Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann on Thursday welcomed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s return to India, making a sarcastic remark that questioned the significance of his trips to countries with small populations.
Mann jokingly mentioned that PM Modi might be visiting countries like “Magnesia,” “Galveaisa,” or “Tarvesia,” highlighting his perception that these visits are not substantial.
Mann questioned the relevance of PM Modi’s visits to countries with tiny populations, contrasting them with the large population of India.
“PM has gone somewhere. I think it is Ghana. He is going to be back and he is welcome. God knows which countries he keeps visiting, ‘Magnesia’, ‘Galveaisa’, ‘Tarvesia’. He does not stay in a country with 140 crore people. He is visiting countries where the population is 10,000 and he is getting the ‘highest awards’ there. Here, 10,000 people gather to watch a JCB… What has he gotten himself into!…,” said Mann.
#WATCH | Chandigarh | Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann says, "PM has gone somewhere. I think it is Ghana. He is going to be back and he is welcome. God knows which countries he keeps visiting, 'Magnesia', 'Galveaisa', 'Tarvesia'. He does not stay in a country with 140 crore people. He is… pic.twitter.com/lbOObtIRDB
PM Modi recently concluded a landmark five-nation tour, visiting Ghana, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Brazil, and Namibia from July 2 to 9, 2025. This tour marked his longest foreign trip in a decade, spanning two continents and strengthening India’s ties with key nations in the Global South.
PM Modi’s visit to Ghana focused on enhancing cooperation in investment, energy, health, security, and development. He addressed the Ghanaian Parliament and was conferred with the country’s top civilian honour, “Officer of the Order of the Star of Ghana”.
Both nations agreed to upgrade ties to a Comprehensive Partnership and signed MoUs in fintech and traditional medicine.
Trinidad and Tobago visit marked the first time an Indian Prime Minister had visited the country since 1999. PM Modi addressed a joint session of Parliament, extended OCI card eligibility to the sixth generation of the diaspora, and donated 2,000 laptops to schools. He was awarded the country’s highest honour, “The Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago”.
PM Modi’s visit to Argentina was the first bilateral visit by an Indian Prime Minister in 57 years. Discussions with President Javier Milei covered critical minerals, shale energy, defense, and pharmaceuticals. Argentina expressed interest in adopting India’s UPI platform and vaccines.
During the BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, PM Modi held bilateral talks with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, focusing on defense cooperation, renewable energy, and digital public infrastructure. He was conferred with Brazil’s highest civilian honor, the “Grand Collar of the National Order of the Southern Cross.”
In the final leg of his tour, PM Modi met with Namibian President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, discussing development cooperation, energy, health, and education. Namibia signed a licensing agreement to adopt India’s UPI platform, becoming the first country globally to do so. PM Modi addressed a joint session of the Namibian Parliament and was awarded the “Order of the Most Ancient Welwitschia Mirabilis.”
(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)
When it comes to India’s strategy to tackle Pakistan, Indian left-liberal discourse automatically descends into the usual ‘Aman ki Asha’ mode, glossing over the Islamist Jihadist mindset of the Pakistani political and military establishment, backed by a significant section of the Pakistani populace. So far, the strategy has been to downplay the strong affiliation of Pakistani people with the wretched ‘two-nation theory’ that essentially formed the basis for India’s partition and Pakistan’s creation on Islamist lines. However, there has been a software update.
Now, the Indian liberals have started admitting that the two-nation theory is indeed one of the main causes behind the persistent Indo-Pak hostilities since 1947. But now, cultural exchanges, Bollywood, Pakistani dramas, shared subcontinental identity and millennial liberalism are being presented as progressive elements that can bring the Indian and Pakistani people together.
Leftist propaganda outlet Newslaundry has suggested a revamp of India’s Pakistan strategy. In the article titled “India’s Pak strategy needs a 2025 update” by Alpana Kishore, the Modi government’s approach to Pakistan has been described as the one characterised by a “zero-sum” mindset. Newslaundry suggests that India’s focus on military and economic containment is outdated and does not account for evolving social and cultural dynamics in Pakistan.
At the very onset, the article insinuates that India’s stance of treating Pakistan-sponsored terror attacks in India as an act of war, and scrapping the Indus Waters Treaty after the jihadist attack in Pahalgam, opposition to the collaboration of Pakistani artists with the Indian entertainment industry is inappropriate.
“A state as enemy – means its people are enemies. This supposedly new non-negotiable has failed to notice an important reality. It’s a different world from 1980. Today’s wars require responses that work in 2025,” the Newslaundry article reads.
It further asserts that things have undergone a significant change over the years, and that there was a time when “It was simply too incorrect for an Indian historian to say upfront, the Two Nation Theory was a terrible, racist idea because it would be seen as delegitimising a valid Pakistani identity and subsuming it as Indian. Yet these things are currently being said by Pakistanis!”
Firstly, two-nation theory though not devoid of the delusional superiority complex of belonging to martial Arab race, however, this divisive theory has been more about religion than race. The Two-nation theory promulgated by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan essentially stated that Muslims cannot co-exist peacefully with Hindus and thus should have a separate nation.
Syed Ahmad Khan said in 1876, “I am convinced now that Hindus and Muslims could never become one nation as their religion and way of life was quite distinct from each other.” Seven years later, he voiced similar sentiments. He said, “Friends, in India, there live two prominent nations which are distinguished by the names of Hindus and Mussalmans…To be a Hindu or a Muslim is a matter of internal faith which has nothing to do with mutual relationships and external conditions…Hence, leave God’s share to God and concern yourself with the share that is yours…India is the home of both of us…By living so long in India, the blood of both have [sic] changed.”
Twelve years later, he stated, “Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?… Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land.”
The article proceeds to calling the Pakistani millennials and their Gen Z successors as some sort of ‘gamechangers’. Alpana Kishore asserts that Pakistani Gen Z has been using social media to “question the choices and ideological beliefs of their ancestors, acquire information that contradicts official narratives and communicate globally, they have been able to condemn jihadists, engage with the other and push modern agendas.”
While it is true that a significant section of Pakistani youth, especially the supporters of PTI leader and now-jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan have been questioning the corrupt practices of the Pakistan Army and its functioning as the country’s de facto ruler, even the most liberal of the liberal Pakistanis hold the two-nation theory dear. Holding the two-nation theory dear, essentially means that they cling to the belief that Muslims cannot co-exist peacefully with Hindus, who as per their Islamic belief are infidels/Kafirs.
It is further argued that studying and working together abroad has brought Pakistanis and Indians together, leading to their friendships and bonds. However, the supposed Indo-Pak diaspora bonds abroad hardly change any ground realities in Pakistan. In fact, many Pakistanis abroad falsely claim to be Indian to avoid negative perception and escape embarrassment they feel is attached to their nationality; however, this does not mean they actually identify as Indians or hold pro-India opinions.
The Newslaundry ‘Aman ki Asha’ piece focuses too much optimistically on ‘millennial liberalism’ and a shared subcontinental identity in Pakistan. It underestimates the authoritative influence of Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus, which continues to be the primary driver of its anti-India policies.
The article suggests that Pakistani youth’s worldview is “critically” shaped by their engagement with the Indian cultural multiverse, be it through Bollywood films, OTT, social media or diaspora countries. “It has kindled an inter-generational interest in an older, shared past and identities they see in rituals, festivals, language, fashion and music,” the article reads.
Newslaundry went on to suggest that despite the emergence of ‘jingoistic’ films within India, here, jingoistic essentially means that movies centred on Indo-Pak themes that do not whitewash Pakistan-backed cross-border terrorism, Pakistani millennials find their deepest India connection via Bollywood music and films.
However, even former Pakistani Army General Pervez Musharraf had deep admiration for Bollywood films and music, did that stop him from orchestrating the great betrayal of the Lahore Agreement signed between then Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif and his Indian counterpart Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in the form of the 1999 Kargil war? Years later, Musharraf, the same Bollywood-loving Pakistani army general, boasted the Kargil betrayal as a ‘successful’ operation and even condemned Nawaz Sharif for having ordered the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from Kargil.
While the younger Pakistani generation may engage with Indian culture through films, OTT platforms, or social media, this cultural affinity does not essentially translate into political or strategic influence. Contrary to the liberal journalist’s assertion that Pakistanis have been able to condemn jihadis, in contexts outside Pakistan, be it the Pakistani terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba masterminded 21/11 Mumbai attacks, 2001 Parliament attack masterminded by Pakistani terrorist Masood Azhar, 2016 Uri attack, or the 2025 Pahalgam attack among others, Pakistanis never even acknowledged the involvement of Pakistani terrorists and their jihadist motivations.
Even after the Pahalgam attack, wherein terrorists including an ex Pakistani Army officer, belonging to The Resistance Front, an offshoot of LeT, shot innocent tourists after confirming their non-Muslim identity. The victims were asked to recite Kalma and failure of doing so invited a bullet. Many Pakistani celebrities and even common people condemned the attack. However, a common pattern seen across their condemnation of the attack was visible in their dexterity to diassociate Islam from the Jihadist mindset and motivation of the terrorists. “Terrorism has no religion”, “Islam does not teach hatred” and similar such messages poured in.
More than condeming the jihadist attack, the focus of the same Pakistani millenials and gen-Z was on making sure that the attack carried out by Muslim terrorists against Hindu civilians driven by their hatred for Hindus, is not seen as an act of Islamic terrorism. One thing must never be forgotten if we are to truly address the menace of Jihadi terrorism, while the two-nation theory was the driver of India’s partition of Islamic lines, the two-nation theory finds its roots in the Islamist hatred for non-Muslim communities, especially the idol-worshipping Hindus.
The Pakistani military and the ISI, continues to nurture, fund and shield anti-India terror groups like LeT, Jaish, among others. While the Newslaundry article does acknowledge the peristance of Pakistan’s Jihadi infrastructure, it downplays its centrality by suggesting that India should focus on engaging with liberal elements. However, the question arises is how? Are the relatively secular or non-jihadist millennials governing Pakistan? Pakistan continues to be dominated by its military, in fact, the Pakistani Army’s anti-India and anti-Hindu rhetoric suggests that there is hardly any difference between jihadis and the Pakistan ‘Aand’ Forces. Even Pakistan’s current DGISPR, Sharif Ahmed Chaudhary, is the son of a UN-designated terrorrist.
Forget showing any willingness to dismantle jihadist terror networks, Pakistan continues to deny any sort of involvement in the terror attacks in India despite evidence of linkages. Pakistan’s military leadership continues to issue nuclear threats to India.
Not to forget, just days before the Pahalgam attack, Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir had spewed venom against India and Hindus. He even urged the Pakistani people not to forget to instil the venom of the two-nation theory into the younger generations and how they must continue to harbour hatred for Hindus. Such blatant expression of hatred for Hindus, who despite continued persecution exist in Pakistan as a minority, went without any outrage from the progressive liberal Pakistani millennials and Gen-Z.
Thus, the only rational response to Pakistan’s intransigence is India’s “zero-sum” approach.
No matter how much Pakistanis criticise its political and military leadership, they have so far not shown any interest in abandoning the two-nation theory. In fact, to this day, the Pakistan Army’s grip on power ensures that the anti-India and anti-Hindu rhetoric remains a unifying force for domestic legitimacy.
Alpana Kishore’s suggestion that a shared subcontinental identity could bridge divides ignores the fact that Pakistan’s establishment has consistently weaponised identity politics to keep the flames of hostility ablaze, particularly over Kashmir, which it calls its ‘jugular vein’. India has been very generous with Pakistan in attempting cultural and diplomatic engagement with Pakistan, even after the Kargil betrayal and continued cross-border terrorism. If history tells anything, it is that cultural overtures alone cannot alter Pakistan’s strategic calculus without addressing the role of its military and the puppet government it has installed.
Has Pakistan renounced its sinister desire of bleeding India with a thousand cuts through jihadist terrorism? Has Pakistan extradited terrorists like Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin, Masood Azhar, and many others involved in terror activities against India? Has Pakistan acknowledged that indeed a Pakistani terror group was behind the Pahalgam attack? Has Pakistan stopped patronising Jihadis? Has Pakistan given up its unjustified claim over Jammu and Kashmir? Has Pakistan handed over PoJK back to India? Have cross-border infiltration bids stopped from the Pakistani side?
People to people ties are always welcome, hostilities should end, unravelling Partition in a quest for answers is also good, in fact, it is paramount. While the Hindu majority regrets the partition of India on Islamic lines, this regret is not shared by a large section of Pakistani populace. It needs to be questioned and examined by Pakistani youth, why is it that Indians largely believe that the partition should never have happened, but Pakistanis celebrate it.
Films, music, social media, and all sorts of people-to-people interactions indeed contribute to bridging differences and curbing hostilities. However, in a country like Pakistan, which has Hindu-hating jihadists leading its institutions, be it the puppet government or its puppeteer Pakistani ‘Aand’ Forces, who every now and then threaten to ‘attack Ayodhya Ram Mandir’, ‘wipe out Hindus’, ‘stop the breath of Indians’ and ‘wage Jihad against India’ and whatnot, no art, no cultural exchange, nothing can resolve disputes.
“The point is actually this. Pakistan’s jehadi infrastructure and its Army remain intact and dangerous. Many of its young remain vulnerable to radical Islamist thinking. Jyoti Malhotras are a reality. There can be no lowering of guards where it matters. Yet, the digital world isn’t going anywhere,” the Newslaundry article argues.
However, the actual point is that governments are not run solely in the digital world, as long as the Hindu-hating and anti-India thinking finds takers in Pakistan, the jihadist forces continue to dominate the country. No matter how warm and loving the Indo-Pak digital world appears, the ground realities won’t change. Pahalgam did not happen in the digital world. This digital world and opinions expressed on it are fickle.
The Newslaundry piece itself points out that many Pakistani YouTubers who enjoyed significant Indian viewership have “fallen back into the weary old rhetoric”, although it blames this change in tone on Indian television media’s dramatic and hysterical reportage during Operation Sindoor.
Amusingly, Newslaundry mentions Diljit Dosanjh and Hania Aamir to argue that both are admired by many Indian and Pakistani millennials, and that Dosanjh’s music is a unifier. To be very honest, music is indeed a unifier. However, his music and movies, even those featuring Hania Aamir cannot bring any policy change in Pakistan. If social media has positively contributed towards bridging differences, its negative side cannot be overlooked.
Newslaundry argues that India’s portrayal of Pakistan as an “axis of evil” is flawed since not all Pakistanis are anti-Indian jihadis. While it is true that not all Pakistanis are jihadis or support their state’s policies, the Modi government’s strong stand against Pakistan, be it scrapping IWT, banning Pakistani channels, discontinuing trade or talks until Pakistan stops cross-border terrorism, is not driven by any ideological whim but the ground realities.
Pakistan is represented by a regime backed by the Islamist military. How can India engage with an unrepresented liberal faction? India cannot prioritise social engineering experiments over national security. The Newslaundry article offers no mechanism for the implementation of its suggestion to engage with Pakistan’s supposedly liberal and progressive younger generation. From media to social media, the Pakistani army controls the narrative, it muzzles the voices of its own people, carries out drone attacks on Pashtuns, Balochs and anyone opposed to them and blames India for the same. In such a case, India cannot mindlessly open channels for cultural exchange while the hostile neighbour’s rulers yearn to bleed India with a thousand cuts.
Towards the end of the ‘Aman ki Asha’ dream repackaged in relatively balanced rhetoric, author Alpana Kishore laments that the Modi ‘regime’ indulges in labelling Pakistanis as ‘Madrassachhaps’, however, the author made no mention of how numerous Pakistani millennials throw Hinduphobic and racist slurs like ‘Pajeet’ at Indians.
“Yet this regime’s single-tone signalling allows no space for this influence to work. By its offensive labeling of madrassachhaps and obsessive gloating about Indian economic might – it pushes fresh thinking across the border back into the old grand narrative of the Two Nation theory that says ‘I told you so’,” the Newslaundry piece reads.
There is nothing “fresh” about this ‘I told you so’ thinking. In fact, Indian Muslims, especially celebrities often receive the “Jinnah was right that Muslims who chose to remain in India will have to prove their loyalty for the rest of their lives”, from Pakistan’s ‘progressive-liberal’ millennials. Also, the ‘madrassachhap’ jibe, although not good when thrown out of context, is not intended to mock the religious identity of Pakistani Muslims, rather the mention of Madrassa comes simply because madrassas in the neighbouring country have been the first stage of the brainwashing of Pakistani youths, who then proceed to either become ‘Mujahids’ or radical Islamists at heart.
For India to engage with Pakistani ‘liberal progressive’ millennials, it is the Pakistani people who need to abandon the Islamist anti-Hindu and anti-India mindset and start opposing their military leadership’s anti-India activities. Instagram, movies and music are secondary drivers of paradigmatic change. It is only when Pakistan breaks itself free from the shackles of the country’s Islamist military regime that India can even consider softening its stance. Our national security demands a strategy rooted in realism, not ‘Aman ki Asha’ style idealism. It is essential for India to ensure that Pakistan’s anti-India actions face consequences rather than mindlessly hoping for change through cultural overtures alone.
The United Kingdom recently came together to commemorate the horrific 7th July 2005 London bombings, commonly known as 7/7, during which Islamiterrorists carried out four well-planned suicide assaults on the city’s transport network amid rush hour. Three attackers individually set off three homemade bombs on London Underground trains in Inner London in rapid succession. Another bomb was later set off on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square by a fourth terrorist.
The Circle Line close to Aldgate, Edgware Road and the Piccadilly Line near Russell Square were the sites of the train explosions. 52 people lost their lives in the incident while over 800 more were injured. It was the first Islamist suicide strike in the United Kingdom and the deadliest terrorist act since the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 near Lockerbie.
The suicide bombers were identified as 18-year-old Hasib Hussain, 19-year-old Germaine Lindsay, 22-year-old Shehzad Tanweer and 30-year-old Muhammad Sidique Khan. Sidique, Shehzad and Hasib were British-born sons of Pakistani parents and Germaine was born in Jamaica who embraced Islam and changed his name to Abdullah Shaheed Jamal.
While the nation mourned the victims, an astounding trend was visible among the royalty, politicians and media to sanitize the Islamic element of the assault. A collective effort had been underway, seemingly aimed at exonerating the jihadis for their atrocious actions in a desperate bid to protect the delicate feelings of a specific community. However, it raises the question of why naming the perpetrators by their true identity, ideology and motives should elicit such a reaction from any person or group?
This rationale, however, was lost as British media, in line with its ruling class, joined the effort to whitewash the attack, ultimately portraying the Muslim community as the true casualty of the terror strike. The genuine stories of individuals who were killed or whose lives were shattered and their grief of their families were overshadowed as the narrative of Muslim victimhood became prioritized over their real anguish and distress.
7/7 changed lives of Muslims: British media
One of the deadliest terrorist attacks not only in the country but also in the world, intended to bleed the Western country, had been portrayed as a painful experience for the members of the Muslim community residing in the nation. It is undeniable that some Muslims might have been affected by the attacks, as bombs do not distinguish between individuals of different faiths, unlike the Islamic terrorists. However, this does not alter the fact that they were not the intended targets.
Nonetheless, the British media is working diligently to create the impression that the terror-hit was directed against Muslims. “The Conversation” featured a story of a Muslim woman who “survived the bombings” only to be labeled “terrorist” later. Notably, she emerged unscathed as she was at a considerable distance from the area, ensuring her physical safety.
However, she bemoaned about the absence of media coverage on her “fear, trauma or belongingness” and alleged that she has been continually attacked for her religious identity in the wake of the event. She also complained about “increased surveillance and marginalisation of Muslim communities in the UK.”
Taking a step further, “The Guardian” talked to the members of the Muslim community to strongly affirm the flawed narrative of Muslim victimhood. Nonetheless, the content was permeated with the same rhetoric, where the interviewees stated that their lives have been irrevocably transformed since the bombings 20 years ago and charged that the policies of the British government were racist, contributing to the rise of Islamophobia.
According to the article, police stop-and-searches and hate crimes involving religion have dramatically increased. It even bemoaned the fact that conviction rates for terrorism accusations skyrocketed as hundreds of such charges were filed every year.
“Mirror” also indicated that the consequences of the attack were not shouldered by the victims, whose lives were permanently changed in a matter of moments, but by the Muslim community, which faced the repercussions in the aftermath. It shared interviews from the Muslim community with “The Guardian,” insisting that “the tragedy altered the very fabric of the British Muslim community in the UK,” to reinforce a similar agenda.
If all British media were engaged in whitewashing the attack, how could the habitual offender “BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)” lag behind? They published a piece asserting that the incident transformed an entire generation of British Muslims, in which the authors criticized British policies and alleged that they specifically targeted the Muslim community.
Counter-terrorism initiatives such as Prevent were described as “toxic” and condemned as “counterproductive, making Muslim students feel isolated and contributing to a widespread sense of distrust among communities.”
The British broadcaster even released a news report concerning “Islamophobia” as the anniversary of 7/7 approached, calling on Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, whose time in office has witnessed a rise in crimes, particularly knife attacks, to enhance efforts and establish mandatory training across the Greater London Authority (GLA) to confront the issue. Khan’s parents landed in London from Pakistan.
The appeal was made by Hina Bokhari, a Liberal Democrat member of the London Assembly. She is the first woman from an ethnic minority (Pakistani) to serve as the head of a group on the assembly. Islamophobia is on the rise, she added, and it affects her and other Muslims.
The British media, government and authorities in an alarming show of recreancy and political correcteness, have also shied away from addressing the issue of Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs, choosing not to be labeled as racists rather than prioritizing justice, dignity and lives of minor girls of their country.
How British royalty, leaders try to underplay the role of jihadis in 7/7
The British monarchy and political elite had already trivialized the pain of the victims of the terror attack by diminishing it to ambiguous statements like “lost lives” as if there were no external influences driven by a violent ideology, accountable for their demise. King Charles III employed refined jargon, which could have been appropriate for a diplomatic address, during the memorial.
He made hollow appeals for “mutual respect” and conveniently evaded the terms jihad or Islamic terrorism that were responsible for the attack, while discussing “senseless acts of evil” and a “terrible summer’s day.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer also added to the euphemism and announced that “those who tried to divide us failed” at the event.
He emphasised the superficial phrases about “standing against hate” while laying wreaths, thus concealing the fact that the hate stemmed from a justification for murdering the unbelievers. More importantly, his staff acknowledged that the wording was carefully chosen to prevent “offending communities,” favouring Muslim sensibilities over British lives.
Likewise, a national “service of remembrance” turned into an interfaith performance. The Dean offered generic homilies on “hope” and “resilience” as 52,000 petals drifted beautifully from the dome, characterising the massacre as a natural calamity rather than an act fuelled by religious convictions. The clergy delivered sermons on “openness,” erasing any reference to the Islamist death cult that cultivated the assaliants. On the other hand, the survivors spoke about “darkness,” describing how profoundly their life changed after the attack.
The sham was joined by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Reyner, who released a banal statement under the guise of “community healing” and “shared resilience,” as well as announced, “We remember all whose lives were tragically altered.” There was no mention of Islamic terrorism or even terrorism. As expected, her staff also attested that the language was thoroughly examined to prevent “inciting division,” which is euphemism for pacifying Muslim sentiments and their Leftist lackeys.
Everlasting Muslim victimhood
The perception of victimization among Muslims shows no signs of abating, especially as the entire leftist-liberal ecosystem stands resolutely together to sustain this narrative, irrespective of the country or the incident. India, bordered by three Islamic countries and home to a 200 million strong Muslim population which continues to be treated as a minority rather than the second largest majority, has repeatedly suffered due to the same, where even acts of terrorism are underplayed by liberal parties, media and their entire cabal to appease Muslims and use them as vote-bank.
In any event or attack, the actual victims are routinely sidelined as they are replaced by Muslims, who are painted as the ones at the receiving end. Consequently, the entire narrative shifts towards the latter, allowing them to become the focal point while the original issue recedes into the background, leaving those who truly endured almost overlooked.
The most recent instance of this was showcased during the unfortunate Air India crash close to Ahmedabad, which resulted in the loss of 240 lives and devastated numerous families. Nevertheless, mourning the deceased was not as important to some of India’s liberal voices who were more concerned about the pilot’s religion. They shamelessly conveyed that the true tragedy would have been if the pilot had been a Muslim.
Amit Behere, a self-identified commentator, notorious for his offensive online discourse wroted, “Imagine if the pilot was a Muslim. Just imagine. And thank God he was not.” In addition to being callous, this statement was a glaring illustration of the ideological decay that has pervaded the liberal echo chamber. Many others like him also displayed their intellectual decay and insensitivity, blinded by their hateful agenda.
How Muslims were made victims of anti-Hindu Delhi riots
Major foreign news outlets like “Reuters,” “The Telegraph” and platforms like “The Print” disseminated a skewed, inaccurate and deceptive account of premeditated anti-Hindu Delhi riots which took place in February 2020, leading to a troubling trend of biassed reporting during the Lok Sabha Elections of 2024.
Additionally, the same lies were also promoted by the media in Bangladesh and Pakistan. They deliberately disregarded the vicious killings of numerous Hindus by Muslim mobs, including Dilbar Negi, chief constable Ratan Lal, and IB (Intelligence Bureau) officer Ankit Sharma.
A Reuters wire story that exclusively addressed the alleged Muslim riot victims was published by the Print and Pakistani newspaper Dawn. It made a blatant effort to depict victimisation and suffering on a unilateral basis. Likewise, the Delhi Riots of 2020 were defined as a “anti-Muslim pogrom” in a Pakistan Today story that was based on the Islamabad-funded Kashmir Media Service report.
However, the reports did not address how Hindus were intentionally targeted and lynched by bloodthirsty Muslim mobs, forcing the majority community to resort to self-defense to protect themselves. Furthermore, plans for the balkanization of the country were also in progress, as unveiled by Sharjeel Imam and Shahheen Bagh served as a facade to implement their violent agenda. The facts were omitted from the articles, as they would have exposed the meticulously crafted narrative.
Refusal to acknowlege real victims
“Hindus cannot be considered victims in India due to their majority status,” is the notorious defense frequently employed by Islamists and their liberal apologists, which has been discredited from Kashmir to West Bengal and Kerala.
However, as fabrications and falsehoods have never posed a problem for this ecosystem, individuals such as Arfa Khanum Sherwani, Rana Ayyub and Sayema have consistently defamed Hindus who have endured violence and stone pelting at the hands of Muslim mobs, during their sacred festivals and events, across the nation. The attacks on their temples and deities have also increased over the years.
Nevertheless, the Islamo-leftist network exerts considerable effort to portray Muslims as victims, subjected to a brutal regime, with their rights stripped away. Meanwhile, they create unrest, assault Hindus, challenge authorities and adminitration, while being consistently supported by their ecosystem.
Furthermore, the targeting of Hindu processions is rationalized under the pretext of entering the “Muslim areas,” while the attacks are simply dubbed as “communal tensions” to absolve radical Muslims of responsibility. Ironically, the Hindu majority population does not change India’s “secular” character, however, certain neighbourhoods become “Muslim areas” due to their demography.
Similarly, stone pelting, rioting and attacks on law enforcement personnel, executing their legal duties are frequently termed as outcomes of provocation or anger and even acts of retaliation against the system. On the contrary, legal measures against Islamists and jihadists are interpreted as judicial killings, state persecution, vendetta, majoritarianism, unlawful action and so forth.
The Hindus are even referred to as a “rotten community” by fanatics like Sharjeel Usmani to defend their co-religionists. To summarise these people “want to have their cake and eat it too.”
Conclusion
The severe anguish of the victims of Islamic terror has regularly been subordinated to the fragile feelings of Muslims. This was again pointed out in 2021 when the largest school board in Canada removed a woman who had escaped from the clutches of ISIS and was forced into sexual slavery as a teenager.
Students from some of the 600 schools of the Toronto District School Board were scheduled to meet with Iraqi-born Yazidi human rights activist Nadia Murad to discuss her upcoming book “The Last Girl: My Story Of Captivity.” She is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and United Nations Goodwill Ambassador. However, Helen Fisher, the superintendent of the school board cancelled the visit, asserting that the book would offend Muslims and “foster Islamophobia.”
Highlighting this absurdity of this perpetual victimhood propaganda, a social media account mocked in 2016, “What frightens me is the possibility of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) detonating a nuclear device and killing 50 million Americans. Can you envision the repercussions for peaceful Muslims?”
It is clear that these incidents are not isolated cases but a common occurrence that takes place repeatedly across various parts of the world, such as India, Canada, the United Kingdom and other countries. Nonetheless, if the energy expended on this is applied to ensure that the culprits are held accountable, acknowledge the ugly truth of jihad and Islamic terrorism and counter extremist elements, there would be no necessity to obscure any acts of terror, protect any sentiments or cry about Islamophobia. Crucially, the world would become a significantly safer place for all, including Muslims.
Humaira Asghar, a Pakistani actor, model, and reality TV star, was found dead in her apartment in Karachi on Tuesday, July 8. She had been living on rent, and her decomposed body was discovered after police broke the locks to enter her flat. Her body has been sent to a medical center for a post-mortem examination.
Dr. Summaiya Syed, who is investigating the case, stated, “The body is in a very advanced stage of decomposition.” Reports say she passed away nearly two weeks ago.
The matter came to light after her landlord filed a complaint, saying that she had not paid rent since 2024. Following this, the court ordered the flat to be vacated. Police entered the apartment under the court’s directive and discovered the body.
As all the doors were locked from the inside, no immediate clues were found to determine the cause of death. The news of her demise comes shortly after another Pakistani TV actor, Ayesha Khan, was found dead just last month.
After Humaira’s body was discovered, police attempted to contact her family, who reportedly refused to claim it. According to Pakistani media, her father told the police that the family had severed ties with her long ago and wanted nothing to do with her. They instructed them to “do whatever” with her dead body, as they would not be taking it.
Humaira was 32 at the time of her death. She was born in Lahore, Pakistan, and began her modeling career in 2013 before moving into television. She also appeared in films like Jalaibee (2015) and Love Vaccine (2021). She rose to popularity after participating in the reality TV show Tamasha Ghar, which aired on ARY Digital.
Her last Instagram post was in September 2024, nearly nine months ago, where she appeared in an orange suit.
US President Donald Trump drew criticism after praising Liberian President Joseph Boakai for his command of the English language, during a White House meeting with five African leaders, CNN reported.
The remark, though described by the administration as a compliment, triggered backlash among Liberians who viewed it as patronizing and uninformed.
“Such good English, it’s beautiful. Where did you learn to speak so beautifully?” Trump asked Boakai. Upon learning that Boakai was educated in Liberia — where English is the official language — the US President responded, “That’s very interesting. I have people at this table who can’t speak nearly as well,” according to CNN.
Liberia, founded in 1822 by the American Colonization Society to resettle freed slaves from the United States, declared independence in 1847. While multiple languages are spoken in the country, English remains its official language. Trump’s comment was met with offense by many Liberians who pointed to the nation’s history and linguistic roots.
“I felt insulted because our country is an English-speaking country,” said Archie Tamel Harris, a Liberian youth advocate. “For him to ask that question, I don’t see it as a compliment. I feel that the US president and people in the west still see Africans as people in villages who are not educated,” CNN reported.
A Liberian diplomat who requested anonymity also criticized the tone of the comment, telling CNN it “was not appropriate” and “a bit condescending to an African president who’s from an English-speaking nation.” South African politician Veronica Mente questioned on X, “what stops [Boakai] from standing up and leav[ing]?”
Despite the criticism, the Trump administration defended the remark. “I was in the meeting and everyone was deeply appreciative of the President’s time and effort. The continent of Africa has never had such a friend in the White House as they do in President Trump,” said Massad Boulos, senior advisor for Africa in the Trump administration, in a statement to CNN.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly also weighed in, saying Trump’s comment was a “heartfelt compliment” and that “reporters should recognize that President Trump has already done more to restore global stability and uplift countries in Africa and around the world than Joe Biden did in four years,” CNN reported.
Liberia’s Foreign Minister Sara Beysolow Nyanti said Boakai was not offended and framed the remark as a reflection of Liberia’s historical linguistic ties with the United States. “There was no offense from the Liberian president’s perspective,” she told CNN.
“What President Trump heard distinctly was the American influence on our English in Liberia, and the Liberian president is not offended by that,” Nyanti said. “We know that English has different accents and forms, and so him picking up the distinct intonation that has its roots in American English for us was just recognizing a familiar English version,” CNN reported.
Trump has previously made similar remarks to other leaders. During a press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, he said Merz had “good English” and asked whether it was as good as his German. Merz replied that he tries to “understand almost everything” and speak “as good as I can,” according to CNN.
At Wednesday’s event, Trump struck a more diplomatic tone, calling the countries of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal “very vibrant places with very valuable land, great minerals, great oil deposits, and wonderful people.” Boakai, in response, said Liberia “(believes) in the policy of making America great again,” CNN reported.
(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)
The Supreme Court on Thursday (10th July) rejected a slew of petitions challenging the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar ahead of the assembly elections in October-November. The court allowed the ECI to continue the SIR in Bihar, but asked the commission to consider Aadhaar, voter ID cards, and ration cards as valid documents during the verification drive.
TMC MP Mahua Moitra, former AAP co-founder Yogendra Yadav, RJD MP Manoj Jha, and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) were among the petitioners. The petitions, inter alia, argued against the exclusion of Aadhaar cards and Ration cards by the Election Commission of India (ECI) from the list of documents required to be submitted as proof of citizenship to be enrolled as a voter in the electoral roll.
It was the argument of the petitioners that the identification process laid down by the ECI shifts the burden of proof onto citizens and that, considering the high rates of migration and poverty in the state, the requirement of documents specified by the ECI might disenfranchise millions of voters.
After hearing the petitions, a bench of Justices Dhulia and Joymala Bagchi refused to stay the SIR. However, the judges asked the ECI why the said documents could not be accepted under the ongoing SIR exercise, to which Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel for the ECI, replied, “Aadhar Card cannot be used as proof of citizenship.” Dwivedi said that the Aadhaar card is only proof of one’s identity and not citizenship. “It only shows I am I and you are you,” Dwivedi said.
Noting that the ECI is empowered to conduct an SIR, the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the timing of the exercise as the elections are to be held in a few months. The Court suggested that the Aadhaar Card, the Electronic Electoral Photo Identity Card and the Ration Card should be included by the ECI in the list of required documents under the SIR. However, it left the decision to the discretion of the ECI. The next date of the hearing has been set for 28th July.
Why Aadhaar Card is not a proof of citizenship
Aadhaar Card is not considered proof of citizenship by the government of India. In fact, it is expressly mentioned on the card itself that it is not proof of citizenship. According to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), “Aadhaar number is devoid of any intelligence and does not profile people based on caste, religion, income, health and geography. The Aadhaar number is a proof of identity; however, it does not confer any right of citizenship or domicile in respect of an Aadhaar number holder.”
The authority describes Aadhaar as a strategic policy tool for social and financial inclusion, public sector delivery reforms, managing fiscal budgets, increasing convenience and promoting people-centric governance. Notably, foreigners legally living in India can obtain Aadhaar number, and therefore it is not linked with citizenship.
In 2022, the Bombay High Court clarified in the case of State of Maharashtra vs UIDAI, that Aadhaar Card was only a proof od indentity and residence and not of citizenship or date of birth. Earlier in 2018, the Supreme Court, in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India, also held that Aadhaar Card was an identity document quoting section 9 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. The provision states that “the Aadhaar number or the authentication thereof shall not, by itself, confer any right of, or be proof of, citizenship or domicile in respect of an Aadhaar number holder”.
The documents recognised by the government of India as proof of citizenship are birth certificates, domicile certificates, and passports. A birth certificate certifies that a person was born in India, and a domicile certificate verifies that a person has resided in a particular state or Union Territory in India.
However, the apec court today asked ECI to consider Aadhaar also for the ongoing Special Intensive Revision process.
Why the ECI is undertaking an SIR
As the Bihar Assembly elections are approaching, the EC is undertaking a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to eliminate bogus voters and ensure fair and transparent elections. Under the SIR, the EC is rectifying the electoral rolls by removing ineligible, deceased or those voters who might have lost their right to vote due to other valid reasons, and upgrading the voter list by adding new verified eligible voters.
The opposition has been attributing malice to the ECI for conducting the SIR, alleging that the exercise is meant to disenfranchise valid voters. It organised ‘Bihar Bandh’ on 9th July protest in Patna against the SIR. However, this is a routine, regular exercise conducted by the ECI across the country for the upkeep of the electoral rolls. SIR is essential to address issues like rapid urbanisation, unreported deaths, new voters, the potential inclusion of ineligible foreign nationals, particularly, Rohingya and Bangladeshi infiltrators. The verification process began on 25 June 2025 and will continue till 26th July. The last SIR was conducted in Bihar in 2003.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) is said to be looking to include a new missile in its arsenal, the Israeli air-launched LORA (Long-Range Artillery) missile. This is despite India possessing other high-capacity missiles such as BrahMos.
The IAF’s interest in LORA was revealed in early July 2025, weeks following its successful use of the Rampage missile during Operation Sindoor in May. That mission underscored the increasing demand for long-range, precision-guided missiles capable of targeting deep targets without exposing pilots to danger.
What is LORA?
LORA is a quasi-ballistic missile developed by Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI). It is capable of hitting targets between 400 and 430 kilometres away. In contrast to traditional ballistic missiles, LORA takes a depressed trajectory, which makes it more difficult for enemy radar to detect and target. LORA also employs a “fire-and-forget” system; once fired, the missile can locate its target independently without any assistance from the pilot or aircraft.
This missile employs a combination of GPS and Inertial Navigation System (INS) for targeting. It also has anti-jamming capability, making it more dependable in hostile areas. LORA has various warheads that it can carry and has an accuracy of sufficient enough to hit with less than 10 metres of deviation. Its speed is also noteworthy — around 6,000 km/h — with the ability to hit fast and hard.
LORA has been specifically developed for fighter aircraft such as the Su-30MKI, which India already has in large quantities. A Su-30 can carry up to four LORA missiles on a single mission, with the ability to strike multiple targets simultaneously.
Why LORA, when India has BrahMos?
India already has the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, which is of similar range, 290–450 km. However, the BrahMos missile’s range has progressively increased over time. Initially capped at 290 km due to restrictions under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), its range was extended to 450 km after India became a member of the MTCR. Current developments aim to further enhance its reach to approximately 800 km.
Then there is the Rafale’s SCALP missile, the Pralay ballistic missile, and the recently used Israeli Rampage. So what is LORA?
The solution is in capability and versatility. BrahMos is ideal for heavy, low-altitude attacks and is suited best for striking sea-level or ground-level targets. LORA is launched at higher altitudes and takes a ballistic trajectory. Its lofted trajectory makes it a better fit for hitting well-defended, high-value targets deep inside enemy territory.
BrahMos, a joint India-Russia project, is relatively costly, at around Rs 20-30 crore per missile. LORA is expected to be more affordable, simplifying procurement and deployment.
Consequently, the IAF sees LORA as a complementary weapon, not a replacement for BrahMos. Each missile fulfills different strategic needs.
Make in India advantage
In 2023, IAI and Bharat Electronics Limited signed a Memorandum of Understanding to co-produce advanced missile systems. If everything proceeds smoothly, the missile will be manufactured in India under licence from the Israeli firm.
LORA’s lower cost makes it an economical option for mass deployment. It has potential for export under India’s “Make in India” initiative, thereby fostering domestic production and enhancing global market competitiveness.
Additionally, LORA’s larger payload capacity enables it to deliver heavier warheads, increasing its destructive power. Integrating LORA into Indian Air Force jets diversifies the missile arsenal, providing a versatile, high-impact option for various combat scenarios. This strategic addition would strengthen India’s defence capabilities, ensuring a balanced mix of speed, cost efficiency, and firepower alongside BrahMos.
The first squadron is expected to be operational by 2027
The Indian Air Force is negotiating with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) to import the LORA missile system. If everything goes according to plan, the initial batch or squadron of 18 LORA missiles may become deployable as early as 2026 or 2027. This would greatly enhance India’s capability to conduct deep and targeted airstrikes, particularly as a counter to expected provocations from immediate neighbours China and Pakistan. It would add to the overall combat capabilities of the IAF as well.
In a dramatic escalation of diplomatic tensions, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defiantly rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands to terminate the criminal trial of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro. He condemned Trump’s accompanying threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian imports as an assault on national sovereignty. The confrontation, unfolding over 48 hours of public exchanges, marks the deepest rift in U.S.-Brazil relations in decades.
Trump’s ultimatum: Tariffs linked to “witch hunt” claims
The crisis erupted Wednesday when Trump announced via Truth Social a sweeping 50% tariff on all Brazilian goods effective 1st August, 2025. In a letter addressed directly to Lula, Trump explicitly tied the punitive measure to Brazil’s prosecution of Bolsonaro—who faces charges of orchestrating a coup to overturn the 2022 election results that returned Lula to power.
“Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro… in a terrible way. This Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!” Trump wrote. He further accused Brazil’s Supreme Court of issuing “hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders” against U.S. tech companies—a claim he directed the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate under Section 301 trade provisions.
The announcement triggered a 2% plunge in Brazil’s currency, the real, and emergency meetings in Brasília involving Lula, his vice president, finance minister, and key advisers. Analysts warned U.S. consumers could face sharp price hikes on coffee, orange juice, and beef—products heavily reliant on Brazilian imports.
Lula’s unyielding response: Sovereignty and reciprocity
Within hours, Lula fired back on social media platform X, delivering a point-by-point rebuttal that blended economic data with a fierce defense of Brazil’s judicial independence.
“Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage. The judicial proceedings against those responsible for planning the coup d’état fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of Brazil’s Judicial Branch and, as such, are not subject to any interference or threats.”
Lula also summoned the US ambassador for clarification and labeled Trump’s letter “offensive and inaccurate,” reaffirming that judicial matters in Brazil are not negotiable and that the country’s laws apply equally to all, including foreign companies operating within its borders.
Amid escalating tensions, Lula called on the US to respect Brazil’s sovereignty and stop attempts to interfere in its internal affairs. He emphasized that the defense of democracy in Brazil is a matter solely for Brazilians, and that “no one is above the law, especially those who threaten freedom and the rule of law”.
Crucially, Lula invoked Brazil’s newly enacted Economic Reciprocity Law, signaling plans for proportional countermeasures against the tariffs. He dismantled Trump’s claim of a U.S. trade deficit with Brazil, citing U.S. government statistics showing a $410 billion surplus in America’s favor over the past 15 years. In 2024 alone, the U.S. exported $49.7 billion in goods to Brazil while importing $42.3 billion—a $7.4 billion surplus.
In light of the public statement made by U.S. President Donald Trump on social media on the afternoon of Wednesday (9), it is important to highlight the following:
Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage.
The Bolsonaro factor: A “persecuted” ally or coup plotter?
At the heart of the clash lies the legal fate of Bolsonaro—a Trump ally often dubbed the “Trump of the Tropics.” Brazil’s Supreme Court is trying the former president for allegedly mobilging military leaders to block Lula’s 2023 inauguration after his electoral defeat. If convicted, Bolsonaro faces up to 40 years in prison.
Trump has repeatedly framed the trial as political persecution, echoing his description of his own legal troubles. “He is not guilty of anything, except having fought for THE PEOPLE,” Trump asserted Monday, prompting Brazil’s Foreign Ministry to summon the U.S. chargé d’affaires in protest.
Bolsonaro, barred from office until 2030 for election fraud claims, thanked Trump for his support, calling his prosecution “a legal aberration… obvious to anyone with common sense.” His son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, has lobbied Republicans in Washington for sanctions against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case.
What comes next?
With Brazil vowing reciprocal tariffs under its Economic Reciprocity Law, billions in trade hang in the balance. The U.S. imports one-third of its coffee and over half its orange juice from Brazil—meaning American consumers could soon feel the pinch.
As Lula affirmed: “Sovereignty, respect and the unwavering defense of the interests of the Brazilian people are the values that guide our relationship with the world”, the stage is set for a protracted confrontation between Western Hemisphere’s two largest democracies, testing the limits of economic coercion and judicial independence.
In the end of June this year, a state-level Kabaddi player, identified as Brijesh, died of rabies. He was bitten by a puppy while rescuing it from a drain on 28th May. Brijesh ignored the bite as a minor scratch. A month later, he started displaying symptoms of rabies and within days he succumbed to the disease.
Brijesh Solamki, Ziya Faris and Niya Faisal died of rabies.
In May 2025, a 7-year-old girl identified as Niya Faisal died of rabies despite the vaccine in Kerala. Her death came days after 6-year-old Ziya Faris’s death from rabies in Kerala despite having received vaccination. Niya’s mother told media that stray dogs were attracted to a pile of garbage being thrown near her house by the locals. Despite her repeated requests, people did not stop throwing garbage and as a result a pack of stray dogs kept coming near her house. Niya was mauled by the dogs in front of her mother.
Before Niya and Ziya, another 13-year-old child died due to rabies despite getting the vaccine, raising serious concerns over the presence of rabies-infected stray dogs and the quality of vaccine in the state hospitals.
In March 2025, a woman died of rabies allegedly after drinking unboiled milk from an infected cow. The cow had contracted the infection after getting bitten by a stray dog. After the cow started showing symptoms, several people sought the rabies vaccine in the area but the woman who was selling the milk did not take precaution and a few days after consuming the milk, she developed symptoms.
All you need to know about rabies
Rabies is a viral zoonosis spread most often by dogs. It is transmitted through the saliva of an infected animal, typically via a bite or a scratch. There is no cure for rabies once the patient starts exhibiting clinical symptoms, and death is 100% certain within a few days. Even minor exposure can be deadly.
Source: Dall-E
Experts suggest that many people don’t know that even a lick on broken skin or a scratch from an infected dog or any other animal that can transmit the disease is fatal. Initially, flu-like symptoms appear. As time passes, the rabies virus causes confusion, agitation and hydrophobia. Once neurological signs appear, the only thing left is to wait for the patient’s death. There is no cure for the disease once symptoms develop.
The only hope is that rabies is preventable with prompt and appropriate medical care. In practice, this means immediate wound washing and post-exposure prophylaxis, which is a course of vaccines, can prevent the disease from developing. In severe cases, immediate administration of rabies immunoglobulin plays a crucial role in saving the patient. However, if PEP is delayed or omitted, the virus is fatal. In short, rabies is arguably the deadliest disease many Indians neglect. It is a treatable infection. However, without swift action, it becomes an almost certain killer. Rabies is ruthless and does not care about the age or social status of the person. If you are bitten by a dog, get the vaccine immediately, otherwise it will become your death sentence.
How symptoms progress
Rabies typically begins with non-specific early symptoms such as fever, headache and unusual sensations such as tingling, pricking or burning around the site of exposure. As the infection progresses, patients may develop one of two clinical forms.
The first is furious rabies, which is characterised by hyperactivity, excitability, hydrophobia (fear of water) and sometimes aerophobia (fear of air drafts). In a few days, the patient dies due to cardio-respiratory arrest.
The second type is paralytic rabies, which accounts for around 20% of human cases. The progress of infection is slower, with muscle weakness starting around the wound and eventually leading to coma and death. This form is misdiagnosed, contributing to significant under-reporting.
Prevention and precaution
According to the Government of India, mass vaccination of dogs, responsible dog ownership and community awareness is the key to prevention of the disease. According to the World Health Organisation, at least 70% vaccination coverage of the dog population is necessary to break the transmission chain. Ensuring pet dogs are vaccinated on schedule and recognising that any bite, scratch or lick, especially on broken skin, poses a risk are fundamental messages promoted in public education campaigns.
Post-exposure care
In case a person is bitten, licked or scratched by a dog, post-exposure care begins immediately. First, the wound must be thoroughly washed for at least 15 minutes with soap and water. This process physically removes the virus and inactivates it through soap’s lipolytic action. The National Guidelines for Rabies Prophylaxis (2019) confirm that prompt and appropriate wound care, grouped together with PEP, is completely effective in preventing the disease from progressing.
Once the wound is washed properly, post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) requires a full course of rabies vaccines. It should be administered either intramuscularly or intradermally. The latter is endorsed by the Drug Controller General of India as a cost-effective alternative.
The exposure to the rabies virus is divided into three categories.
Category I
This refers to no exposure, such as when the animal simply licks intact skin or touches it without breaking the surface. For these situations, no rabies vaccine or immunoglobulin is required; only general wound cleaning, if necessary, is advised.
Source: Dall-E
Category II
This includes nibbling of uncovered skin (not through clothing), minor scratches or abrasions without bleeding. In these cases, the guidelines call for administration of the rabies vaccine (anti-rabies vaccine, ARV) under either the intramuscular or intradermal schedule. Rabies immunoglobulin is not necessary for Category II exposures.
Source: Dall-E
Category III
This encompasses more serious exposures, transdermal bites or scratches, contamination of mucous membranes or broken skin with saliva, or contact with wild animals such as bats. The Government of India guidelines mandate both rabies vaccine and rabies immunoglobulin (RIG) for all Category III exposures. Notably, according to the guidelines, exposure to all wild animals should be treated as Category III exposure.
Source: Dall-E
WHO emphasises that timely access to standardised, quality-assured PEP can achieve almost 100% protection against rabies. The effective management of rabies relies heavily on a “One Health” approach, integrating community education, dog vaccination and immediate medical response. Government of India and WHO materials highlight that educating communities and engaging health workers and veterinarians is a proven strategy to save lives.
India is also working on the global goal of zero human rabies deaths by 2030. To achieve the goal, according to the experts, awareness, wound washing, PEP and canine vaccination are the key factors.
India’s rabies burden
India bears an outsized share of the global rabies toll. While the government data show only dozens of confirmed deaths each year, for example, 21 deaths in 2022 and 54 in 2024, WHO and independent studies estimate roughly 18,000 to 20,000 deaths in India by rabies. Notably, WHO’s numbers match a 2006 press release of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. In that press release, the ministry categorically stated that there is no exact statistical data available for rabies deaths in India.
Rabies deaths in 2022. Source: Reddit.
WHO suggests that India bears the burden of 36% of rabies deaths worldwide. The huge gap exists because many cases never enter the system. Rabies is not yet a nationally notifiable disease, and deaths in remote areas are often blamed on other causes. Mild exposures are often ignored due to lack of awareness. Studies suggest under-reporting is rampant, meaning the real toll is orders of magnitude higher than official figures.
High-risk groups are particularly affected. Children are the worst hit. Around 30% to 60% of dog-bite victims in endemic regions are under 15. In India, impoverished rural kids, who often play with dogs unsupervised, make up a large slice of deaths. Dogs cause around 96% of human rabies cases, and children account for around 40% of dog-bite exposures.
Other vulnerable groups include the elderly, disabled and urban poor, who may lack swift access to care. In sum, India’s epidemic has stubbornly refused to drop because the underlying conditions, large stray dog populations and low awareness, persist, masking the full scale of the problem.
Rabies should have been eliminated from the world a long time ago. Modern PEP is highly effective if administered immediately, and it will prevent 100% of rabies. In India, many clinics offer free anti-rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin. However, in practice, these lifesaving therapies often fail to reach the patient.
Source: Dall-E
Reports suggest that many districts lack reliable vaccine and immunoglobulin supplies. Lack of qualified staff is another problem. A Tribune investigation noted that while many government hospitals offer free vaccines, timely access remains a hurdle, especially in rural areas. Furthermore, supply chain gaps, cold chain problems, and long distances mean victims often leave clinics empty-handed. Restocking vaccines timely is another issue. There have been reports even from PGI Chandigarh and medical colleges in Kerala where vaccines were not available for weeks and even months.
Delay and ignorance also add up to the fatal exposure. Families often do not realise the danger. Some patients seek herbal remedies, which are not effective. Seeking traditional healers or doing nothing instead of immediate PEP is tragically common. There is a lack of awareness, especially in rural areas, which leads to such cases and under-reporting.
In short, the medical tools exist, but implementation fails. Victims often present too late. Untreated, the disease becomes “unstoppable”, just as avoidable as it is deadly.
The real driver – India’s growing stray dog population
The scale of India’s stray dog problem is staggering. It drives rabies. Dogs are by far the main reservoir. Around 99% of transmission comes from dog bites. India has millions of free-ranging dogs on its streets. Officially, the number stands at around 6.8 million. However, according to experts, the real number is far higher. Unmanaged garbage, lack of sterilisation, haphazard urban planning and intervention of “dog lovers” is what is causing a rampant increase in the dog population on Indian streets.
Source: Dall-E
Where there are more strays, there are more bites. 37 lakh reported cases of dog bites in 2024 is not a small number and must not be ignored. 4.8 lakh dog bite cases in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, 3.9 lakh in Gujarat, 3.6 lakh in Karnataka, and 2.6 lakh in Bihar, as per data made available by GoI, is not a small number. Sadly, the numbers mismatch with previous data reported by media houses. According to a report in the New Indian Express, in 2022, Andhra Pradesh reported over 7 lakh dog bite cases, but GoI data says it was 1.9 lakh. There is a huge gap between the two numbers. If the numbers mismatch at such a massive scale, how can the Central Government and State Government work together in controlling the menace?
In short, the ballooning stray dog population, fed by open garbage and patchy spay/neuter programmes, is the primary engine behind India’s rabies problem.
The ABC Rules dilemma – How 2001 changed India’s ability to act
In 2001, India shifted policy dramatically. The Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules were introduced under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, banning the killing of stray dogs. Henceforth, local authorities were to curb dog numbers only via humane capture-sterilisation-vaccination-release (ABC/CNR) programmes.
Culling was declared illegal. These rules were reinforced in 2023’s updated ABC guidelines. The Supreme Court and high courts have repeatedly held that local laws cannot override the ABC Rules, effectively barring municipalities from killing or permanently removing dogs.
The blanket no-kill policy may look well-intended, but it has hamstrung authorities in practice. They must now sterilise and vaccinate every captured dog and return it to its original area within days. A recent Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling emphasised that dogs “cannot be kept in shelters indefinitely”; they must go back to the streets after treatment.
For residents, facing aggressive dog packs feels maddening. Citizens injured or killed by strays find no legal recourse to have the animal removed or euthanised.
Meanwhile, the ABC programme itself struggles. Sterilisation campaigns have so far failed to reach the scale needed. For example, Bengaluru authorities report only a 10% drop in street dog numbers from 2019–23, despite increasing sterilisation output by 20%. In effect, the strict ABC framework has often been honoured only on paper. Many dogs remain unsterilised, and any attempt at aggressive control is blocked by legal constraints. The outcome is “an ecosystem of chaos” where the law says one thing but ground reality delivers little, and people remain unprotected.
Dog lovers and the ecosystem of chaos
The management of stray dogs in India has become a polarising battle between frustrated residents and “dog lovers”. On one hand, there are feeders and activists who have no respect for human lives and try to intervene in the process of removal of stray dogs from areas where they do not even live.
These dog lovers and feeders often turn public spaces such as parks and sidewalks into dog-feeding zones. If RWAs try to establish feeding zones as mandated by the law, they oppose. If someone tries to stop them from feeding dogs at random places, these dog lovers and activists become hostile and file complaints at police stations or call the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) or NGOs with reach to “higher powers”, which is another issue in itself.
Source: Dall-E
There have been reports where dog feeders leave a mess behind. Garbage piles up and dog dung makes its way to the unauthorised feeding areas, attracting more diseases while further fuelling resentment among non-feeders and the general public.
More ominously, a vocal animal-rights fringe actively impedes any removal of dogs. They have challenged municipal catch teams, using law and social media to demand instant release of captured animals. This has left civic agencies cowed. For instance, even after attacks, courts have sided with the no-kill ethic. The judiciary and lawmakers have made it next to impossible to kill even rabid dogs, making the lives of people impossible.
Meanwhile, other human actions worsen the situation. Illegal puppy mills and pet shops add to the crisis. Abandonment of pedigree dogs by illegal dog breeders is one of the reasons for the growing dog attacks. They tend to get violent as they have lived their entire lifetime in closed surroundings and are released into the open. In the end, misplaced compassion is costing lives.
Conclusion
Rabies and the growing dog population is not a “problem”. It is a human survival crisis. Dogs kill children, the poor and other vulnerable communities. People should not have died of rabies, not even one. There must be a balance between compassion and accountability. No one wants cruelty against animals, but at the same time, the no-kill policy is a menace. There is an urgent need to control the dog population and impose strict regulations when it comes to vaccination, sterilisation, dog population control, feeding and caring. No one should have a free hand to stop the authorities from putting human lives as the priority.
In the end, India must treat rabies as seriously as polio or malaria. Political will and resources should match the scale of the problem. While India must work on eliminating the disease, there is also an immediate need to curb the population of stray dogs. Remember, people do not just die of rabies when it comes to dogs, they die because of the injuries they have sustained during the attack as well.
In the upcoming articles of this series, we will take a closer look at the ABC Rules and their far-reaching implications.
The Supreme Court on Friday, 10th July, declined to stay the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi also directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider Aadhaar, voter ID cards, and ration cards as valid documents during the verification drive.
However, during the hearing, the apex court raised important concerns about the timing of a special revision of voter lists currently being carried out in Bihar, just months before the state is expected to go to the polls. While the court clarified that there’s nothing wrong with conducting such an exercise, it questioned why this wasn’t done earlier and why it is happening so close to the elections.
The bench said that updating and verifying voter lists is a crucial part of the democratic process, but it should ideally be done promptly. “The issue is not whether the revision should happen or not, but why it is happening now, and not earlier,” the court noted.
The Election Commission (EC), through its lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi, defended the move and asked, “If the Election Commission doesn’t have the authority to revise the voter list, then who will do it?” He further said, regular updates to the voter list are necessary and legally allowed under the Representation of the People Act. He added that it is within the EC’s powers to include or remove names to ensure the list remains accurate.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court requested that the Election Commission clarify three things: whether it has the power to update the voter roll, what process it used for this special update, and why it did it at this time. The court further stated that if the commission had wanted to check the citizenship of voters, particularly in Bihar, it could have initiated the process much earlier. In this regard, the Election Commission told the court that under Article 326 of the Constitution, verifying citizenship is necessary to become a voter in India.
Concerns over rejection of Aadhaar and Voter ID
The court also expressed unease regarding the reports that Aadhaar cards and voter ID cards are not being accepted as valid documents during the process of revision. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who argued for one of the petitioners, emphasised that almost 7.9 crore individuals can be impacted and expressed puzzlement as to why Aadhaar and voter ID cards are being disregarded.
Opposition leaders challenge EC’s move
More than ten petitions have been filed against this exercise. One of the main petitioners is the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). Several opposition leaders have also approached the top court against the EC’s order, including RJD MP Manoj Jha, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, Congress leader KC Venugopal, NCP’s Supriya Sule, CPI’s D Raja, SP’s Harinder Singh Malik, Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant, JMM’s Sarfaraz Ahmad, and CPI (ML) leader Dipankar Bhattacharya.
These leaders have asked the court to withdraw the EC’s directive for the special revision in Bihar on the grounds of voter suppression and inadequate implementation.
