials who took the questions later.
As PM Modi was leaving the podium after making the statement, she asked, “Prime Minister Modi, why don’t you take some questions from the freest press of the world?” PM Modi did not answer and walked away with his counterpart. This was exactly what Lyng was hoping for. She said, “Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, would not take my question. I was not expecting him to.”
Primeminister of India, Narendra Modi, would not take my question, I was not expecting him to.
Norway has the number one spot on the World Press Freedom Index, India is at 157th, competing with Palestine, Emirates & Cuba.
And just like that, a new “hero” for the Indian left-liberal gang was born in Norway. When we looked at her “following” list on X, some handles caught the eye, including The Wire, Shivangi Deshwal of The Wire, propagandist posing as journalist Rana Ayyub, and Laura Loomer, the infamous US-based anti-India journalist. In fact, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi has shared the video. In a post on X, he wrote, “When there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear. What happens to India’s image when the world sees a compromised PM panic and run from a few questions?”
Source: X
Sinsing the oppurtunity, she sought time from Gandhii for a telephonic interview.
Hello, would you be available for a phone interview Tuesday Norwegian time. It would be interesting to hear how you view the visit to Norway.
Ironically, the statement came from a leader whose only reply to uncomfortable questions is, “Are you a BJP-planted journalist?” In 2024, he almost got a journalist lynched for asking an uncomfortable question during his flagship politically motivated project, “Bharat Jodo Yatra”.
Apart from Gandhi, several other opposition leaders, propagandist YouTubers, fake historians, fake news peddlers and left-liberals jumped to support the Norwegian journalist as they were able to target PM Modi while doing so.
Rana Ayyub wrote, “Indian democracy on display as Prime Minister Modi visits Norway”.
TMC MP Mahua Moitra said Norwegian media exposed what “GodiMedia” cannot, adding that Modi should learn the ways of free societies.
Source: X
TMC MP Sagarika Ghose mocked PM Modi by saying, “No questions please. We are the Vishwaguru.”
Source: X
Raju Parulekar said it reflects poorly on India that its PM cannot take questions from the world’s freest press.
Source: X
Propagandist YouTuber Arpit Sharma called it an embarrassment for India and said PM Modi could not even answer international media.
Source: X
Fake historian Dr Ruchika Sharma claimed PM Modi was “allergic to free press” and quickened his pace when the journalist asked a question.
Source: X
Congress leader Srinivas BV mocked PM Modi in Hindi, saying he was asking for votes abroad but got embarrassed before the world.
Source: X
Fake news peddler posing as YouTuber Dhruv Rathee called it “international bezzati” for Modi.
Source: X
Propagandist posing as fact checker and Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair mocked the incident by saying ANI will not be present everywhere.
Source: X
When we checked Lyng’s authored articles on Muck Rack, we found that since January 2025, she has mentioned India only once in her articles when US President Trump threatened India with high tariffs. Furthermore, while her hate for Trump is visible in her reports, it seems she has a soft cornor for China. It is evident that her coverage has never been about India.
Source: Muck Rack
Suspected coordination with The Hindu
While Lyng hackled PM Modi, The Hindu journalist Suhasini Haider did the same with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store. Interestingly, while Suhasini shared Lyng’s video, Lyng did the same for Haider.
Source: X
Questions over timing and sudden focus on India
When we looked at the previous reports published by the media house Lyng works for, and her own body of work, India did not appear to be a major area of focus. There were some routine reports related to India, including earthquakes, Donald Trump imposing tariffs on India, and similar developments, but deep analytical pieces on India, its democracy, or its internal political landscape were largely missing. This makes the sudden moral grandstanding over India’s democracy and press freedom look less like routine journalistic interest and more like a pointed intervention timed around PM Modi’s visit.
The pattern raises questions over whether the episode was organic or a planned attempt to create an anti-Modi and anti-India spectacle on foreign soil. The fact that Lyng tried to frame PM Modi’s refusal to answer a shouted question after a joint statement as a press freedom issue only adds to the suspicion that the objective was not to seek an answer, but to manufacture a viral moment that could be used to tarnish India’s image internationally.
Another interesting detail is Lyng’s X profile, which clearly states that she has been verified since May 2026. This means she purchased X Premium very recently. The timing is notable because verified accounts generally receive better visibility on X and also create an impression of authenticity before a wider audience. In this context, her newly acquired verification, the sudden viral push, and the enthusiastic amplification by India’s left-liberal ecosystem together make the entire episode look far more calculated than accidental.
Source: X
When MEA schooled Helle Lyng
Indian Embassy in Norway quoted Lyng and informed her about press meet that was scheduled later that day. The Embassy wrote, “The Embassy is organizing a press briefing on the Prime Minister’s Visit this evening at 9:30pm at hotel Raddisson BluPlaza hotel. You are most welcome to come and ask your questions there.” Lyng was present at the press briefing and did what was expected from her.
During the briefing, she again tried to turn the interaction into a spectacle, this time in front of Indian officials. Introducing herself as a journalist from Dagsavisen, she asked why India should be trusted as Norway strengthens its partnership with New Delhi. She then clubbed it with loaded questions on alleged human rights violations and whether PM Modi would take “critical questions” from the Indian press.
However, instead of letting the question become another performative attack, Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs Sibi George calmly took charge. When Lyng tried to interrupt him and demanded that he answer “straight away”, George firmly reminded her that she had asked a question and he had the right to answer it properly. “You asked me a question, let me answer it,” he said. As she continued to interrupt, George schooled her again, saying, “Please don’t interrupt me. You asked me a question. Please. This is my press conference.”
George then answered her first question, on why the world should trust India, by invoking India’s civilisational legacy and its contribution to humanity. “We are proud that we are a civilisational country of 5,000 years old. Continuous civilisation. Contributed immensely to the world,” he said, adding that concepts like zero, chess and yoga originated in India.
When Lyng again tried to force him to answer in her preferred format, George pushed back without losing his composure. “When to answer, where to answer, how to answer, these are my prerogatives. You asked a question. Don’t ask me to answer in a particular way. Let me answer,” he said. He then cited India’s conduct during Covid, saying India did not “hide in the cave” but came forward to help the world. “We supplied vaccines to more than 100 countries. That brings trust. We supplied medicines to 150 countries. That brings trust,” he said.
George also cited India’s role during its G20 presidency, pointing out that India brought a divided world together and secured the Delhi declaration. He also highlighted India’s efforts to bring the concerns of the Global South to the main table and the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent member of the G20. “This brings trust to the table because we were able to get the aspirations and challenges of the entire African continent, which was ignored, brought to the main table of G20,” he said.
On human rights and democracy, George said India is based on a Constitution that guarantees justice, liberty, equality and dignity to its citizens. “India is the largest democracy in the world,” he said, adding that nearly one billion people participated in the last general elections. He said every citizen in India has fundamental rights and the right to approach courts if those rights are violated.
Taking a dig at those who form opinions on India through selective reports, George said many people have no understanding of India’s scale. “People read one or two news reports published by some godforsaken ignorant NGOs and then come and ask questions. Don’t worry about it. We are proud to be a democracy,” he said.
By the time George moved to India’s constitutional framework and democratic traditions, Lyng had reportedly left the room. In the end, her attempt to heckle Indian officials ended with a detailed, firm and unapologetic response from the MEA Secretary, who made it clear that India would not allow a loaded question to be passed off as journalism.
Conclusion
The entire episode shows how a routine diplomatic visit was turned into a manufactured controversy by a journalist whose recent work had hardly shown any serious focus on India. Lyng was not denied a chance to ask questions. She was publicly invited by the Indian Embassy to attend the press briefing, where she got the opportunity to ask whatever she wanted. However, instead of engaging seriously with the answers, she repeatedly interrupted Indian officials and tried to dictate how they should respond.
What followed exposed the hollowness of the viral outrage. PM Modi had not walked away from a press conference. He had left after a joint statement where questions were not scheduled. The actual press interaction happened later, and MEA Secretary Sibi George answered the same line of questioning in detail, from India’s democratic structure and constitutional guarantees to its global role during Covid, G20, Global South outreach, and support for the African Union.
Yet, the Indian left liberal ecosystem picked only the staged moment and used it to attack PM Modi and India. The sudden rise of Lyng’s profile, her recent X verification, her publication’s anti India framing, and the instant amplification by Congress leaders, TMC MPs, propagandists and fake news peddlers suggest that this was less about journalism and more about creating a viral anti India spectacle on foreign soil.
In the case involving several Muslim men throwing leftover chicken biryani into the Ganga in Varanasi after their Iftar party, the Allahabad High Court said on 15th May 2026, that throwing non-vegetarian food in the Ganga can hurt Hindu religious sentiments.
While hearing the bail application of the 14 accused Muslim youths, Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla said that throwing non-veg food remains into the Ganga River “hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community.”
The court, however, granted bail to five of the accused Muslim men on the ground of the petitioners and their families expressed remorse over their egregious act. Those who have been granted bail include Mohammed Azad Ali, Mohammed Tahseem, Nihal Afridi, Mohammed Tauseef Ahmad and Mohammed Anas.
Arguments presented by the counsel representing the Muslim accused and Advocate General Anoop Trivedi
Appearing for the accused Muslim youth, advocate Raghuvansh Mishra claimed that his clients have been “falsely implicated” and that they “never intended to hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community.”
It was further contended that the accused persons have been incarcerated and are no longer required for custodial interrogation.
Moreover, advocate Mishra argued that other than Section 308(5) of the B.N.S., none of the offences that have been levelled against the applicant are punishable with an imprisonment of more than seven years. It was also argued that the Additional Advocate General, Anoop Trivedi, brought up the Muslim accused extorted money from boatman Anil Sahni angle belatedly in the probe.
“The applicants have no criminal antecedents and if enlarged on bail, undertake not to repeat any such offence nor indulge in any similar activity, which may be prejudicial or harmful to the interest of religious harmony. The applicants are poor weavers who have only weaving as their source of livelihood,” the advocate representing the accused persons said.
Meanwhile, Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, appearing for the State, strongly opposed the bail plea and argued that the Muslim accused have “not only desecrated the River Ganges but has also in a brazen attempt to disturb communal harmony, uploaded the video on Instagram through the handle of one of the accused viz. Mohd. Tahseem.”
Trivedi argued that the circulation of the video on social media was a deliberate act, a part of a larger conspiracy. “The video is part of a larger conspiracy to disturb public harmony, and an investigation is presently ensuing to find out who funded this Iftar party and was instrumental in promoting the uploading of the video,” he said.
Advocate Trivedi also emphasised the Hindu religious but also the national life-giving significance of the Ganga River. Trivedi submitted, “The Ganges being desecrated by the group of people, which has been identified to be the applicants and other accused, has hurt the sentiments of the country at large and not only the Hindu community and has also created a serious situation of public order.”
The Allahabad High Court observations after hearing the bail plea of the Muslim accused,who threw remains of non-veg food in the Ganga River
After taking note of the arguments presented by both sides, the Court said that it will not address the larger issue of the religious and national significance of the Ganga River. However, the court agreed “wholeheartedly” with advocate Trivedi’s points about the importance of the holy river and that the act as committed by the Muslim accused may disrupt communal harmony and snowball into a larger incident.
“…This Court wholeheartedly agrees with the submissions made by the Learned Additional Advocate General regarding the significance of the river Ganges not only to the Hindu community but also to the country at large. Disruption of religious harmony by the acts of a few may lead to a larger incident, and the concern expressed by the Learned Additional Advocate General, by relying upon the decisions of different High Courts, is also, to my mind, not unfounded,” the court observed, adding that social media has also emerged as a major hub of disinformation.
Addressing the issue of Muslim youth doing Iftar party on a boat on the holy Ganga River and throwing bones, Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla said that such an act is hurtful to the sentiments of the Hindu community.
“The present case involves members of the Muslim community having a Roza Iftar party, and during the said Iftar party, while partaking of food, non-vegetarian food is said to have been consumed by the members of the Muslim community, who are then alleged to have thrown the remains into the River Ganges. This fact in the dispassionate opinion of the Court could rightly be said to hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community,” the court said.
The court further stated that the video of accused Muslim youth throwing non-veg food leftovers in the Ganga River was uploaded on Instagram by one of the accused, Mohammed Tahseem, was taken down for violating the social media platform’s community guidelines. The court also noted that the accused persons have expressed regret over their act in their affidavits.
“That the perusal of the first information report affirm and reaffirm that no offence is constituted under the alleged sections but without admitting the applicants and their family most sincerely regrets and feels pain of what has been alleged against them in view of the society at large,” the affidavits filed by the petitioners read.
In view of the apparent remorse expressed by the incarcerated Muslim men, the court opined that the regret expressed in the affidavits filed by the counsels of the accused on their behalf does not come across as an attempt to simply escape the punishment of the law.
The court highlighted that the incarcerated Muslim men have been booked under sections 298, 299, 196(1)(b), 270, 279, 223(b) & 24 B.N.S. and Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, none of which carry punishment for more than seven years.
Justice Shukla also sees the story of boatman Anil Sahni through a lens of suspicion since the allegations of the accused persons threatening him Sahni were added later.
Pertinently, however, the court stated that the investigation into the Iftar party, the offensive video and the alleged conspiracy to stoke communal tensions can continue.
“The investigation, as apprehended by the Learned Additional Advocate General regarding the Iftar party being organised, the video being uploaded and the same being used to create religious disharmony being part of a larger conspiracy, in the opinion of the Court, would not be thwarted and the said investigation can continue without further detention of the applicants in prison. The applicants, who are in jail since 17.03.2026, as has been noted above, have expressed their regrets and have also undertaken never to repeat any such act in future, as is the submission of the Learned counsel for the applicants recorded above,” the court said, noting that five of the accused persons don’t have any criminal antecedents.
“Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the lack of criminal antecedents of the applicants, the period of detention already undergone and also the apology expressed, as recorded above, prima facie a case for bail is made out. The bail applications are allowed,” the court ruled.
The court also made it clear that the observations made in this matter are “exclusively for deciding the instant bail application and are not to be considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.”
In a separate order passed on 15th May, Justice Jitendra Kumar granted bail to other accused persons, Mohammad Sameer, Mohammad Ahmad Raza and Mohammad Faizan. The decision came in the wake of the accused Muslim youths assuring not to repeat such anti-Hindu acts in the future.
“The applicants have been languishing in jail since 17.03.2026 and they have undertaken to file affidavit before the learned Court concerned and the concerned police station that they will not indulge in/repeat similar activities in future,” the court said, adding that the accused will furnish a bond of Rs 50,000 each along with two sureties under bail bond procedure.
Ganga sacrilege and Muslim victimhood
On 17th March, 14 Muslim youths were arrested for throwing leftover chicken biryani into the Ganga in Varanasi after their Iftar party, not very far from the Bindu Madhav Temple. The arrest came after outrage erupted on social media over the video of the incident uploaded on Instagram by one of the accused, Mohammed Tahseem. As Hindus outraged on social media, a case was soon registered based on the complaint lodged by the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) Varanasi president, Rajat Jaiswal.
On 16th March, a Muslim youth arranged a Roza Iftar party and invited people. Dry fruits and chicken biryani were served during the party. The video shows people eating together from a vessel.
Rajat Jaiswal stated in his complaint that people ate chicken biryani and threw the bones into the sacred Ganga River, hurting religious sentiments. He further said that this has hurt the sentiments of Sanatanis and that young people in the Muslim community are deliberately promoting a jihadist mindset.
After the controversy, Varanasi boat operators formulated new rules, and the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh announced that it would launch a dedicated online portal for boat operators.
A repetitive but interesting aspect of this entire episode was the Muslim victimhood propaganda peddled by the usual suspects in media, in politics and on social media. Congress leaders like Supriya Shrinate were quick to defend the Muslim youths who threw chewed bones in the Ganga River.
Islamist commentators, notorious for peddling fake news to further the Muslim victimhood bogey, also attempted to whitewash the anti-Hindu act of the accused persons. Some even went to the extent of invalidating the Hindu community’s outrage over Muslim throwing bones in the Ganga, claiming that even Hindus immerse the ashes of their deceased in the sacred river.
They shamelessly equated the throwing of chewed bones by Muslim men in the river Hindus worship as mother, with the act of immersing ashes of the deceased Hindus.
Islamist Wasim Akram Tyagi had posted on X, “What is a crime? Eating chicken biryani in a boat or throwing a bone into the Ganga? Now the question is, how is this a crime? If this is a crime, then ashes are immersed in the very same Ganga! So isn’t that also a crime? Along the banks of this very Ganga, there are cremation grounds everywhere, half-burnt bodies are floated away in it— so isn’t that also a crime? In this very Ganga, who knows how many such creatures live that are carnivorous— so isn’t their very existence in the Ganga a crime? Will the government remove all those creatures from the Ganga?”
Wasim Tyagi and many other such Islamists deliberately downplayed the significance of immersing ashes of the deceased in the Ganga River to justify the sacrilege committed by the accused. As described in the Garuda Purana, immersing the remains after cremation is believed to help the departed soul attain moksha, heaven, or Brahmaloka. Since the Ganga is considered to have descended from the heavens, it is believed to liberate ancestral souls and break the cycle of rebirth.
Many even argued that the Ganga is not a Hindu-exclusive river and that Muslims too are equally allowed to use its waters, take a boat ride, have an Iftar party and throw non-veg food leftovers in the river, since their religion does not consider the Ganga River as sacred. However, if by the same logic, a Hindu or any non-Muslim goes inside a mosque and consumes pork there, especially during Ramzan, will that be acceptable since, unlike Muslims, pork is not considered haram by Kafirs?
OpIndia had reported earlier about leftist rag The Wire platforming a Delhi-based writer, translator and researcher, Rakhshanda Jalil, to secularise the Ganga River, in pursuit of whitewashing the sacrilege of the holy river by the Muslim youths. The article claimed that the Ganga River belongs to all faiths since many Muslim poets wrote couplets in the praise of the river’s scenic beauty. However, not one piece of poetry the article cited revered Ganga as Mother or Devi, the divine, as Hindus do.
Now, when the Allahabad High Court has said that throwing bones and other non-veg food leftovers in the sacred Ganga River can hurt Hindu religious sentiments, the same Islamo-leftist cabal is selectively highlighting only the Muslim accused getting bail part.
The full, original text of Pakistani diplomatic cable I-0678, the classified document at the centre of one of the most significant political disputes in Pakistan’s contemporary history, was released on May 17, 2026, by the investigative publication Drop Site News. For four years, the cable had been debated, cited, waved at demonstrations, prosecuted, and rejected. At last, it was out.
Asad Majeed Khan, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington at the time, and Donald Lu, the US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, met on March 7, 2022, according to the cypher, as it is known in Pakistan. According to the communication, Lu stated unequivocally that a parliamentary no-confidence vote to oust Prime Minister Imran Khan from office would significantly improve Pakistan’s relations with the United States and Europe. Lu reportedly declared, ‘All will be forgiven.’ The ambassador of Pakistan, who wrote the cable, stated in his evaluation that Lu could not have made such a direct declaration without the express approval of the White House.
An encrypted cable that is sent between a nation’s foreign embassies and its home government is known as a diplomatic cipher. It is a confidential conduit for private conversations that diplomats are confident will never be seen. Pakistan has been on fire for the past four years due to this.
A long-running debate has been rekindled by the release: was Imran Khan’s removal from office in April 2022 a genuine act of parliamentary democracy, or was it a planned departure shaped by a combination of Washington’s disapproval, Pakistan’s military establishment withdrawing its support, and an opposition coalition being given the go-ahead to relocate? There is no clear answer to that question provided by the cypher. Understanding the cypher requires understanding the system that created it. To understand the system, you must go back even further to another prime minister who, with some reason, believed he had been set up to fail.
The man before: Nawaz and the pattern
Nawaz Sharif served as prime minister three times. He was more familiar with Pakistan’s establishment, the formidable network of military and intelligence agencies known as ‘the establishment’ in Pakistani political jargon, than anybody else. He was also aware that it may turn on you.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan disqualified Sharif in 2017 after the Panama Papers revealed links between his family and offshore accounts. The ‘sadiq and ameen‘ clause of the constitution, which mandates that elected officials be trustworthy and honest, served as the legal mechanism. Both supporters and critics pointed out that the clause had never been applied so quickly and that institutional pressure was evident in the speed of the court procedures. Sharif’s description of what he called a judicial-military nexus working against him was supported by enough reliable sources, including those in the legal community, that it could not be completely disregarded.
By the time Sharif departed for London in 2019, supposedly for medical care, he had established himself as a pillar of luxurious exile. From a home that was more Mayfair than miserable, he went to meetings, conducted interviews, and maintained his political influence. His future rehabilitation was already being prepared for by Pakistan’s political system, which permits the controlled comeback of fallen leaders. The Brookings Institution, writing in 2023, would remark that the groundwork was being laid for Sharif’s comeback as the establishment’s next preferred choice, with his convictions being overturned with strange efficiency.
However, the establishment required a fresh face in 2017. Someone fresh, charismatic, and, hopefully, manageable. In cricket whites, they found their man.
Imran Khan: The chosen one
The path of Imran Khan’s political career is one of slow change that took longer than anyone anticipated. The 1992 world cricket champion, who was idealistic, principled, and routinely disregarded by the electorate, was a marginal character in Pakistani politics for more than 20 years. The Movement for Justice, or Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which he founded in 1996, won barely anything for years.
Then, in 2011, a huge PTI protest at Lahore’s Minar-e-Pakistan, a place rich in national significance, appeared out of nowhere with hundreds of thousands joining it. Suddenly, the Pakistani diaspora, young professionals, and urban middle class, who had grown up witnessing the nation’s elder parties exchange power and embezzle money, had their own candidate. In a way that traditional politicians could not match, Khan’s anti-corruption discourse and his story of ‘Naya Pakistan’, a new Pakistan, cut through.
The establishment’s involvement in enabling this rise was less openly declared, although it was well understood by political watchers. The tables were turned, as Brookings observed prior to the 2018 election, in a near mirror image of what would eventually happen to Khan himself. Khan was the preferred candidate, as Sharif was embroiled in legal issues. Election engineering, or what Pakistanis refer to as pre-poll rigging, benefitted PTI; rival parties’ candidates were under pressure from cases, and media coverage became unfavourable to the opposition. In the elections held in July 2018, Khan secured the majority and established a coalition government. He was, to put it frankly, ‘the project.’
Khan’s critics argue that he was an army backed invention, a claim that his supporters vehemently deny. The reality is likely more unsettling, Khan had sincere public support, genuine popular appeal, and real policy commitments. At the same time, he was helpful to an establishment that sought a civilian face that wouldn’t interrupt the core structure of military control in Pakistani governance.
The honeymoon and the falling out
From 2018 to around 2020, Khan’s government had an exceptional level of public goodwill between civilian and military officials. Khan and army head General Qamar Javed Bajwa attended public events together, spoke about national unity, and worked closely on policy. The relationship was, in the jargon of Pakistani political science, a ‘hybrid regime,’ civilian in form, with the military in full control of the true levers of power, foreign policy, security, and the constraints within which domestic politics operated.
Imran Khan with Bajwa, image via HT
The cracks started out slowly and then suddenly became visible.
Khan proved to be more difficult to handle than the establishment had thought. He tended to trust a close-knit group of people, personalise decision-making, and reject suggestions he didn’t agree with, especially when it came to appointments. The ISI chief was at the centre of the most important of these conflicts. In October 2021, Khan objected to the army’s selection of Lieutenant General Nadeem Anjum to lead the ISI, a denial that was equal to a civilian government opposing the army’s most sacrosanct institutional right in Pakistani civil-military relations. He eventually yielded, but the harm had been done.
Khan was having trouble managing his finances at the same time. Public unhappiness increased, the rupee declined, and inflation surged. The establishment started to reconsider after essentially funding the political climate that led to Khan’s rise to power. The civil-military collaboration, which had never genuinely been equal, was secretly renegotiated in favour of the army.
The world turns againstImran Khan
Khan’s difficulties were made worse by foreign policy, which ultimately proved to be deadly to his government.
His engagement with Saudi Arabia served as an example of how institutional necessity can conflict with personal belief. Riyadh has traditionally been one of the most influential foreign players in Pakistani politics due to the country’s reliance on Gulf funds for remittances, deposits in the State Bank, and financial assistance during difficult times. Khan’s intuition took a different turn. The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman saw his outspoken declarations of Muslim unity, his advocacy for a more autonomous Pakistani foreign policy, and his attempts to form a parallel axis with Turkey and Malaysia as direct challenges to Riyadh’s leadership of the Islamic world.
In a widely read article, Pakistani analyst Najam Sethi pointed out that General Bajwa had to travel to Riyadh several times to mend the ties that Khan’s statements had upset. According to reports, the Saudis responded by cutting back on financial assistance to Pakistan, making the government’s financial situation even more vulnerable.
Next came Moscow and Ukraine. Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, declared the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Imran Khan was sitting across from Putin in a meeting that had been planned for months at that precise moment while on a state visit to Moscow. The picture was heartbreaking. On the day of Europe’s worst military crisis since World War II, the prime minister of a country heavily dependent on Western assistance was physically present in the Russian capital.
In keeping with his long-standing ‘absolutely not‘ attitude against allowing US military activities on Pakistani territory, Khan presented Pakistan’s stance as principled neutrality, a reluctance to take sides in a conflict between world powers. Donald Lu met with Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington two weeks later, on March 7, 2022, and expressed his thoughts in unusually forthright words for diplomatic standards.
That conversation is documented in the cipher. Pakistan’s stance on Ukraine, according to Lu, is aggressively neutral, if such a position is even possible. According to the cable, he made it clear that Imran Khan was directly responsible for this position and that ties would greatly improve if the upcoming no-confidence vote was successful. In his own evaluation, Pakistan’s envoy expressed concern that such a strong demarche would not have been possible without White House consent. It appeared that the establishment had been closely monitoring the sentiment in the West. Once the inconvenient citizen had been dismissed, the realignment could commence.
The mechanics of a managed departure
Prime Ministers are no longer removed by the establishment using tanks, at least not publicly. The machinery is more subdued, a whispered message to a prominent opposition figure, the removal of media protection, an abrupt release of the judiciary’s schedule, and a coalition of opposition parties that, until recently, could hardly stand to be in the same room finding a sudden unity of purpose.
That machinery turned against Khan at the beginning of 2022. A no-confidence resolution was introduced in parliament by the Pakistan Democratic Movement, a coalition of parties that included the Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N. Khan’s attempts to postpone the hearings were thwarted when the Supreme Court stepped in to make sure the process could not be stopped. The vote of no confidence was approved on April 10, 2022. A parliamentary vote of no confidence had toppled a prime minister for the first time in Pakistani history. The constitutional procedure was strictly adhered to.
Khan had known what was about to happen. Just two weeks prior to his departure, on March 27, 2022, he took a piece of paper out of his jacket pocket while standing in front of a sizable rally in Islamabad. He informed the assembly that the cypher demonstrated a foreign plot to have him removed. He waved it, quoted from it, and used it as the foundation for his whole future political story. A few days later, the National Security Committee, which he chaired, deemed the US meddling ‘blatant’ and ‘unacceptable under any circumstances.’
Just weeks later, the same committee reconvened under new Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and quietly reversed the assessment. The second committee came to the conclusion that although meddling had occurred, there was no proof of a conspiracy. Depending on who was chairing the session, the army chiefs who attended both meetings seemed to have come to different conclusions regarding the same document.
From project to prisoner
The establishment had not anticipated the months that followed Khan’s dismissal. Rather than withdrawing into opposition and waiting for his time, Khan took to the streets, something they hadn’t planned on. He attracted huge crowds to his rallies. His story, which claimed that Washington’s pressure and the army’s betrayal, using the old corrupt parties as tools, had removed him, struck a chord with millions of Pakistanis who were also witnessing the return of the same old faces to power and the decline of their purchasing power due to inflation. Surprisingly, he was more well-liked when he wasn’t in office.
The state responded in a deliberate and intensifying manner. In the midst of spectacular chaos at an Islamabad courthouse in May 2023, Khan was arrested. In what became known as May 9, his supporters stormed military facilities and took to the streets. Senior PTI leaders either vanished into intimidated quiet, swapped sides, or were imprisoned. In the Toshakhana case, a corruption case involving the misappropriation of public gifts, Khan was found guilty in August 2023 and given a three-year sentence. As more cases accumulated, he stayed behind bars. In the Al-Qadir Trust case, he and his spouse, Bushra Bibi, were sentenced to 14 years in January 2025. In June 2024, the Islamabad High Court overturned the cypher case that had jailed him and former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi for ten years in prison.
The irony has not escaped the notice of onlookers. Khan was charged, in part, for disclosing the cypher, which, according to a secret ISI report acquired by The Intercept, his own intelligence agency privately assessed could not have jeopardised Pakistani national security in any technically serious way. The ISI’s own experts pointed out that the encryption key was never in danger. It was political in nature. General Asim Munir became army head and was later promoted to the rank of Field Marshal, an award previously held only by Ayub Khan. Munir had been briefly designated ISI chief under Khan before Khan attempted to remove him, an event that many feel sowed the roots of personal animosity. Pakistan’s military was solidifying its status as the only unchallenged judge of the nation’s political future.
The cypher returns, and so does the question
There is a way for the planet to come full circle. Drop Site News revealed cable I-0678 in its entirety in May 2026, just as Pakistan’s military regime was enjoying widespread recognition for mediating between the US and Iran during a risky escalation in the Gulf. The timing was perfect. Donald Trump referred to Pakistan’s army head as ‘my favourite Field Marshal‘. According to the cypher, Pakistan had effectively reintegrated into the American strategic orbit, which was exactly what Washington had desired from the moment it resisted Khan’s visit to Moscow.
The key question has been raised once more by the cipher’s complete disclosure. Were the statements made in it, such as ‘all will be forgiven’ and the clear connection between Khan’s dismissal and better bilateral ties, proof of American meddling in Pakistan’s domestic affairs? Or were they simply commonplace statements of diplomatic dissatisfaction, misinterpreted and politically weaponised?
Both statements may have some truth to them. It was evident that the US had a strong preference. Donald Lu seemed to be going above his brief, according to his own ambassador interlocutor, who expressed diplomatic unease. However, it is not the same as plotting a coup when a foreign power expresses its preferences. For a variety of factors, including the disagreement over ISI appointments, tensions with Saudi Arabia, poor economic management, and the growing animosity between Khan and the generals, Pakistan’s army made its own decision. On the scale, the cypher represented one weight. Another was the calculations made by the establishment itself.
The cypher does, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that Khan’s narrative, that external pressure and internal military pullout united to push him out, was not manufactured. It was based on documents. His opponents used a law prohibiting the disclosure of state secrets to make it illegal to describe what the state had gone through, and they spent two years prosecuting him for simply saying the same thing.
The permanent cycle
Pakistan’s democratic future has always been a victim of this cycle. The cypher leak serves as a reminder that the system it describes is not a bug, regardless of whether you think it indicates a foreign conspiracy, institutional betrayal, or both. The military has historically operated in a geopolitical setting where influential external actors have an interest in who holds office in Islamabad, and civilian governments have long existed in Pakistan at the expense of the military. The complete architecture of the previous episode is now evident, which is what sets this moment apart. Everything is documented, including the leaked cable, the army’s confidential evaluations, the reversals of post-ouster policy, and the rehabilitation of defeated opponents.
Pakistan has a long history of elevating its leaders to high positions before carefully removing them. Its system has never been able to provide a persuasive explanation to the question of whether it will ever be able to create a system that does neither, where governments are chosen by popular vote rather than by decisions made in secrecy. Cable I-0678, the cypher, is unable to provide an answer. Even though it was published four years later and caused political inconvenience for nearly everyone, it at least guarantees that the question cannot be evaded. That might be the highest level of accountability accomplished in Pakistan, showing up just in time to expose the crime, but arriving too late to save anyone.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the Netherlands has emerged as one of the most significant chapters of his ongoing five-nation Europe and West Asia tour. After visiting the UAE, PM Modi travelled to the Netherlands, where his visit concluded on Sunday, 17th May. The visit, held at the invitation of Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten, became remarkable because India and the Netherlands elevated their ties to a full-fledged “Strategic Partnership.”
During the visit, both countries announced 17 major outcomes covering sectors such as semiconductors, defence, agriculture, education, water management and cultural cooperation. However, among all the agreements and announcements, one development stood out for its long-term importance to India’s water security and climate planning: the Dutch decision to support Gujarat’s ambitious Kalpasar Project.
Dutch expertise for Gujarat’s mega water project
One of the biggest highlights of the entire diplomatic visit was the signing of a momentous Letter of Intent (LoI) between the two nations. This agreement directly brings world-class Dutch hydraulic engineering expertise to Gujarat’s highly ambitious Kalpasar Project.
Signed formally between India’s Ministry of Jal Shakti and the Netherlands’ Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, the LoI establishes a framework for technical cooperation focused on coastal and water engineering. This collaboration is set to significantly strengthen India’s regional water security.
The Kalpasar Project is one of India’s most ambitious proposed water infrastructure plans. It aims to build a massive dam across the Gulf of Khambhat to create a giant freshwater reservoir. Dutch experts will assist India in areas such as tidal management, salinity control, delta engineering and coastal water infrastructure.
This cooperation deal between both countries is significant because the Netherlands is one of the countries in the world that is acknowledged as having immense expertise in water engineering and flood management. Around 26% to 30% of the Netherlands sits below sea level. Being located beneath sea level, the Dutch engineers have devised innovative methods for controlling floods, saltwater intrusion, and freshwater reserves.
PM Modi visits the iconic Afsluitdijk Dam
During his visit to the Netherlands, PM Modi also travelled to the famous Afsluitdijk dam along with Prime Minister Rob Jetten. The visit attracted major attention because the Afsluitdijk project is considered one of the greatest examples of modern water engineering in the world.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi accompanied by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Rob Jetten visited the iconic Dutch water management structure, the Afsluitdijk. The visit underscored the shared commitment of both nations to innovative water management solutions, climate… pic.twitter.com/9dQYYjIKFP
The visit was not just symbolic. According to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the Afsluitdijk project has direct relevance to Gujarat’s Kalpasar Project because both involve large-scale coastal engineering, freshwater storage and flood protection systems.
Sharing his experience on X, PM Modi highlighted the importance of Dutch expertise in water management.
“An area in which the Netherlands has done pioneering work is water management. The entire international community can learn a great deal from this. This morning, I had the chance to visit the Afsluitdijk and gain insight into the key features of this project. I am grateful to Prime Minister Rob Jetten for accompanying me here. We are committed to bringing modern technology to India, designed to assist with irrigation, flood protection, and the expansion of the inland waterway network,” PM Modi said.
An area in which the Netherlands has done pioneering work is water resources. There is a lot the entire global community can learn from them.
This morning, I had the opportunity to visit the Afsluitdijk and understand the salient features of this project. I am thankful to PM… pic.twitter.com/dYFfiAuzKZ
MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal also described the visit as an important moment for future India-Netherlands cooperation.
“A symbol of engineering excellence and innovation! Accompanied by PM Rob Jetten of the Netherlands, PM Narendra Modi visited the iconic Afsluitdijk Dam, a symbol of Dutch excellence in water management, flood protection and freshwater storage. The visit highlighted the relevance of Dutch expertise for India’s Kalpasar Project in Gujarat, which aims to create a freshwater reservoir and dam near the Gulf of Khambhat,” Jaiswal posted on X.
A symbol of engineering excellence and innovation!
Accompanied by PM Rob Jetten of the Netherlands, PM @narendramodi visited the iconic Afsluitdijk Dam, a symbol of Dutch excellence in water management, flood protection and freshwater storage.
Kalpasar is inspired by a similar Dutch engineering success
The broader idea behind PM Modi’s visit to the Afsluitdijk was clear: India wants to learn from Dutch expertise while planning the Kalpasar Project.
There are many similarities between Gujarat’s proposed project and the Dutch dam. Both involve dealing with seawater, tidal movements, freshwater storage and coastal engineering challenges. The Netherlands has already spent decades solving many of the same technical issues that India could face during the Kalpasar project.
This is why Dutch technical support is seen as highly valuable for Gujarat. Experts believe the Netherlands’ experience in managing massive coastal water systems can help India avoid costly engineering and environmental mistakes in the future.
Why the Afsluitdijk Dam matters
The Afsluitdijk is one of the Netherlands’ most famous engineering achievements and has played a central role in the country’s long battle against flooding and seawater intrusion.
The 32-kilometre-long barrier dam was originally completed around 80 years ago. It separates the North Sea from the IJsselmeer freshwater lake and protects large parts of the low-lying Netherlands from severe floods.
But the project is not just about flood defence. The Afsluitdijk also supports freshwater storage, transport connectivity, navigation and renewable energy generation. Today, the Netherlands is modernising the structure through a massive “Afsluitdijk 2.0” programme designed to prepare the country for future climate challenges.
The upgraded project is being redesigned to withstand storms expected only once every 10,000 years. It includes stronger locks, advanced water discharge systems, fish migration corridors and renewable energy technologies using tidal flows, solar energy and wind power.
Dutch authorities estimate the modernisation project will cost around €800 million.
The Afsluitdijk has also become an example of how modern infrastructure can serve multiple purposes at once: flood control, freshwater security, climate resilience, transport, tourism and renewable energy.
What is the Kalpasar Project?
The Kalpasar Project has been discussed in Gujarat since the 1970s and is considered one of India’s most ambitious long-term water infrastructure proposals.
Map via Desh Gujarat
The idea first emerged in 1975 when the Gulf of Khambhat was identified as a possible location for tidal energy generation. Over time, the project expanded into a much larger plan focused on freshwater storage, flood control, irrigation and transport connectivity.
The original idea is to create a new freshwater reservoir by building a dam between Bhavnagar and Bharuch in the Gulf of Khambhat in Gujarat, and stop the inflow of seawater into the Gulf. This project will connect Saurashtra and South Gujarat.
The revised plan has three major components.
The first is the main Kalpasar dam that would connect the Bhavnagar district to the Bharuch district across the Gulf of Khambhat.
The second is the Bhadbhut barrage on the Narmada River near Bharuch. Its purpose is to prevent seawater intrusion and divert freshwater into the reservoir system.
The third component is a massive canal network that would distribute water across Saurashtra and nearby regions.
The project’s estimated cost has now risen to around ₹85,000-90,000 crore. If the project receives final approval and is found technically and environmentally feasible, experts estimate that construction alone could take between 12 and 15 years. The full project timeline could stretch close to two decades.
Water, irrigation and transport benefits
The Kalpasar Project is being planned as a multi-purpose infrastructure system.
The biggest objective is freshwater storage. Water flowing from rivers into the Gulf of Khambhat would be stored before entering the sea. This could help reduce water shortages in Bhavnagar and large parts of Saurashtra. The stored water could also support Kutch and other drought-prone regions currently dependent on the Narmada Canal system.
BOOST FOR KALPSAR PROJECT IN GUJARAT: Accompanied by Netherlands PM Rob Jetten, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits the iconic Afsluitdijk Dam, a symbol of Dutch excellence in water management, flood protection and freshwater storage. The visit highlights the relevance of… https://t.co/9bJDfNXkL7pic.twitter.com/zJ0N1Titpm
Apart from drinking water, the project is expected to improve irrigation for agriculture across Saurashtra and South Gujarat.
Another major benefit would be flood control. By regulating water flow more efficiently, authorities believe the project could reduce flood risks in nearby regions.
The project also proposes building a massive 10-lane transport corridor on top of the dam. This could sharply reduce travel distance between Bhavnagar and Bharuch, directly connecting Saurashtra with South Gujarat and improving trade and logistics.
Climate change and the future of water infrastructure
PM Modi’s visit to the Afsluitdijk also reflects a much larger global conversation around climate change and water security.
Across the world, rising sea levels, unpredictable monsoons, glacier melt, prolonged droughts and extreme rainfall are forcing governments to rethink traditional infrastructure systems.
India faces a particularly difficult challenge because some regions suffer from severe floods while others struggle with water scarcity at the same time.
Projects like Kalpasar are part of a new approach focused on long-term climate resilience. But such mega-projects also raise difficult environmental, ecological and financial questions.
The Dutch model demonstrates that future infrastructure systems may need to combine flood defence, freshwater storage, renewable energy, transport connectivity and environmental management together instead of treating them separately.
PM Modi’s visit secures critical International support
At present, the Kalpasar Project is still in the planning stage. The Gujarat government recently informed the assembly that the Detailed Project Report (DPR) is being finalised. After that, it will require approval from both the state and central governments.
According to officials, around 43 technical studies have been commissioned for the project, with over 25 already completed.
This is where PM Modi’s Netherlands visit becomes strategically important. By securing Dutch cooperation, India now has access to some of the world’s best expertise in coastal engineering, flood protection and freshwater reservoir planning.
The Netherlands has already dealt with many of the same geographical and engineering challenges that Kalpasar may face. Dutch support could therefore play a major role in improving the project’s design, environmental safeguards and long-term sustainability.
India’s interest in the Dutch model is not only about engineering expertise. It is also about preparing for a future where climate resilience, water security and sustainable infrastructure may become some of the most important pillars of national development planning.
