Democracy has its own flaws, but it is better to have a flawed “by the people, of the people, for the people” democratic system of governance than a perfect-from-the-outside autocracy. People across many countries have protested, fought, and even died in pursuit of overthrowing autocratic regimes. One such courageous but unsuccessful movement took place in China in 1989. The 4th of June marks 37 years of the Tiananmen Square massacre, which the Chinese Communist Party downplays and calls the ‘June Fourth Incident’.
The Tiananmen Square protest began in mid-April 1989 and culminated in a violent military crackdown between 3rd and 4th June 1989. China has, despite the undercurrents, never witnessed such massive pro-democracy protests again.
As the CCP continues to sell China as a Communist Utopia, it is pertinent to remember the dark chapter in China’s history that shows the CCP regime got itself a new lease of life in 1989 by murdering thousands of its people.
The Tiananmen Square protests: In pursuit of democracy
In 1949, Republican leader Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan after Communist leader Mao Zedong won the civil war and established the ‘People’s Republic of China’. From Chiang Kai-shek, Mao, Deng Xiaoping, and during the Tiananmen Square massacre, to President Xi Jinping now, China has never seen democracy. The only major attempt at establishing democracy in China began in April 1989.
The pro-democracy protests were triggered after the death of a reformist former Communist Party General Secretary, Hu Yaobang on 15th April 1989. He was seen as sympathetic to students. Mourners gathered in large numbers in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. This gathering soon evolved into broader protests against inflation, corruption, censorship, and demands for political reforms, including freedom of speech, press freedom and overall accountability from the Communist regime.
While tens of thousands of university students gathered at Tiananmen Square, the CCP mouthpiece, People’s Daily, labelled the protests a “conspiracy to sow chaos”.
By May 1989, nearly 1 lakh students gathered at the Square, and a hunger strike began on 13th May. The protesting students received massive public support, and workers and ordinary citizens soon joined them. While moderate leaders like Zhao Ziyang visited the protestors sympathetically, Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, and Premier of China, Li Peng prevailed.
Martial law declaration and the infamous Tiananmen Square massacre
Deng Xiaoping and other Communist Party leaders saw the Tiananmen Square protests as an existential political threat and agreed to use coercive measures.
Acting out of the paranoia of losing if the Tiananmen protests extended to other parts of the country, the State Council declared martial law on the 20th of May and deployed over 300,000 troops on the streets of Beijing. The martial law was formally declared by Li Peng, the Premier of China.
The armed troops moved inside Beijing and advanced into central parts of the capital city in the wee hours of the 4th of June 1989. These People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops killed both demonstrating students and ordinary civilians. The Chinese soldiers did not even spare the bystanders.
While the Chinese official figures claim that around 200-300 people, including PLA soldiers, died in the crackdown, independent sources estimate the death toll to be above 10,000. Thousands were injured or arrested by the CCP after crushing the threat to its throne.
The CCP-PLA crackdown killed thousands of Chinese citizens and crushed the hope for a dawn of democracy. Zhao Ziyang, the political leader sympathetic to the movement, was purged and placed under house arrest.
The Tiananmen Square massacre was a turning point in the recent history of China; the CCP ensured that political liberalisation halted. The CCP regime rolled out economic reforms, which experts read as an effort to make the people forget the massacre of their own and move on in the glitter of the economic boom.
Dissent had no space in China, not in 1989 and not even in 2026. Every year, the Chinese government shows its gratitude to the forces for their sacrifice. However, with justifications, villainization, ‘foreign conspiracy’ propaganda, and every other tactic at hand, the CCP have tried their best to wipe out the history of the Tiananmen massacre.
The CCP pays tribute to the PLA soldiers who were killed while they were out to murder the protestors; however, it often places restrictions on Tiananmen Mothers, the mothers of the students who were killed during the 1989 massacre, to visit the Wanan cemetery, where their children are buried. The CCP’s heartless ban imposed on 4th June 2026 has been widely criticised across the world.
Over the years, the CCP has attempted to concoct an apocryphal narrative that the protesting students were pro-US and were acting against the Communist regime at the US’s behest. The Communists have long been trying to establish a narrative that the Tiananmen Square protests were a US regime change operation that they thwarted with an iron hand.
Indian communists sided in silence with their Chinese comrades as the latter killed students in 1989
Indian communists harbour deep loyalty, respect, and ideological commitment towards Communist regimes across the world, especially China. The Communist leaders in India look up to China as an ideal state. Perhaps, it was due to this delusion that Communists in India chose convenient silence over the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre rather than joining the international community in condemning the CCP’s slaughter of its own dissenting people.
After two years of disgraceful silence, in January 1992, the CPI(M) adopted a resolution at the 14th Congress, Madras. The party lauded the CCP for “successfully” crushing the Tiananmen pro-democracy protests.
The same CPIM in its 20th congress document- “Resolution on certain Ideological issues”, downplayed the Tiananmen Massacre by calling it an “internal turmoil” in China and instead of calling it a massacre, called it “Tiananmen Square development”. The CPIM dismissed the Tiananmen protests and the massacre as China’s internal matter, and even called the protestors ‘troublemakers’.
“Such an imperialist attempt to internally subvert socialism in the People’s Republic of China in 1989 was successfully thwarted by the CPC and the PLA,” the CPIM said.
Communist student groups in New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University used to call the Chinese students who protested at Tiananmen Square, ‘CIA lackeys, juvenile delinquents, and bourgeois reactionaries’. While many celebrated the PLA crackdown, others simply dismissed the massacre as nothing but lies spread by the communism-hating Western media.
In fact, Sitaram Yechury, a known communist leader, had even claimed that “not a drop of blood was shed at Tiananmen Square.”
Communists in India have always prioritised ideological loyalty over human rights. The CCP does the same. Apparently, it is in the Communist ideology itself.
The CCP ensured near-total erasure of the Tiananmen events domestically, banned discussions, commemorations, or even indirect references online and offline. The CCP even deploys AI tools to scan for patterns or indirect references to the Tiananmen Square massacre. The Chinese youth know little to nothing about the 1989 massacre due to internet firewalls, sanitised school curricula, and media control. Mourners, activists, martyrs’ families, all face harassment and arrests even decades later for daring to even talk about the events of the Tiananmen Square killings.
In 2021, Xiaohongshu, an Instagram-like startup of China, shared a post on June 4, the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, and wrote, “Tell me loudly, what is the date today?” The post was taken down quickly, and the company faced an investigation from local authorities.
Not much has changed in China. The Communist regime saw the Tiananmen protests as an existential threat to its power, and three decades later, they continue to see the truth and the memories of the 1989 massacre as a threat to its power.
The blazing Indian summer has arrived, sending people in search of relief under fans, coolers and air conditioners. While many try to stay behind closed doors to escape the scorching heat, another threat rears its head, putting lives at risk during this time of the year. The reliance on ACs to fight the rising temperatures has grown to become a necessity for people. However, this comfort is coupled with underlying safety issues that are causing multiple mishaps.
On 28th May (Thursday), Dhanendra Kumar, an 80-year-old retired IAS officer and the first chairman of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), perished in a fire, following a suspected AC burst at his house in Delhi’s Hauz Khas. The event is the most recent in a string of similar incidents involving air conditioners that have been reported in the National Capital Region this season. According to reports, a split AC blew and started a fire on the 15th story of a residential tower in Indirapuram, Ghaziabad.
Last month, 9 people lost their lives in a fire in a residential complex in Shahdara of East Delhi. The preliminary findings suggested that an AC blast might have been responsible for it. The possibility of such accidents is escalating as the demand and supply of AC surges annually due to the extreme heat.
The application of potentially dangerous refrigerant gases, like R-152a or combinations including R-152a, in the secondary refiller market amplifies the danger opposed to the usage of safe and non-flammable refrigerant R-22 or modern and effective substitutes like R-32 and R-410A.
In February 2024, a devastating instance took place in Delhi, resulting in the death of an 83-year-old grandmother as she tried to escape her burning flat alongside her granddaughter. The Fire Department stated that the cause was a gas leak originating from the AC compressor. It emphasised potential hazards connected to specious refrigerant gases.
A cold storage owner and his driver were killed in 2023 after the refrigerant gas cylinder at their Telangana cold store detonated as they were attempting to replace it. According to the police inquiry, the explosion happened as they were changing an outdoor unit’s refrigerant cylinder.
It highlighted how dangerous it is to handle a combination of refrigerant gases without the right expertise. Moreover, there have been numerous instances of these disasters occurring while replenishing or servicing air conditioning appliances.
What are refrigerant gases and how do they work
A chemical utilised in cooling system for mechanical devices including walk-in freezers, air conditioners and refrigerators is known as a refrigerant gas. The majority of refrigeration equipment rely on its chemical interactions to remove heat from enclosed spaces. Many gases are employed as refrigerants.
These act as a heat-transfer medium rather than cold air. The refrigerant helps the air conditioner maintain acceptable interior temperatures for extended periods of time by absorbing heat from the room and transporting it outside rather than directly spitting chilled air. The system effectively controls temperature and pressure because refrigerant alternates between liquid and gas states.
The gas used in air conditioners is crucial to cooling performance during hot summer days because of these frequent phase transitions that assist in the transfer of heat outdoors. The refrigerant flows through the unit’s expansion unit as a high-pressure liquid before decreasing to a low-pressure liquid caused by a pressure drop.
Afterwards, it passes through air conditioner’s evaporator coils, which takes heat and converts it into a low-pressure gas. After circulating through compressor and developing into a high-pressure gas, this refrigerant passes through condenser coils before cooling down into a high-pressure liquid that starts a new loop.
Mechanism of cooling (Source: Figaro)
The refrigerant industry uses a variety of gases, including R-22, R-152a and modern R-32 and R-410A. These gases are unique to the appliance and cannot be substituted. R-22 has long been employed in older air conditioners due to its dependability and safety. It is a traditional refrigerant gas with a faintly sweet odour and no colour. It is chemically stable and non-flammable but operates at higher pressures.
However, R-22 was to be phased out by January 2025 in Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) under the international convention dubbed as the Montreal Protocol, because there are safer and better alternatives on the market to replace it in a number of refrigeration and air conditioning (RAC) sectors.
In many regions of the world, R-152a is often put as an aerosol propellant in deodorants and hair sprays. It presents a safety issue when used as refrigerant alone or in combinations in air conditioners owing to its flammable qualities. It is not suitable as a refrigerant for ACs because it produces harmful gases including carbon monoxide and hydrogen fluoride upon combustion.
The switch has been executed towards newer and improved options, R-32, R-410A and R-290, which facilitate superior cooling properties while being more environmentally friendly than R-22. R32 enables effective cooling with better compressor performance and reduced charge volume. It is used in many inverter air conditioners to improve power efficiency and temperature stability. It is mildly flammable and non-toxic.
R410A offers stronger cooling output, balanced pressure and smoother heat transfer. This refrigerant is used by several mid-generation split air conditioners to offer consistent performance. Propane or R290, is marketed as a non-toxic, eco-friendly and viable replacement for other refrigerant gases.
Compared to gases like R32, it has a lower Global Warming Potential (GWP) index. It is an excellent natural refrigerant with remarkable thermodynamic efficiency that has minimum effect on the environment. However, R290 has to be handled carefully because of its high flammability.
The threat imposed by R-152a gas
A major issue is the infiltration of spurious gases, primarily R-152a, which have been taking the place of authentic gases in refrigeration and air conditioning (RAC) equipment in the secondary refiller market. The prevalent use of air conditioners in homes and businesses birth grave fears of public safety if they contain the gas or its blends.
The expected demand for genuine R-152a end-uses in India is 1000. However, data mentioned that an alarming amount of R-152a, roughly 5000 tonnes, was entering the nation even after the product fell within the category of prohibited imports.
The reservations arise from the inherent perils associated with employing R-152a as a refrigerant in air conditioners when it is not appropriate. It requires different handling and safety standards, such as physical and chemical qualities. It is also extremely flammable. Anyone operating an air conditioner without being certain of the refrigerant gas inside is exposed to danger due to the lack of information about it. A gas swap involving R-152a could possibly endanger his life.
Oblivious users, consumers or technicians in charge of the equipment’s maintenance could be critically harmed, stressing the pressing need to address this impending threat.
Massive imports of refrigerant gases from China
It is noteworthy that Beijing is the primary supplier of AC components and refrigerant gases to New Delhi. Interestingly, a 2016 post titled “The Fraud in Chinese Air-Conditioners” relating to an experience around procurement of these devices for Saudi Arabia highlighted, “China is not an origin for high quality refrigerant gasses and there is no way to proof what the factory put in there. A low-quality refrigerant will sooner or later blow up your compressor.” It asserted, “So far my conclusion is that it is impossible to buy high quality and performance verified air conditioners from a factory out of China.”
The post charged that the “Chinese have mastered the art of gaming the system” as there is no practical method for the certification body to quality test every single unit that comes off the production line. Hence, the approvals are based on samples, and the manufacturers exploit the situation. It mentioned that “all quality certifications are self-policing means the manufacturer makes a voluntary commitment to abide by them. The certification agency has no mechanism to enforce this compliance.”
Similarly, American heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) contractors were firmly cautioned against illegally imported R-22 knockoffs from China or other countries. It was warned, “While there are plenty of genuine, viable alternatives to R-22, counterfeit products can be flammable, explosive, and even deadly.”
Moreover, 5 illicit production facilities, 11 storage warehouses, 2 sales offices and 18 members of 4 criminal gangs were apprehended in China in 2015. 20 tonnes of raw materials and more than 28,000 canisters of counterfeit R-134a and other refrigerants were seized. There was between 15% and 30% added methyl chloride in the bogus R22 and using it could prompt serious corrosion alongside compressor failure.
The aforementioned illustrated how counterfeit and dangerous refrigerant gases in compressors manufactured in China have been posing a great risk to the safety and lives of consumers.
How to confront the issue
The centre must take action to stop the excessive importation of R-152a into India. Stringent import regulation and enforcement must be put in place in line with the actual end-user demand. The unlawful practice of creating a cocktail of fake gases for a quick profit has to end. Thus, enforcement agencies should take strong action against vendors and refillers of these fake gases on the secondary market to ensure adherence to safety norms.
It is necessary to educate consumers about the severity of the problem by creating awareness of the hazards that accompany the use of R-152a and other such gases. The government, of course, needs active support of the public as well. In fact, both must join forces to deal with this menace successfully. A decisive and attentive strategy is needed along with proper comprehension of the challenge. No purchase should be made without adequate inquiry and understanding of the product.
The fight against contaminated gases calls for coordinated action for public safety, maintain market fairness and guarantee the proper use of refrigerant gases in India. This can also provide a suitable opportunity for the government to advance its “Make in India” initiative and lessen foreign dependency.
Imports of R134a refrigerant from China were subject to anti-dumping levies last year by the government. The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) of India conducted investigations and discovered that R134a was acquired at a discount, resulting in dumping that did major damage to the domestic industry through price undercutting.
Several estimates suggested that the focus on the “Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan” program contributed to a decline in reliance on air conditioner imports. The nation reportedly recorded a 65% decrease in imports of split air conditioners or air conditioners between October and November of 2020.
India has to get rid of its ongoing reliance on China for enhanced control over quality and the introduction of better standards to counter the threat posed by the adulterated gases in ACs. It is a feasible goal that can be accomplished through public backing and strong implementation of a well-defined policy.
A claim doesn’t have to be true to go viral. It only has to sound shocking. In recent days, a figure claiming that 8,056 people died in Uttar Pradesh during a five-day heatwave has spread rapidly across the media reports and social media discussions. The study was published in Frontiers in Environmental Health. The number carried the authority of a peer-reviewed study and the capability of mainstream media coverage. Yet a closer examination shows that the figure was not a recorded death toll at all.
It was an estimate generated through a chain of assumptions, extrapolations, and modelling choices that transformed data from 10 cities into a nationwide mortality projection. The study has been presented as a district-level estimate of heatwave deaths across India. However, its conclusions are based on several assumptions about climate, population, mortality patterns and heatwave scenarios. The real question is not whether heatwaves are dangerous – they certainly are. The question is whether a figure like 8,056 deaths in Uttar Pradesh can be treated as a reliable estimate when it is derived through multiple layers of modelling and extrapolation rather than actual death records. Let’s examine the study as a whole and debunk the claims that are causing misinformation among the public.
The paper never measured deaths in 765 districts
At first, the study portrays that researchers analysed heatwave-related deaths across all the districts of India. However, the reality is much different. The authors did not collect data on Heatwave-related deaths across all 765 districts. Nor did they examine how many people actually died during the recent heatwaves in each district. In fact, the study did not use the district-level temperature and mortality data to directly calculate the heat-related districts. Instead, the researchers relied on assumptions that worsened the picture. The assumptions are based on an earlier study conducted in just 10 Indian cities. They then used those findings to estimate what might happen nationwide.
Each district was assigned the mortality risk observed in one of those cities based on climate similarities. As a result, the figure of Uttar Pradesh’s estimated 8,056 deaths is not recorded as deaths from Uttar Pradesh itself. They are projections generated by applying a small amount of city data to hundreds of districts across India. This distinction is crucial. The study presents district-level numbers, but they are not derived from district-level mortality data. They are the result of a nationwide modelling exercise built on extrapolation rather than direct measurement. If deaths were never directly measured in all 765 districts, how much confidence should be placed in district-specific estimates running into thousands of deaths?
The entire model rests on data from just 10 cities
One of the biggest limitations of the study is that a research paper can analyse or estimate data for the whole country based on only 10 Indian cities. The researchers did not analyse heatwave-related mortality data from hundreds of districts across the country. Instead, they relied on a previous study that examined heatwaves and deaths in just 10 urban centres between 2008 and 2019. These cities include Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Pune, and a few others. The mortality patterns observed in these cities were then used to estimate heatwave deaths nationwide. In simple words, the study assumes that if a district has a climate similar to one of these cities, it will also experience a similar increase in deaths during the heatwave.
This raises an obvious question: Can data from just 10 cities accurately represent the diverse conditions across 765 districts? A district’s vulnerability to heat depends on several factors beyond climate, including healthcare access, population density, income levels, housing conditions, electricity availability, access to cooling, and the proportion of people engaged in outdoor work. These factors can vary dramatically from one district to another.
Yet the study’s estimates for the entire country ultimately stem from mortality patterns observed in only 10 urban centres. As a result, the district-level figures presented in the paper are not based on local observations but on the assumption that the experience of a handful of cities can be extended to the rest of India.
Climate similarity is not mortality similarity
A key assumption of the study is that districts with a climate similar to that of a particular city will also experience a similar increase in deaths during a heatwave. This assumption is the backbone of the entire model. To estimate heatwave deaths across India, the researchers first grouped districts by climate zone. Each district was then matched to one of the 10 cities studied earlier, and the heatwave mortality risk observed in that city was applied to the district. However, climate is the only factor that determines a population’s vulnerability to extreme heat. Two villages may have similar temperatures but very different living conditions.
One district may have better hospitals, more reliable electricity, greater access to cooling, and cleaner drinking water, but another district may have poor healthcare facilities, frequent power cuts, and a large number of people exposed to heat for long hours. These differences can significantly affect how many people fall sick or die in the heatwave. For example, a resident of a major city with access to air conditioning, better hospital facilities, and emergency services may face a very different level of risk than a farm worker in a district without basic facilities. Despite having similar temperatures, the conditions for both people will be different.
Yet the bulk of the study works on the assumption that districts with similar climate characteristics will also share similar mortality patterns. In simple terms, similar weather does not necessarily mean similar health outcomes. Therefore, using climate similarity as a proxy for mortality risk introduces significant uncertainty into the study’s estimates.
The study effectively guessed heatwave risk for rural India.
The most significant limitation of the study is that it extends findings from a handful of urban centres to vast rural populations across the country. In the limitations section, the authors acknowledge that, while assigning heatwave mortality risk to districts, they did not account for several important factors, including occupation, income, healthcare access, overall health, nutrition, age, and gender. This is a major concern because it plays an important role in heatwave-related deaths.
One person living in Ahmedabad with better living conditions must face different problems than the person working as an agricultural labourer in rural Punjab, who spends long hours outdoors and has limited access to healthcare. Yet the study applies mortality risk estimates derived from urban populations to districts across India, including predominantly rural regions. In effect, it assumes that the relationship between heat and mortality observed in a city can serve as a proxy for areas with very different economic, social, and healthcare conditions.
As a result, the estimate of 8,056 excess deaths in Uttar Pradesh is not based on observed mortality patterns in Uttar Pradesh’s rural population. It assumes that heat-related mortality in those areas can be approximated using data from a limited number of cities. Whether that assumption holds true remains uncertain.
The study’s definition of a heatwave is different from what most people understand
Another important point often missed in media reports is how the study defines a “heatwave”. Most people think of a heatwave as temperatures exceeding 45°C or an official heatwave declaration by the India Meteorological Department (IMD). However, the study does not use either of these standards. Instead, the researchers define a heatwave as a period when temperatures exceed the 97th percentile of a district’s historical temperature record between 2008 and 2019.
In simple terms, a heatwave occurs when temperatures are unusually high compared to those the district has experienced in the past. This means the study’s heatwave threshold is a statistical benchmark, not necessarily the temperatures that people commonly associate with extreme heat. As a result, the study is not based on IMD-declared heatwaves. It is not based on a fixed temperature such as 45°C and nor is it based on actual temperatures recorded during the 2026 summer.
This distinction is important because many readers may assume that estimates such as 8,056 deaths in Uttar Pradesh are linked to recent weather conditions or specific heatwave events. In reality, the figure is based on a hypothetical scenario defined using historical temperature thresholds.
The authors acknowledge that their model is based on a historical baseline from 2008–2019 rather than on current-year heatwave events. Therefore, the study should not be interpreted as evidence of a specific number of deaths during a recent heatwave. In short, the paper models what could happen under a specific statistical heatwave scenario. It does not calculate deaths from an actual heatwave event that occurred in Uttar Pradesh in 2026.
Huge uncertainty is hidden behind seemingly precise numbers
One of the striking aspects of the study is the difference between the popular headline figures and the uncertainty acknowledged by the paper itself. According to the media reports, the prominent highlighted numbers are 29,967 excess deaths nationwide and 8,056 excess deaths in Uttar Pradesh. It is presented in a way that makes the figures appear highly precise, almost as if they were based on actual counts.
However, the study itself admits that there is a significant margin of uncertainty. According to the authors, the estimated national death toll for a five-day heatwave could range from 18,000 to 43,000 deaths. That is a difference of approximately 25,000 deaths between the lower and upper estimates. In simple terms, while headlines focused on figures like 29,967 or 8,056, the study’s own calculations suggest the true value could vary substantially depending on the assumptions used in the model. It raises the important question.
If the uncertainty range spans tens of thousands of deaths at the national level, how meaningful is it to present figures such as 29,967 or 8,056 as if they are precise estimates? The issue is not that uncertainty exists – Uncertainty is a normal part of scientific modelling. The issue is how that uncertainty is communicated. Media Houses like India Today, encountering a figure like 8,056, are unlikely to realise that it emerges from a model with a very wide range of possible outcomes.
In effect, the study presents estimates to the nearest individual while simultaneously acknowledging uncertainty that spans tens of thousands of deaths. This creates an impression of precision that the underlying methodology may not fully support.
The model was never tested against real-world outcomes
One of the most important questions for any scientific model is simple: does it match reality? In this case, a key question would be whether the study’s estimates correspond to what actually happened during past heatwaves. For example, did the researchers compare their district-level projections with real mortality data from previous heatwave events to see how accurate their model was? The paper does not provide such a nationwide validation exercise.
According to the authors, they estimate heatwave-related deaths across all districts by combining mortality data, climate classifications, and risk coefficients from 10 cities. However, the study provides no evidence that these district-level estimates were tested against actual district-level mortality records from past heatwaves. As a result, it is difficult to know how accurately the model reflects the real-world conditions. For instance, the model could be overestimating heat-related deaths by a significant margin. It could be an underestimation of the true impact of heatwaves. It could accurately estimate some regions while performing poorly in others.
Without comparing the model’s predictions to observed outcomes, there is no clear way to determine which of these possibilities is correct. A model can generate numbers that look precise, but unless those numbers are tested on real-world data, their accuracy remains unproven.
In the case of Uttar Pradesh’s estimate of 8,056 excess deaths, the study provides a projection, but it does not explain that similar projections have successfully matched actual mortality outcomes in the past. That missing validation is an important limitation when assessing how much confidence to place in the final numbers.
How a modelled estimate turned into a viral “death toll”
The controversy surrounding the study highlights how easily a modelled estimate can be transformed into a viral narrative. The debate began after media reports, including one by India Today, highlighted the study’s claim that Uttar Pradesh could account for approximately 8,056 excess deaths during a five-day heatwave. To an average reader, the headline gave the impression that thousands of people had actually died during a recent heatwave.
The report was soon picked up by Librandu Mohammad Zubair, who shared a post citing India Today, which pointed out that most districts in Uttar Pradesh had not recorded temperatures above 42°C in recent days and that only a handful of districts had crossed 45°C. The India Today report was subsequently deleted, with critics arguing that it presented a hypothetical estimate as an actual death toll.
However, the controversy also exposed a deeper problem. The study itself never claimed that 8,056 people had died during a recent heatwave in Uttar Pradesh. The figure was generated using a model based on a hypothetical five-day heatwave scenario in which temperatures exceed a district’s historical 97th percentile threshold. It was not calculated using actual temperatures recorded in Uttar Pradesh during the past few days, nor was it based on observed deaths.
This means that both the headline and much of the criticism were talking past the study. India Today’s presentation blurred the difference between an estimate and a real death toll, while the temperature-based rebuttal did not directly address the methodology that produced the estimate in the first place.
The real problem is how the false narrative spreads on social media. By quoting the wrong study and portraying it as the reality, to create panic among the citizens
By the time the number “8,056” reached the public, most of these caveats had disappeared. What began as a model-generated projection was interpreted as a documented death toll, while the subsequent debate focused on recent temperature readings rather than the study’s underlying assumptions. The episode serves as a reminder that scientific estimates, especially those built on extensive modelling, should not be confused with measured facts. These practices help the So-called activist to create the panic where they can show how it is an authoritarian government that is destroying everything, and people are dying from it.
Conclusion
Heatwaves are a serious public health challenge, and there is little doubt that extreme temperatures can contribute to excess mortality. There is also growing evidence that heat-related deaths are often underreported because many fatalities triggered by heat are ultimately recorded under other medical causes. However, acknowledging these realities does not mean that every estimate should be accepted without scrutiny. A close examination of the study reveals that its headline-grabbing figures, through which many media houses and So-called influencers used to create the panic.
This study is not based on observed deaths, district-level mortality records, or real-world heat wave outcomes. Instead, they are a generated chain of assumptions: extrapolating mortality patterns from just 10 cities to 765 districts, assigning districts based on climate similarity, applying urban risk estimates to rural populations, relying on COVID-era mortality data, and modelling hypothetical heatwave scenarios that differ from how most people understand or identify heatwaves.
The figure of 8,056 deaths in Uttar Pradesh, therefore, should not be mistaken for a documented death toll. It is a model-generated estimate whose accuracy depends entirely on the validity of the model’s assumptions. The episode highlights a broader problem in modern information ecosystems. Complex scientific models are often reduced to sensational figures, stripped of their limitations and presented as established facts. Such reporting does not improve public understanding; it creates confusion, fuels alarm and distorts the very science it claims to communicate.
Scientific estimates have their place in policy discussions, but they must be presented honestly and with full context. When projections are reported as facts and assumptions are treated as evidence, the result is not informed debate but misinformation. The real lesson from the controversy is not about heatwaves alone; it is about the responsibility of researchers, journalists, and activists alike to ensure that modelled estimates are not transformed into unquestioned truths.
For many years, OpIndia has been highlighting the fact that the so-called ‘free encyclopedia’, Wikipedia, is neither free nor fair in any respect. Wikipedia allows anti-India and anti-Hindu editors to use the platform for publishing biased and misleading information about individuals and entities. New research by the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) Media reveals how the anti-Hindu editors have peddled propaganda against the US-based Hindu American Foundation (HAF) on Wikipedia.
Certain Wikipedia editors have linked various activities of the Hindu American Foundation to Hindutva, in an attempt to push a narrative that HAF furthers a pro-Hindu political agenda.
According to the HAF’s Wikipedia page, the Hindu rights organisation is ‘rebranding’ Hindutva as “Hindu rights” by highlighting Hindu persecution in the US, opposing cultural appropriation of the Hindu practice of Yoga and opposing laws that weaponise imaginary caste discrimination to target Hindus.
“The organization alleges that its advocacy focuses on protecting rights of Hindus in the United States, drawing attention to Hindu persecution abroad, pushing back against the cultural appropriation of yoga, and opposition to laws prohibiting caste-based discrimination. However, these efforts largely function as an attempt to rebrand Hindutva as “Hindu rights” in order to better suit the mainstream politics of multiculturalism in the United States,” the Wikipedia page of the Hindu American Foundation reads.
In a report published on 3rd June, the Ashley Rindsberg-led NPOV Media highlighted how a small cluster of anonymous editors controlled more than 80% of the HAF’s Wikipedia page.
There are four editors, responsible for 80% of the biased information appearing on the HAF’s Wikipedia page. These editors are TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, Llightex, and Shahinshah121.
Vanamonde93, a notorious Hindu-hating editor, has also intervened to support the editors cluster involved in creating an interconnected ecosystem of pages surrounding HAF, its critics, and the organisations aligned against the Hindu rights group since 2021.
“The effort to reshape the narrative about HAF began in early 2021. It was then that a small cluster of highly active Wikipedia editors began constructing an interconnected ecosystem of pages surrounding HAF, its critics, and the organizations aligned against it. These users include TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, Llightex, and Shahinshah121. Another users, Vanamonde93, one of the most powerful administrators on the site, frequently intervened in ways that appear to support the core cluster,” the NPOV report titled Wikipedia’s India War reads.
It must be recalled that it was in 2021 that Audrey Truschke, a notorious anti-Hindu ‘historian’, launched a major online attack on the HAF, and accused the group of promoting ‘Hindu nationalism’ in the US. In May 2021, the HAF filed a lawsuit against the Mughal fangirl.
All this while, the Wikipedia page of the Hindu American Foundation was being besmirched by several anti-Hindu editors, and new material was being churned out in a coordinated attack on the Hindu rights advocacy group.
The NPOV Media research found that just two months before the HAF filed a lawsuit against Truschke, George Soros-funded Hindus for Human Rights and the Islamist group, Indian American Muslim Council, “TrangaBellam created the Wikipedia biography of Audrey Truschke, and on which is still by far the dominant user, with over 57% authorship (compared with under 5% for the third-ranked user on the page).”
On one hand, the HAF’s page was being edited for inserting biased information against the Hindu rights group, on the other, Audrey Truschke’s Wikipedia page was embellished with her own claims of victimhood. On X (formerly Twitter), in her articles and speeches, Truschke would claim that she was receiving threats from ‘Hindu nationalists’.
The interesting part? Wikipedia editors cited a Washington Post opinion piece co-authored by Audrey Truschke as their “source” for the claim that Truschke was being subjected to harassment by “people affiliated with Hindutva” The other source was the “Hindutva Harassment Field Manual” created by South Asia Scholar Activist Collective (SASAC). This group was co-founded by Audrey Truschke.
In a nutshell, Truschke claimed that she was being victimised by Hindu rights groups like the HAF, repeated the same lies in her articles, trashy ‘manuals’, etc, and Wikipedia editors just picked up whatever claims she made and inserted them in her Wikipedia page. TrangaBellam and other anti-Hindu editors basically wanted the page visitors to either ignore the source of the victimhood bogey or see it and believe that since ‘Audrey Truschke is saying that Hindus are harassing her, then it must be true.’
“Within weeks, her Wikipedia entry did not just carry this same messaging, but was structured around it, with the claim made in the very first sentences of the page. “Truschke has been a frequent target of harassment by supporters of Hindutva,” the lead section reads, “who accuse her of having prejudiced views on Hinduism, and making offensive statements; scholars reject the charges,” the NPOV report stated.
The Wikipedia entry that Truschke was being subjected to harassment by Hindu ‘extremists’ was made on 10th July 2021 by TrangaBellam. As per the NPOV report, it was on the same day the account added that Truschke had formed a “collective to combat increasing harassment of South Asian scholars.”
“This addition took place just nine days after the domain for the group was registered, according to WHOIS records—and only four days after the first recorded snapshot of the site being live on Archive.org. In this space of time, an editor presumably unrelated to the group had not only become aware of this nascent, highly obscure organization and its brand-new website, but had also found time to write it into the factual record on Wikipedia—a remarkable coincidence,” the NPOV report reads.
It further highlights how just days later, TrangaBellam made its first and most important edit to the Hindu American Foundation’s page. TrangaBellam floated the claim that the HAF’s lawsuit represented an unprecedented attack on academic freedom. The biased editor inserted various false claims against the HAF on HAF’s Wikipedia page and, in clear violation of the platform’s rules, cited the website of Hindus for Human Rights—a litigant in the suit filed by the HAF.
In addition to TrangaBellam, one Shahinshah121 added various links from Truschke’s days-old SASAC website, began editing the HAF page, inserting claims of anti-Muslim sentiment among some of the group’s members.
Before this, on 8th July 2021, Shahinshah121 attempted to create a Wikipedia page for Truschke’s SASAC. This attempt was made just two days after SASAC registered its domain. Shahinshah121 made three more such unsuccessful attempts.
Shahinshah121 24 edits to the HAF page, six edits to its second most edited page, Hindutva. This editor’s half of the lifetime edits were to the HAF’s page, second-most to the Hindutva page, while on the rest of the work, Shahishah121 made only single edits. Shahinshah121 essentially indulged in behaviour of what Wikipedia calls a “Single Purpose Account”.
The NPOV analysis deduced that the edits by TrangaBellam, Shahinshah121 and others from the cluster, established a narrative that the Hindu American Foundation is an RSS-linked and pro-BJP Hindutva extremist group masquerading as a mere Hindu rights advocacy group.
The report further cites a 2025 incident to demonstrate how the Wikipedia editors relied on vague letters and random news reports to peddle an insinuation that the HAF was somehow on the US Department of Justice’s radar.
“In 2025, the HAF was named in a complaint to the Department of Justice, alleging that the HAF operates as an unregistered foreign agent of India’s BJP…” the HAF’s Wikipedia page reads
The framing gives an impression to the readers that the Hindu American Foundation was investigated by the DoJ for being an “unregistered foreign agent”.
In reality, however, a pro-Khalistan Fremont Gurdwara Sahib had, through a law firm, written an unsolicited letter to the DoJ making the ‘foreign agent’ claims.
The incident was covered by a propaganda outlet, Mother Jones, Khalistani rag Baaz News, and the UK-based anti-India newspaper, The Guardian.
Shahinshah121 mentioned this episode on the HAF Wikipedia page; however, the editor deliberately withheld the key information that DOJ never announced any investigation against the HAF. There was no confirmation that the DOJ even read the letter sent by the Fremont Gurdwara Sahib.
Another major anti-Hindu editor who transformed the HAF Wikipedia page significantly to make the Hindu rights appear like a deceitful nationalist extremist outfit was Kautilya 3.
“The organisation has its roots in the Hindu nationalist organisation Vishwa Hindu Parishad America and its student wing Hindu Students Council. According to its critics, the HAF has repackaged the Hindu nationalist agenda in the language of “Hindu rights” in a way to suit mainstream American politics,” an edit by Kautilya3 to the HAF Wikipedia page reads.
In addition to contributing to the HAF page, Kautilya 3 also holds 25.3% authorship of the Wikipedia page for the Indian American Muslim Council.
Kautilya 3 also holds 41.4% authorship of the Wikipedia page on caste discrimination in the US. In January 2026, Uday Reddy aka Kautilya 3, edited out the critical remarks by the Indian Americans against the SB 403 and Equality Labs survey.
Notably, the SB403 was a so-called anti-caste discrimination legislation that is making its way through the Californian state legislature. California Senator Aisha Wahab tabled the bill. The dubious organisation Equality Labs is one of the bill’s biggest supporters. The bill was completely based on the Cisco caste case. While the bill passed through the state legislature in September 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed in October 2023.
Notably, Kautilya 3 is a UK-based Wikipedia editor, Uday Reddy, who was booked by Manipur police in 2024 for promoting enmity between communities in Manipur and propagating anti-Meitei hatred. He received criticism from some Wikipedia editors for attempting to label the blockbuster Dhurandhar films as a piece of pro-Modi and anti-Pakistan ‘propaganda’.
Back in 2024, OpIndia published a dossier detailing how Wikipedia is not a free, editorial-intervention-free encyclopaedia which relies on the voluntary work of thousands of unpaid, passionate volunteers across the globe, as claimed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
OpIndia concluded that Wikipedia’s “NPOV” (Neutral Point of View) guidelines do not mean that the entire spectrum of views would find equal representation in the article.
Kautilya 3 has consistently been pushing the Islamo-leftist agenda on Wikipedia. Earlier, a section on the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots was added to the Hindu terror Wikipedia article. In this section, Kautilya 3 added that a police investigation into the incident had revealed that the perpetrator belonged to AAP and therefore, it was a ‘conspiracy’ to create strife. Basically, the Wikipedia editor stated that the Delhi Police investigation should be removed since the Delhi police specifically is not a reliable source of information, while the left-leaning media is.
Reddy was booked by the Manipur Police over accusations of publishing inflammatory posts and statements on social media platforms. His X handle was withheld in India.
The complaint against him alleged that Reddy may have links with Khalistanis elements in Canada. The complaint stated that Uday Reddy has been working online to create tensions between Meitei and Kuki communities on religious grounds in Manipur. The FIR has been registered with a police station in Imphal East district under Sections 117 (abetment), 295-A (insulting religious sentiments), 153-A (promoting enmity between communities) and other relevant provisions of law.
Manipur Police had issued a statement wherein it said that Uday Reddy used to host spaces on social media platforms and allegedly directs people in Manipur on how to create unrest and trouble against law enforcement personnel.
Previously, Reddy was criticised for spreading propaganda about the Meitei community, particularly in the context of the Manipur crisis.
In April 2022, he accused Hindus of “weaponising” Ram Navami against Muslims. In a post on X, he wrote, “Hindutva nationalist organisations, spearheaded by RSS and BJP, have weaponised the festival to create Hindu-Muslim frictions, causing riots and deaths, in which the Muslims have been the major sufferers.”
Contrary to Reddy’s claims, it was Muslims who attacked Hindus across India on Hindu festivals like Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti. In fact, processions related to festivals of Saraswati Puja and Ganesh Chaturthi too have been attacked, which are benign festivals related to the celebration of wisdom and knowledge.
The anti-Hindu bias of Wikipedia editors is also evident from its page about the 2002 Godhra carnage, in which 59 Hindus were burnt alive in a bogey of the Sabarmati Express while returning from Ayodhya. The train bogey was set ablaze by a Muslim mob. However, if one searches for it, a Wikipedia page titled “Godhra Train Burning” shows up. Wikipedia calls it ‘train burning’ since they do not believe that the fire was indeed set by a Muslim mob, essentially to burn Hindus alive.
In addition to TrangaBellam, Shahinshah121, and Kautilya 3, the anti-Hindu cluster of Wikipedia editors includes one Vanamonde93, who, besides other anti-Hindu Wikipedia edits, made significant interventions on the HAF page as well. It is notable that Vanamonde93 is among the only 32 admins on Wikipedia who are both checkusers and oversighters.
“On September 16, Vanamonde93 stepped in to make yet another seemingly minor change that would, in practice, have lasting impact. They did so by renaming a section heading from “Alleged Hindu Nationalist Ties” to simply “Hindu nationalist ties.” In a single minute, the claim went from an allegation to an accepted fact,” the NPOV report reads.
Back in 2018, Audrey Truschke had published a Tweet calling Lord Ram a ‘misogynist pig’. She ‘roughly translated’ a version of the Valmiki Ramayan to claim that Goddess Sita called her husband Lord Ram a ‘misogynist pig’ during the Agnipariksha episode.
After backlash, Truschke claimed that she merely cited a translation of the text by Berkeley Sanskritist Robert Goldman. However, Goldman has issued a strong statement rejecting Truschke’s blasphemous characterisation of Lord Ram and said, “Truschke was ‘in no way quoting our translation’, and that her language was ‘extremely inappropriate’.
Fast forward to September 2021, Vanamonde93 edited the portion on this controversy, “he stripped out the references to Goldman’s response—the “shocking and extremely inappropriate” language, and the surrounding context around the controversy. His edit summary asked: “how is this remotely an acceptable source for unattributed controversial assertions in a BLP?” the NPOV reported.
The analysis pointed out that material criticising Truschke was subjected to intense scrutiny; however, content hostile to the HAF, including self-published activist material, like Truschke’s ‘Field Manual’, etc, was not.
More recently, Vanamonde93 made a series of edits to the HAF page on 23rd February 2026. Vanamonde93 removed a public statement from HAF’s executive director, Suhag Shukla, regarding the lawsuit against Truschke, H4HR, and IAMC. The Wikipedia editor cited the platform’s policy against primary sources for the changes made.
“Kautilya3 had used the same rule in January 2021 to strip out HAF’s self-defenses. HAF’s own statement about its own lawsuit was deemed off-limits. The activist sources and op-eds framing the lawsuit as an attack on academic freedom stayed,” the NPOV reported.
The NPOV Media report also highlighted shenanigans of another Wikipedia editor, Llightex. It was Llightex, who created the page of the Sunita Vishwanath-led anti-Hindu outfit, Hindus for Human Rights, had previously worked there. Llightex edited not only H4HR’s page but also that of IAMC’s page, created a separate Wikipedia page for Sunita Vishwanath, while the HAF lawsuit was ongoing. After the lawsuit was over, Llightlex made edits to the HAF’s page as well, further portraying the Hindu rights group in a bad light.
Executive Director of the Hindu Amercian Foundation calls the vandalisation of the HAF’s Wikipedia page an “insider job”
In reaction to the NPOV’s explosive exposé, the HAF Executive Director Suhag Shukla said that the defacement and vandalisation of the Foundation’s Wikipedia page was an insider job.
Taking to X, Shukla wrote, “It was an inside job! We’ve watched our @Wikipedia page completely defaced & vandalized for 5 years that rendered @HinduAmerican unrecognizable. This investigation by @AshleyRindsberg, @npovmedia blows the cover off of what appears to be a concerted attack on HAF by a cabal of 4 editors—two of whom are apparently tied to Audrey Truschke & the fringe group, Hindus for Human Rights.”
Highlighting the role of the four Wikipedia editors in vandalising the HAF Wikipedia page, Shukla wrote, “Trangabellam, Kautilya3, Lightex and Shainshah121 are responsible for 80% of the entire content of the HAF wiki page. Who are they? Trangabellam created, protected & shaped Audrey Truschke’s Wikipedia page while they defaced HAF’s with unsubstantiated slurs. Lightex actually disclosed “past work with “Hindus for Human Rights,” created that group’s wiki page (against wiki’s own rules) & then attacked HAF’s wiki page changing the lead to cast HAF as a “far-right nationalist organization. Shahinshah121 added false allegations that HAF is “Hindutva” & “under investigation by the DOJ for acting as a foreign agent” while promoting Truschke’s “South Asian Scholars Collective” within hours of it being formed. Kautilya3, the 2nd most active editor of the HAF page, erased all information that provided an HAF perspective to allegations, including that “HAF has absolutely no links” to various foreign orgs. He then added the line that “HAF repackaged the Hindu nationalist agenda in the language of ‘Hindu rights’ to suit mainstream American politics.”
It was an inside job!
We’ve watched our @Wikipedia page completely defaced & vandalized for 5 years that rendered @HinduAmerican unrecognizable.
Answering an expected “Why are you crying about this on Twitter—do something about it”, reaction, Suhag Shukla said, “Well, read the full article and see how one of Wikipedia’s 32 most powerful editors, Vanamonde93, blocked attempts to balance the HAF Wiki page and actually defaced it further. question in advance.”
Wikipedia is not an unbiased intermediary but a biased publisher: What OpIndia research found
In 2024, OpIndia released an extensive dossier detailing how Wikipedia is not a free, editorial-intervention-free encyclopaedia which relies on the voluntary work of thousands of unpaid, passionate volunteers across the globe, as claimed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
OpIndia’s research paper revealed that the structure of Wikipedia itself gives unmitigated power to a handful of individuals who are called ‘administrators’. There are only 435 active administrators in the entire world who have the power to ban editors, blacklist sources, ban contributors and decide the edits that should be made or reverted on articles.
Soon after OpIndia released the dossier, Facebook, another Left-leaning platform that has been accused of election interference in the USA and many such instances of furthering the political interest of a certain ideology, banned the dossier to restrict its viewership.
Wikipedia claims to be an intermediary which depends on the wisdom of the crowd without content intervention and editorial line, based on ‘reliable sources’ and maintaining a neutral point of view. This, however, is far from the truth, as evidenced in OpIndia research. Wikipedia meets all the standards of publishers. They collate information on current events and historical events, they pay their editors and administrators, and they are easily accessible by the people at large on the internet.
Given that Wikipedia has an editorial stand based on the personal opinions and biases of its editors and administrators, the evidence cited in the OpIndia dossier suggests that they are no longer eligible to be considered an intermediary. OpIndia recommended that once declared a publisher, Wikimedia would have to have its offices in India, set up a grievance redressal system and submit to Indian laws about illegal content which undermines the sovereignty of India or creates disaffection.
The findings of the research paper prepared by OpIndia Editor-in-Chief Nupur J Sharma reveal that despite not having offices or presence in India, Wikipedia has been funding entities and individuals with anti-India ideology and even links to Islamists and Khalistanis, to further its own business and ideological interests in the country. Wikipedia not only collects funds from India in the form of donations but also spends millions of dollars in India and toes an absolutely biased and rigid editorial line, all while claiming to be an intermediary and not a publisher to escape any accountability before the Indian law.
Besides, declaring Wikipedia as a publisher, OpIndia also recommended that Wikipedia’s financial transactions be scrutinised. The OpIndia dossier titled Wikipedia’s War on India can be read here.
Wikipedia co-founder, Jimmy Wales, once said Wikipedia’s mission was to “make the sum of all human knowledge available to everyone.” Today, that mission appears conditional, as knowledge is welcome only if it conforms to one side of the political spectrum. The very guideline that demands “Neutral Point of View” has been hollowed out, because neutrality now depends entirely on which sources are allowed into the conversation.
As the OpIndia dossier concluded, “If the pool of reliable sources itself is tainted with ideological bias, the ‘Neutral Point of View’ merely remains a requirement where all versions of the Left are prominently added.”
In an interview published by Politics Home in October 2025, Wales unapologetically defended Wikipedia’s own internal censorship, that is, the blacklisting of sources he has personally deemed unreliable in the past. He insisted that “the idea that we should take sites that routinely publish crazy conspiracy theories and nonsense just doesn’t make any sense.”
Previously, Jimmy Wales himself admitted as well that he is the final arbitrator of content on Wikipedia. “Final policy decisions are up to me, as always,” he once said.
According to Wikipedia itself, “The contributors or editors of Wikipedia participate subject to many policies and guidelines governing behaviour and content. These rules are supervised by various authorities: Jimmy Wales, nominally in a position of ultimate authority, although he has deferred in most instances to the leadership of Wikipedia, the ~34 present Bureaucrats or Crats, the ~700 active Administrators or Admins, and another group called the Arbitration Committee or ArbCom with 15-18 members or Arbs, depending upon the rules adopted each year. In July 2012, there were 14 active arbitrators identified, all of whom were administrators, although this is not a set rule. The Wikimedia Foundation or its designated agents also have the authority to impose bans against IP addresses for pages, topics, or the entire site. The Arbitration Committee “has no jurisdiction over official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff”.
In fact, Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, has categorically stated as well that Wikipedia has a pronounced Left bias. In several interviews and talks, he has spoken extensively about how Wikipedia skews the scale of balance, leading to the information being an inaccurate representation of reality, ridden with Left bias.
Jimmy Wales created an Arbitration Committee, which is essentially Wikipedia’s Supreme Court. This Committee is an extension of the decision-making power he formerly held as CEO of Bomis Inc., to take over his role in resolving complex disputes between users. Bomis Inc was a for-profit private company which was co-founded in 1996 by Jimmy Wales for ventures like Nupedia and Wikipedia.
By 2007, the for-profit company was shut down, and all the Wikipedia-related sources were transferred to Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit charitable organisation, also founded by Jimmy Wales.
The content on Nupedia, the predecessor of Wikipedia, was less extensive in comparison to Wikipedia. For example, in its first year, Nupedia had only 21 articles while Wikipedia had 200. However, Larry Sanger has criticised how Jimmy Wales sacrificed authenticity for volume while shifting from Nupedia to Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation was established in 2003, 2 years after Wikipedia was started by Jimmy Wales. OpIndia dossier highlighted the relationship between Google and Wikipedia, and how the former granted millions of dollars as ‘gifts’ to Wikipedia over the years through Tides Foundation.
Tides Foundation is notorious for funding several anti-Hindu, anti-India organisations and elements. The Foundation gave grants to Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), which has links to Islamists and Khalistanis, and was formed in 2019 by two Islamist advocacy groups, the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and Organisation for Minorities of India (OFMI). Tides also funded AMAN Public Charitable Trust (AMAN). This trust is connected to the NewsClick-China funding scandal, where it is alleged that Chinese entities funded NewsClick, a Delhi-based pro-China propaganda outlet funded by CCP stooge Neville Roy Singham, to disrupt Indian sovereignty.
From the page of the Hindu American Foundation, Bengal Files, The Kashmir Files, The Kerala Story, Dhurandhar films, OpIndia, to the recent online gimmick Cockroach Janta Party, Wikipedia is platforming anti-India and anti-Hindu Islamo-leftists, who are creating, vandalising, or decorating pages of various individuals and entities based on their own ideological alignment, all while Wikipedia claims to be an editorial-intervention-free encyclopaedia.
AAP worker turned Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke announced on 1st June that he would return to India from the United States on 6th June and lead a protest in New Delhi over alleged irregularities in examinations such as NEET, CBSE, CUET and SSC GD.
In a video posted on X, Dipke called upon supporters to gather at Delhi airport when he lands and then proceed towards Parliament Street Police Station before holding a demonstration at Jantar Mantar. While describing the proposed event as a “peaceful” and “constitutional” protest, the announcement immediately attracted attention because it sought to convert an online campaign into a physical mobilisation in the national capital.
Important announcement:
CJP Founder @abhijeet_dipke will return to India on June 6 for a peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar, Delhi, demanding the resignation of the Education Minister. pic.twitter.com/x9M1v38Pwu
— Cockroach is Back (@Cockroachisback) June 1, 2026
However, as the date of the protest approaches, questions are being raised over whether the organisers have followed the mandatory procedures required for holding demonstrations at Jantar Mantar. As of the announcement, there was no indication that Delhi Police had been informed in writing about the proposed gathering or that any formal process had been completed to obtain permission for the event.
Dipke himself admits that he did not take permission
The controversy deepened just days before his arrival in India when Dipke admitted during a public interview that he had not obtained police permission for the protest.
On Wednesday, 3rd June, during an interview with journalist Ajit Anjum, Dipke was directly asked whether he had taken the necessary police permission required for the proposed demonstration. His response was a simple “No.”
CJP only wants to do Drama, not Protest
Anjum- Have you taken Police Permission required to organise Protest?
Dipke- No
Anjum- it's procedure to obtain prior permission and give undertaking of how many people will be there, timing of protest, etc.
Anjum then pointed out that organisers are generally required to apply in advance and provide details such as the number of participants expected, the timing of the event and other logistical information. Dipke replied that he would go to the police station on the same day and seek permission.
When Anjum noted that same-day permissions are generally not granted and questioned why the process had not been initiated earlier, Dipke responded, “I will wait in the police station till they give permission.”
Asked again why permission had not been sought beforehand, Dipke reportedly replied, “We want to do things our way; we will stick to that.”
Anjum- CJP has many members in Delhi, why don't they take police permission for protest on 6th?
Dipke: we want to do things our way, we will stick to that.
It's very clear that Abhijeet Dipke doesn't want to do peaceful protest. He wants to do chaos and get Detained to show… pic.twitter.com/fD0U83pyDV
The remarks immediately triggered debate online, with a protest described as peaceful and constitutional would not follow the established legal process that has been in place for years.
CJP spokespersons questions the need for prior permission
Adding to the controversy, the Cockroach Janta Party held a press conference on Wednesday, 3rd June, where party spokespersons openly questioned the very idea of obtaining prior permission for protests.
During the media interaction, CJP spokesperson Saurav Das argued against the existing system and said: “You are asking us to take permission. Tell me, how many months in advance should we apply? Then the permission gets rejected, and then we go to court. Why should we ask for permission in the first place? Does it make sense that you go to Jantar Mantar at 10 in the morning, leave at 5 in the evening, raise slogans and then everything ends there? Is that how protest works in a democracy? That is the culture we are fighting against. That has to change.”
CJP Gen-Z nahi Gen-C hai
Gen- Chutiya
CJP says why to take police permission before?
Next they will say why file nomination for elections before?
We will go to Election Commission office on morning of Voting. In a Democracy they'll have to allow us to contest elections.
The comments have further intensified questions over whether the group intends to comply with the existing legal framework governing demonstrations or whether challenging that framework is itself part of its political strategy.
Permission requirement is not a new rule
The debate surrounding permission for protests is not new. In fact, Delhi Police has been operating under specific guidelines for demonstrations at Jantar Mantar since 2018. These guidelines were framed following directions issued by the Supreme Court and require organisers to inform the police in writing before holding any demonstration.
Under the rules, anyone wishing to organise a protest at Jantar Mantar must submit a written application 7 days in advance to the New Delhi District Police.
An excerpt from the Delhi Police guidelines
The requirement exists because authorities need time to assess issues such as law and order, security arrangements, traffic management, availability of the venue and other public safety concerns.
Therefore, the requirement for prior permission is neither a recent development nor an extraordinary restriction. It has been part of the legal framework governing protests in Delhi for several years.
Dipke’s AAP background and the Atishi petition
Dipke is likely to beware of these rules because of his earlier association with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
Interestingly, the Aam Aadmi Party itself has previously dealt with the same issue in court proceedings.
In 2020, AAP leaders, including Atishi Marlena, approached the Delhi High Court regarding permissions for protests. In response, Delhi Police filed an affidavit referring to the same 2018 guidelines and explained that demonstrations at certain sensitive locations could not be allowed without following the prescribed process.
The affidavit also reiterated that written applications for demonstrations were required in advance, in accordance with the framework created after the Supreme Court judgment.
Because of AAP’s previous legal engagement on the matter, Dipke and others associated with the party’s ecosystem would already be familiar with the permission requirements applicable to demonstrations in Delhi.
Several reports during the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections identified him as a member of AAP’s social media and digital campaign machinery. Reports described him as a key figure involved in creating memes, short videos and digital content designed to promote Arvind Kejriwal and counter political opponents.
Dipke is also a part of AAP’s wider election war-room operations and social media coordination efforts.
He was quoted in media interviews discussing campaign strategies aimed at millennials and first-time voters and worked with AAP’s IT and media teams during election campaigns.
His political views have also been visible through social media activity over the years, including posts critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and supportive of various opposition narratives.
This clearly shows that Dipke is not a concerned youth who suddenly entered public life through the Cockroach Janta Party, but someone with an established political background linked to AAP’s communication and campaign operations.
What does the 2018 Delhi Police order say?
The Delhi Police guidelines issued in 2018 clearly state that demonstrations at Jantar Mantar cannot be organised without prior written permission. Under these guidelines, an application must be submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police of New Delhi District at least 7 days before the proposed event.
After receiving the application, Delhi Police consults various agencies including the Special Branch, Traffic Police and district authorities before deciding whether permission can be granted. The guidelines further state that factors such as traffic disruption, security concerns, risk to human life, availability of the venue and law-and-order considerations must be examined before a final decision is made.
Permission is generally granted on a first-come, first-served basis when multiple applications are received.
The police also reserve the right to revoke permission if intelligence inputs, VIP movements or unforeseen security concerns emerge after approval has already been granted.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The Delhi Police framework originated from a Supreme Court judgment delivered in 2018 in a case involving the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan.
Supreme Court verdict in the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, July 2018
The dispute arose after restrictions were imposed on demonstrations around Jantar Mantar following complaints about noise pollution, traffic congestion and inconvenience caused to local residents.
In 2017, the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the orders of the Delhi Police under CrPC 144, which had banned demonstrations and demonstrations near Parliament and some government offices. The petition also raised objections to an order of the NGT. This order of the NGT had completely banned demonstrations on Jantar Mantar Road based on complaints from locals about noise pollution, traffic, etc.
While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court held that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right in a democracy. However, the Court also clarified that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of local residents and broader public interests.
Instead of supporting a blanket ban on demonstrations, the Court ordered the Delhi Police to prepare guidelines for the use of Jantar Mantar for demonstrations, and in this order, the court also clearly stated that a provision should be added to the guidelines to inform the Delhi Police in writing before the demonstration.
Following this order of the Supreme Court, Delhi Police prepared guidelines, according to which written permission has to be obtained 7 days before the demonstration.
The motive is to play victim card and then blame the system
With only days remaining before the proposed demonstration, the debate has shifted from the issues raised by the Cockroach Janta Party to the manner in which the protest itself is being organised.
There’s also another question: why members or spokespersons associated with the Cockroach Janta Party could not have completed the permission process before he arrived in India.
The motive is so clear that he doesn’t want a peaceful protest; instead, want to create drama and play the victim card that if permission is denied due to procedural issues, he could later claim that authorities blocked the protest. It most likely gives the impression that Dipke is preparing for a confrontation with authorities rather than ensuring all procedural requirements are completed beforehand.
Nevertheless, by calling on students and supporters from across the country to gather in the national capital, Dipke appears to be testing whether the outrage cultivated online can translate into visible pressure on the streets.
On Tuesday, 2nd June, the central government ordered the transfer of CBSE Chairman Rahul Singh and CBSE Secretary Himanshu Gupta. It simultaneously announced an inquiry into the procurement of On-Screen Marking (OSM) services. The move came amid growing controversy over irregularities in CBSE’s digital evaluation system and in the handling of answer-sheet access and re-evaluation services.
#BREAKING: CBSE Chairman and Secretary transferred; inquiry committee formed to investigate the procurement of On-Screen Marking (OSM) services by CBSE. pic.twitter.com/KNr9p8op5r
Rahul Singh, an IAS officer, was responsible for overseeing CBSE’s examinations, academic policies, affiliations and major reforms. Himanshu Gupta, also an IAS officer, handled administration, finance, affiliations and several key operational functions of the Board.
The Centre has now constituted a one-member inquiry committee headed by S. Radha Chauhan, Chairperson of the Capacity Building Commission, to investigate the procurement process related to the OSM system. The panel has been asked to submit its report within a month.
The CBSE Chairman and Secretary have been transferred. An inquiry committee has been constituted to probe the procurement of On-Screen Marking (OSM) services by CBSE. pic.twitter.com/esakjV4sqv
The transfers have been viewed as one of the strongest administrative actions taken since the controversy erupted. However, the development has also reignited an old public debate: why are senior bureaucrats often transferred but rarely dismissed?
Background of the CBSE Controversy?
The controversy began after the declaration of Class 12 board results. The issue came to light after 19-year-old ethical hacker Nisarga Adhikary posted on X that answer sheets and question papers stored in an Amazon Web Services (AWS) bucket could be accessed online. He shared screenshots showing answer-copy files and claimed that the storage bucket was publicly visible without authentication.
According to Adhikary, the root directory of the storage bucket could be listed openly, allowing internet users to view files and folders stored inside it.
Questions were soon raised about the OSM platform, the digital evaluation process and the manner in which contracts for these services had been awarded. Concerns about vendor selection, cybersecurity vulnerabilities and delays in post-result services further intensified scrutiny.
As criticism mounted, CBSE issued clarifications, extended certain deadlines and assured students that genuine grievances would be addressed. Nevertheless, the controversy continued to grow, eventually leading to the transfer of the Chairman and Secretary and the announcement of a formal inquiry.
This year, the CBSE implemented electronic evaluation for the Class 12 examinations. The goal of the new On-Screen Marking system was to improve precision and minimise errors in manual calculations across the country. However, the move has drawn severe criticism after students who wanted access to scanned copies of their answer books reported missing pages, blurry and incomplete answer sheets, surprisingly fewer marks, receiving someone else’s answer book and other major problems.
People questioning why transferred, not sacked
Soon after the transfers were announced, several political leaders questioned whether a transfer alone was sufficient.
AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal publicly asked whether transferring officials amounted to adequate punishment. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh went a step further and demanded the dismissal of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
Similar questions also emerged on social media. Many users argued that if serious lapses had occurred, those responsible should face stronger action than a routine transfer.
However, the reality is that senior bureaucrats such as IAS, IPS and other civil service officers cannot simply be fired overnight. Unlike employees in many private organisations, they enjoy constitutional protections under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Article 311: The Constitutional shield for civil servants
Article 311 was created to protect civil servants from arbitrary dismissal, removal or demotion.
Its origins lie in the British-era “Doctrine of Pleasure”, under which government servants held office at the pleasure of the Crown. India adopted a modified version of this doctrine through Article 310 but added safeguards through Article 311.
Under Article 311(1), a civil servant cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority lower in rank than the one that appointed him or her.
Article 311(2) goes even further. Before dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the officer must generally be informed about the charges, be given a fair opportunity to defend himself or herself and face a proper departmental inquiry.
In simple terms, even if allegations appear serious, the government cannot simply announce the termination of an IAS or IPS officer without following a legally prescribed process.
This protection applies to members of the All India Services, Union civil services, state civil services and those holding civil posts under the government.
How does a departmental inquiry work?
When allegations are made against a civil servant, a formal process usually begins.
An inquiry officer is appointed, charges are framed, and a charge sheet is served. The officer gets an opportunity to respond, cross-examine witnesses and present evidence in defence.
After examining all the material, the inquiry officer submits a report. Only then can disciplinary authorities decide whether punishment is warranted.
If the process is not followed correctly, the officer can challenge the action before courts, State Administrative Tribunals or the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
This is one reason why transfers are often used as an immediate administrative response while investigations continue.
Are there exceptions to Article 311?
When it comes to Article 311(2), which mandates a detailed inquiry and a fair hearing, the Constitution provides three major exceptions where the government can completely skip the inquiry process and terminate an employee directly:
Criminal Conviction: If a person is being dismissed, removed, or demoted because they have been tried and convicted of criminal charges by a court of law, the department does not need to hold an internal inquiry under Article 311(2).
Impracticability: If the superior authority that has the power to dismiss or demote a civil servant feels that it is genuinely not practical to conduct an inquiry, they can choose to skip it. However, the officer must record the exact reasons for skipping the inquiry in written form before taking action.
National Security: If the President of India or the Governor of a state is fully satisfied that it is necessary to dismiss or remove a civil servant to protect the security and sovereignty of the country, they can order an immediate removal without holding any inquiry whatsoever.
Even serious cases have taken years
Many previous cases show that the removal of government employees often takes a long time because constitutional procedures must be followed.
The challenges involved in removing compromised government employees are clearly reflected in the cases of three Jammu and Kashmir officials who were eventually dismissed under the state security provisions of Article 311(2)(c). Their cases demonstrate how individuals with links to terrorist networks were able to remain within the government system for years before sufficient evidence was gathered to justify their termination.
One such case involved Faheem Aslam, the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of Kashmir University. According to official records, Aslam was inducted as a contractual employee in 2008 during the influence of separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, allegedly without a public recruitment process or police verification. Investigators later claimed that while drawing a government salary, he simultaneously worked for a local newspaper and used his position on campus to influence students and encourage separatist activities. Security agencies also recovered deleted social media posts in which he advocated the separation of Jammu and Kashmir from India.
Another case was that of Revenue Department official Murawath Hussain Mir. Appointed in 1985, Mir was later accused of functioning as an Over-Ground Worker (OGW) for banned organisations such as Hizbul Mujahideen and the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). Investigators said that he provided logistical support to terrorists, allowed access to government premises and even collected money from colleagues in the name of militant groups. In 1995, he was arrested with explosives during an alleged plot to target a public installation. However, after spending only a few months in custody, he returned to government service and continued working for decades. Intelligence officials later cited his case as an example of how systemic failures allowed individuals facing serious allegations to remain within the administrative structure for years before action was finally taken.
The third case involved Police Constable Arshid Ahmad Thoker, who joined the force in 2006 and later served as a driver and Personal Security Officer (PSO) for senior officials in Srinagar. According to investigators, he was eventually recruited into the network of the Pakistan-based terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). Authorities said that he misused his police identity, official vehicle and security credentials to help terrorists move across sensitive areas without attracting suspicion. He was eventually intercepted at a joint security checkpoint, following which his links with terrorists came under scrutiny.
All three employees were terminated in 2023, years after their activities had come to light, despite the fact that the cases involved national security concerns. The cases underline the high legal threshold involved in dismissing government employees under Article 311. Even in matters concerning national security and terrorism, authorities are often required to gather extensive intelligence and documentary evidence before invoking the constitutional provisions that allow termination without a formal departmental inquiry. If removing officials accused of terror links can take years or even decades, it highlights why immediate dismissal remains legally difficult in cases involving administrative failures or professional misconduct.
Balancing accountability and protection
Article 311 argues that these safeguards protect honest officers from political pressure, personal vendettas and arbitrary decisions by changing governments.
Without such protection, bureaucrats could be dismissed merely for refusing illegal orders or taking decisions that upset powerful interests.
However, the same safeguards can sometimes make it difficult to hold officials accountable for negligence, administrative failures or questionable decisions.
The recent CBSE controversy has once again brought this debate into the spotlight. While the government has transferred senior officials and ordered an inquiry, any decision regarding further disciplinary action will have to pass through the constitutional framework that governs India’s civil services.
For now, the CBSE case serves as a reminder that while transfers can happen quickly, the dismissal of an IAS, IPS or other senior bureaucrat is a far more complex process.
Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann has declared that 52 lakh women in the state are set to receive ₹1,000 each month starting from 1st July. Beneficiaries belonging to the scheduled caste community will be granted an increased amount of ₹1,500. “No one should mislead the women of the state that this will run for just a few months. It will be a long-term scheme for the economic upliftment of women,” he stated while talking to the media.
The announcement has transpired following a prolonged series of economic hardships, while government staff were denied payments in a timely manner because of empty state coffers. The salaries for March were postponed by several days, as employees in Chandigarh received the amount on 7th April, while those in field postings were paid only by 15th April.
The government blamed procedural complications associated with the financial year-end. However, the incident reignited reservations regarding the state’s economic health. The concerns have intensified as people have repeatedly faced such challenges under the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) rule. The issue of non-payment of dues is not only recurring but also deteriorating with time.
On 2nd June (Tuesday), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) employees at Phagwara’s Block Development and Panchayat Office commenced an indefinite pen-down strike in support of their long-standing demands, which include the release of outstanding salaries and the regularisation of their services.
The protesters were recruited on contractual terms for the previous 10 to 12 years and complained that the government had ignored their problems. They unveiled that they are unable to manage family expenses because they have not received any money for the last 6-7 months. Hence, many have been compelled to take out loans to support their basic needs.
They mentioned that AAP had promised to regularise them during its assembly election campaign. Nevertheless, the government has not honoured its commitment, even as it approaches the conclusion of its five-year term. On the contrary, the workers have been deprived of their salaries for several months. They urged the government to uphold its word and requested the immediate delivery of their outstanding wages. The demonstrators vowed to continue the strike until their demands were met.
Constant delays in salaries for state government employees
Similar agitations were seen in 2025 and the years before that. In an official letter to the vice-chancellor, the Punjabi University Teachers Association (PUTA) demanded that their salaries should be released by 20th August, last year. The step was taken after faculty members were not paid for the month of July.
“If the government ignores this serious issue, PUTA will be forced to adopt a more stringent approach. In case the situation does not improve, we will be compelled to launch a large-scale protest,” the communication emphasised. PUTA threatened to boycott courses starting on 21st August if their submission was not addressed.
Governor Gulab Chand Kataria was also given a letter from the Punjab State Aided School Teachers and Other Employees Union encouraging his intervention to distribute unpaid salaries in September of last year. According to the group, they had not been reimbursed for at least 6 months, which has put them in dire financial straits. “The government often speaks about bringing an educational revolution in Punjab, but how can that be possible when teachers themselves are struggling to meet their basic needs,” it conveyed.
A few months later, the Punjab and Chandigarh College Teachers Union (PCCTU) confirmed that a protest would take place in Dirba on 12th December. Harpal Singh Cheema, Punjab’s Finance Minister, represents this constituency. The purpose of the protest was to draw attention to the protracted hold-up in the transfer of salaries to state-aided colleges.
The agitators pointed out that staff are struggling financially because some government-aided institutions have not received the money since July while others have been waiting since February. They asserted that it was especially troubling because, the current government constantly stressed that health and education were its top priorities, but higher education was actually being neglected.
The salaries for the month of August were likewise pushed back shortly after AAP was elected to power in 2022. Employee organisations in Punjab questioned the development, but the government insisted that there were no shortage of resources and the treasury granted nearly Rs 3,400 crore for salaries and other expenditures.
On the ground, however, situation was different and the Democratic Teachers Front accused the government of “mismanagement.” Sukhchain Singh Khaira, chairman of the Punjab Civil Secretariat Staff Association, also voiced that staff members were still waiting for their earnings.
For a considerable amount of time, the computer teachers in the state’s government schools have been similarly protesting their exclusion from vital service perks and the excessive delay in their salaries. They are paid in the third or even final week of the month. They charged that the government alleges to have brought about a revolution in education, but it is unable to handle basic procedural problems such as salary backlogs.
According to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, these teachers hired by the Punjab Information and Communication Technology Education Society (PICTES) are government employees and therefore subject to Punjab Civil Services regulations and related benefits. However, many teachers shared that real implementation has halted despite their best efforts and there isn’t a structural framework to guarantee equity.
Regular protests over non-payment of DA, pensions, low wages and more rock the state
On 2nd June (Tuesday), thousands of teachers moved towards Mann’s Mohali house in protest of several unfulfilled demands, including reinstatement of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), the opposition to dearness allowance’s (DA) de-linking from central rates, release of 18% pending DA, clear salary arrears and promotions, regularise contract employees and fill vacant teaching positions, among others.
On 1st June (Monday), hundreds of government workers similarly rallied in Mohali to begin a march towards the chief minister’s residence, but the police used lathi charge on them. These people reminded that AAP had pledged to resolve their complaints before elections but had not met any major demand in the last four and a half years. The demonstrators charged exploitation because they were refused the 18% pending DA and the elimination of 37 other reimbursements, including rural and border area benefits.
They highlighted the inconsistency in the AAP government’s stance, which rejected the centre’s recent pay pattern for Chandigarh employees and was enforcing even lower salaries (₹31,000) on fresh recruits in Punjab, leading to a reduction of about 40%. The also urged for the release of long-awaited Sixth Punjab Pay Commission report and the enactment of the 1972 regulations for the (General Provident Fund) GPF-based old pension.
On Tuesday, 2,300 workers at Sewa Kendras around Punjab also continued their strike against the government, asking for improved wages, job regularisation and a stop to exploitation of private companies appointed to oversee the centres. The agitation started on 26th May. As a result, public services remained badly disrupted. Visitors were left stranded as the release of certificates and the revision of identity cards, among other crucial functions, could not proceed.
The association accused that the workers are overworked under the “equal pay for equal work” premise, yet their compensation has remained extremely poor over the years. Neither the full DC rate nor the ESI (Employees’ State Insurance) benefit is provided to these workers. They also decided to boycott the job fairs that would be held around Punjab on Wednesday.
A similar agitation transpired in January when several unions of employees declared a statewide strike against the government over long-standing financial demands. They wanted Punjab pay scales to be put into effect, salaries to be fixed in accordance with the Sixth Punjab Pay Commission with a 15% increase, the Old Pension Scheme to be reinstated under the 1972 regulations, the revocation of the Unified Pension Scheme, release of outstanding 16% DA, the restoration of 37 abolished allowances and revival of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) initiative.
These events pertaining to the inability to meet such financial obligations by the government have repeatedly unfolded in Punjab. In protest of the “non-payment of four instalments of DA totalling 15% of their basic income,” almost one lakh workers from more than 50 government departments throughout the state went on a two-day mass leave in 2024 under the umbrella of the Punjab State Ministerial Services Union (PSMSU).
10,000 workers from various government agencies at the Punjab Civil Secretariat and directorates in Chandigarh left their desks at 2:00 pm in observance of “Black Diwali.” The Democratic Teachers Front of Punjab also asked that the Punjab government promptly release 15% of the pending DA in accordance with the centre.
PSMSU announced similar strikes in 2023 regarding the implementation of the old pension scheme (OPS), the release of outstanding instalments of DA and the regularisation of contractual workers. This also jeopardised the timely disbursal of salaries for over 2 lakh employees as the funds were managed by the agitating ministerial staff. The protestors also received support from various other groups, including Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and the Punjab Civil Medical Services Association (PCMSA).
Punjab and Haryana High Court intervenes
The Punjab and Haryana Court ordered the state to disburse the arrears, DA, and Dearness Relief (DR) in accordance with the central government pattern in April. It termed the Punjab government’s staggered payment scheme to employees arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The state had been directed to satisfy the pension amount and the updated DA/DR per the 6th Punjab Pay Commission by 30th June.
The state’s claim of financial limitations was dismissed by the court, which concluded that DA/DR are inflation-linked payments that are required to preserve the real worth of income and are not optional. The latter stated that retirees cannot be discriminated against for pension payments because the budgetary restriction is a state-created issue.
The court then overturned the state’s 18th February 2025, liquidation plan and told it to release the arrears and other obligations to all employees and pensioners within two months. Furthermore, it instructed the Chief Secretary to submit a compliance report by 2nd July, and it might impose interest on late payments if the dues are not released. The verdict created a liability of about Rs 15,000 crore for unresolved DA arrears.
Hence, the cash-strapped he Punjab government was preparing to seek relief by recommending a staggered payment structure rather than instant settlement of dues, reported The Indian Express. The government believed that “forcing payment of nearly 10% of the state budget within two months borders on the realm of impossibility and could cripple the government’s ability to pay regular salaries, pensions, and social sector commitments.”
The substantial fiscal burden on PSPCL
Not only government employees but also the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) has been grappling with a severe economic downturn. Last month, the state’s power tariffs for 2026-2027 were lowered by 50 paise to Rs 1.50 per unit for all customer groups. However, the order of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (PSERC) was contested by the Punjab State Electricity Board Engineers Association in the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The petition has been accepted by the tribunal and would probably be heard in July.
It has contended in its appeal that the utility’s operational and financial stability is seriously threatened by the updated Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) and information that Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) provided to the PSERC. The plea mentioned that the Net Revenue Requirement had been reduced by Rs 1,259 crore to Rs 48,996 crore for FY 2026–2027.
This resulted in an “illusory” revenue surplus of Rs 7,851.91 crore, much less than PSPCL’s initial figure of Rs 52,365 crore and even below its updated calculation of Rs 51,106 crore. Furthermore, it minimised the target government subsidy from Rs 22,250 crore to Rs 15,200 crore. The petitioners argued that such a drastic decline in income availability could have a negative impact on supply quality, infrastructure investment and statutory requirements, putting PSPCL under tremendous budgetary constraints and possibly endangering its operational and financial viability.
Sunil Jakhar, the president of the Bharatiya Janata Party Punjab unit, earlier highlighted how PSPCL seemed to undergo a major transformation during the tariff hearings before the PSERC in March. However, the improvement was only on paper as the utility continued to struggle in reality.
“The Punjab State Power Corporation’s claim that it had a deficit of Rs 1,713 crore on 28th November 2025, which through some magic trick turned into a surplus of Rs 7,851 crore on 6th March. One thing is certain: one of these figures must be incorrect. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann must be held accountable for this,” he wrote on social media.
The BJP leader added, “If the earlier figure was wrong, then action should be taken against those responsible. And if the new figure is correct, then the person capable of such black magic should be made the Finance Minister of Punjab, at least on paper, he would be able to fill the Punjab government’s treasury.”
The Punjab State Power Corporation’s claim that it had a deficit of ₹1,713 crore on November 28, 2025, which through some magic trick turned into a surplus of ₹7,851 crore on March 6, 2026. One thing is certain: one of these figures must be incorrect. Chief Minister Bhagwant…
The utility’s economic challenges mounted earlier as well when the government failed to pay the bills in February 2025. The government settled Rs 13,841 crore of the roughly Rs 20,400 crore power subsidy as of January of that year, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs 1,800 crore. Furthermore, there were Rs 3,600 crore in remaining electrical bills from different government divisions.
“Around Rs 7,000 crores subsidy is yet to be cleared till the end of the current financial year (2024-25),” stated Ajay Pal Singh Atwal. He serves as the general secretary of Punjab State Electricity Board Engineers Association. According to him, the power firm experienced a serious cash flow congestion as a consequence, which had a grave effect on its capacity to operate efficiently.
He conveyed, “This delay in payments not only exacerbates operational challenges but also compounds financial losses, which will ultimately result in higher power costs for consumers across the state.”
The critical condition of PSPCL can be assessed by the intervention of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which took place when it planned to sell vital public assets to cover the economic shortfall.
A petition was submitted in the court arguing, “Public properties are long-term national assets held in trust for future generations and cannot be sold for short-term fiscal management, particularly when recoverable dues of nearly equal magnitude remain unpaid by the state itself.”
It had accused, “The Government of Punjab has failed to discharge its moral, ethical and statutory obligation to pay electricity dues, thereby pushing PSPCL into a severe financial crisis.” The plea further asked the court to order PSPCL to swiftly collect the Rs 2,582.24 crore default sum from government departments that are in default, together with interest and penalties.
The petitioner opposed the state’s “Optimum Use of Vacant Government Land Scheme” (OUVGL) policy of selling coveted public properties, including prime PSPCL land to survive a “self-created and avoidable” financial catastrophe.
When Mann wanted special package to mend the derailed economy
In his first meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi after taking office, Mann demanded a special aid from the centre for the state’s economic revival in addition to holistic development in the state. He informed the prime minister of the state’s gloomy financial condition and pointed out that the previous administrations had left a staggering debt of Rs 3 lakh crore
“We, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), are working towards nailing the mafia and fill the coffers of the state. We want that we get a special package of Rs 50,000 crore each for two years so that Punjab can be self-reliant after two years. I am hopeful that he will discuss it with the finance minister and help Punjab, a state that was at the forefront in the battle of independence,” he stated.
Mann compared Punjab to a stone set in India’s ring, but he criticised how the state’s “ill-conceived decisions” to elect particular governments had caused it to gradually lose its lustre over time. The official statement added, “If Punjab make rapid strides of development, then India would also eventually prosper.”
He wanted a similar financial package of Rs 20,000 crore from the centre to compensate for the damages incurred by the floods last year. He had even demanded “stuck” funds of 60,000 crores, claiming that Punjab lost Rs 50,000 crore owing to GST (Goods and Services Tax). Mann’s remarks illustrate the extent to which the state has been reeling from crippling financial setback and, as he pointed out, is laden with enormous debt.
The surging debt and the election dole-out
Punjab’s debt is expected to increase to approximately Rs 4.47 lakh crore in the upcoming fiscal year, having already surpassed Rs 4 lakh crore. Furthermore, debt servicing, or the return of prior borrowings, now accounts for a sizable amount of the state’s revenue. In the upcoming year, the government is projected to pay Rs 13,725 crore toward repayment and Rs 28,755 crore in interest, which will restrict its spending on infrastructure, health and education. Additionally, the debt per person has increased to almost Rs 1.04 lakh.
Importantly, possible threats to economic sustainability in the future were identified by the 2023-34 audit. Punjab’s subsidy burden surpasses its Rs 21,955 crore revenue deficit. Thus, economists raised alarm about the fact that borrowing accounts for a major portion of government budget. They outlined that large subsidies and growing debt suggested systemic fiscal stress which could impact the region’s long-term stability.
Now, Mann has claimed, “We started this scheme when we had a proper budget for it,” after the roll-out of the latest scheme. Therefore, the question arises: is it feasible for a state already encumbered by substantial debt to impose further strain on its treasury when it evidently lacks the financial means to support such initiatives independently?
The AAP government is aware that it cannot, but prioritising such dole-outs takes precedence over the long-term financial welfare of the state and its citizens. The ominous timing of the announcement further indicates the underlying motive behind the action. Punjab is expected to hold assembly elections next year, likely in February, leaving less than a year for the democratic process.
The APP is poised to confront a formidable challenge from the opposition in Punjab, and this action is aimed to attract voters. While it is true that all parties engage in these tactics, it is undeniable that the fragile financial state of Punjab further complicates matters for the region.
Conclusion
The state is unable to pay salaries or other dues punctually and has to be reprimanded by the high court to meet its obligations. However, the availability of resources for these programs provokes several questions. How can short-term political objectives take precedence over the state’s future? How long will Punjab’s debt economy be able to sustain itself?
If the AAP government can gather funds for these schemes, why does it not demonstrate the same commitment to addressing the rising issues of law and order, drug crisis and other similar that have plagued the state for decades? It could redirect resources to at least try to resolve these matters.
However, the government might have come to the conclusion that these giveaways could place them in a better position for the upcoming elections than any authentic efforts for the citizens. Ironically, AAP entered the political arena with a declaration of moral integrity and alternative politics. However, it seems that those who sought to reform the political system have themselves morphed into what they once criticised, if not worse.
After the TCS sexual exploitation and religious conversion scandal sent shockwaves across the country, a similar incident has come to light from the IT firm, Wipro Technologies, in Pune. A former employee of Wipro Technologies has revealed that she faced workplace harassment and religious discrimination at the Pune office of the company, and was forced to resign. A complaint has been filed by the former employee at the Hinjawadi Police Station, and a legal notice has been sent to the company.
The revelation was made during a press conference organised by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti at Shramik Patrakar Bhavan in Pune. During the press conference, the former employee of the IT company said that while working at the company, she was constantly pressured by a colleague, Shahina Rafiq, to convert to Islam and have a relationship with a Muslim man.
🚨 After TCS and SBI, now allegations of "Corporate Jihad" have surfaced in Wipro as well!
A Hindu woman employee of Wipro was allegedly terminated for refusing religious conversion; Hindu Janajagruti Samiti has demanded strict action in the matter.
A colleague advised having physical relations with a Muslim man and settling in Dubai
In her complaint accessed by OpIndia, the former employee stated that Shahina Rashid interfered in her personal life and encouraged her to abandon her Hindu faith. She said that apart from work-related calls, Shaheena started calling her on her personal mobile phone number. Gradually, she developed closeness with the former employee and obtained information about her personal life. The former employee has separated from her husband and lives alone.
According to the complaint, Shaheena knew that the victim was living alone and would ask uncomfortable questions to her relating to her personal life. She asked her questions like “How do you manage sex while living alone?” and offered to introduce the victim to her male friends so that she could have physical relations with them. She also asked the victim to send her pictures on WhatsApp as she wanted to know how beautiful she looked.
Shaheena tried to convince her that abandoning the Hindu religion would provide her with a better lifestyle and work opportunities abroad. She suggested to her that she should establish physical relations with a Muslim man and move to Dubai, where she would be introduced to wealthy ‘Sheikhs’ and get all the comforts of life. The former employee said that due to constant pestering, she restricted all communication with her colleague to professional matters only.
“While working at the company, immense and systematic mental pressure was exerted on me to embrace Islam and establish physical relations with a Muslim man. When I firmly rejected this anti-religious and unethical proposition and lodged an official complaint with the company administration, instead of taking action against the accused, the management unjustly terminated my employment,” the former employee said.
She further said that she reported the matter to a senior in the company, but no action was taken on her complaint. She submitted evidence through official channels, but no attention was paid to her. The victim further said that certain company officials, including a senior official named Wasim, failed to take action against Shahina and that members of the HR and management team, including Zeeshan Ahmed, imposed disciplinary measures against her while disregarding her complaints and supporting evidence. Instead, a complaint was filed against her before the company’s internal Ombuds Committee.
The victim was forced to resign without a hearing
The former employee said that she was called into a Microsoft Teams meeting by company representatives in August 2025. In the meeting, she was forced to submit her resignation without being given a fair opportunity to be heard. Her advocate, Vivek Bhosale, said that the resignation was obtained under coercion and in violation of the principles of natural justice. She has served a legal notice to Wipro Technologies seeking her reinstatement with continuity of service, cancellation of the resignation and compensation of ₹50 lakh for alleged mental trauma and reputational damage. Besides, she has sought an official apology and action against those allegedly responsible for the incidents. Further, she has given 15 days to the company to take action on the legal notice, after which she will initiate civil, criminal and labour court proceedings.
Representatives of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, who were present at the press conference with the former employee, demanded a thorough investigation into the case and urged the Maharashtra government to intervene. OpIndia spoke to Sunil Ghanwat, State Coordinator, Maharashtra & Chhattisgarh Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, who called for a high-level inquiry into the case and stringent legal action against the culprits.
The present incident comes after the infamous TCS ‘corporate Jihad’ case, which came to light earlier this year. Reports of sexual harassment, attempted religious conversion, and workplace misconduct in a Tata Consultancy Services BPO in Nashik emerged during an undercover operation of the local police.
As Brazil’s national football team departed for the FIFA World Cup 2026 in the United States of America, a video is circulating online. The aircraft carrying the players received a ceremonial water salute. In simple words, the aircraft was baptised, invoking a Christian tradition to symbolically bless the quest for a sixth world title. Far from criticism, the ceremony was celebrated as an expression of Brazil’s culture, history and national identity. The images stood in stark contrast to the discussion that erupted in India just days prior.
During the IPL closing ceremony, Singer Kailash Kher performed a tribute to Lord Shiva, accompanied by pretty visuals and drone formations. While millions of Indians saw it as a celebration of India’s civilisational heritage, some leftist voices objected to what they viewed as the mixing of sports and religion.
The contrasting reactions raise a simple question. When Christian, Islamic, or other religious traditions appear alongside sporting events, they are often viewed as expressions of culture and identity, but why do similar debates emerge when the tradition being showcased is Hindu? Are all the religious symbols being judged by the same standard, or are Hindu expressions subjected to a different scrutiny?
From football stadiums to World Cups, faith is hardly absent from sport
The idea that sports exist completely separate from religion does not match reality. Athletes, teams and sports organisations often express their faith and cultural traditions during major events worldwide.
Footballers regularly make the sign of the cross before a match. Athletes are often seen praying after victories. During Ramadan, some matches have been briefly paused to allow Muslim players to break their fast. National teams also hold prayer services before important tournaments, and many athletes openly thank God after winning competitions. Let’s take the example of the Brazilian football team. The country’s football culture has long been linked to Christian traditions.
Players praying before matches and religious ceremonies connected to the major events. The recent “Baptism” of the Brazilian aircraft, before and after its arrival in the USA, is seen as a cultural tradition, not a mixing of sports with religion. According to the news website, it was mentioned as “ For millions of Brazilians, however, it meant something far deeper: a blessing for the dream of becoming world champions once again. This also shows that a tradition is taken in Brazil.
This does not mean sporting events should be used to promote religion. However, it shows that across the world, sports and cultural or religious identity often coexist. The real question is not whether religion appears in sport. The question is why some religious or cultural expressions are accepted as tradition, while others become controversial.
Why did a tribute to Lord Shiva at the IPL closing ceremony trigger controversy?
It became even sadder that we have to discuss these as a Hindu in a Hindu-majority country. The debate in India began after popular singer Kailash Kher performed a tribute to Lord Shiva during the IPL 2026 closing ceremony. It was accompanied by elaborate drone formations and visuals inspired by Hindu symbolism; the performance was widely appreciated by the spectators and viewers who saw it as a celebration of India’s cultural heritage.
However, not everyone viewed the performance in the same manner. The leftist gang argued that religion should be kept separate from sporting events and questioned the inclusion of overtly religious themes during a cricket tournament. Among them was journalist Lavanya Narayanan, who remarked, “Keep religion out of sport,” reigniting a familiar debate about the place of faith and culture in public events.
The controversy soon moved beyond the performance itself. The hypocrisy of Narayanan pointed out how the religious symbolism associated with Islamic faiths in sporting contexts often does not attract the same level of scrutiny. The discussion therefore shifted from Kailash Kher’s performance to a broader question: Is the principle of keeping religion out of sport applied uniformly, or only to Hinduism?
The reaction to the IPL ceremony once again exposed a divide among Indians over the relationship between culture, religion and public life. While one side regarded the Shiva tribute as a natural expression of India’s civilisational identity, the other saw it as an example of religion entering a space that should remain secular.
The Hindu exception: Why do Hindu symbols attract a different reaction?
The controversy is not limited to the IPL ceremony, but it tells a lot about the treatment of Hindu symbols and culture. Over the years, similar incidents have occurred whenever Hindu symbols, festivals, or religious expressions have gained visibility in public spaces. Whether it’s chanting “Jai Shree Ram”, the celebration of Hindu festivals in educational institutions, temple imagery at public events, or cultural performances rooted in Hindu traditions, objections are often raised in the name of secularism.
At the same time, when similar expressions are associated with other religious faiths, such as Islam and Christianity, they are viewed through a different lens. Islamic practices during Ramadan are often described as displays of faith and identity. Christian traditions in many Western countries are treated as part of the cultural heritage. Religious observances by athletes are generally celebrated as personal expressions of belief. This difference raises many questions about India’s secularism. If the objective is to keep all religious symbolism away from sporting events and public platforms, then the principle must apply equally to every faith.
However, if cultural and religious traditions are accepted as legitimate expressions of identity, then Hindu traditions cannot be treated as an exception. India’s civilisation, history and cultural landscape have been shaped predominantly by Hindu traditions. This does not mean that public institutions should favour one religion over another. However, it raises an important question: Should every public expression of Hindu culture be automatically viewed with suspicion, while similar expressions associated with other faiths be seen as harmless traditions?
The debate triggered by the IPL ceremony ultimately goes beyond a single song or performance. It reflects a larger disagreement over how secularism is understood in India. Is secularism meant to ensure equal treatment of all faiths, or has it increasingly come to mean greater scrutiny whenever Hindu symbols enter the public sphere?
Conclusion
The debate is not really about a Brazilian aircraft receiving a ceremonial “baptism” or a singer performing a tribute to Lord Shiva during the IPL closing ceremony. Both incidents point towards a larger question about how modern societies view the relationship between culture, faith and public life.
In Brazil, a tradition rooted in Christian symbolism was celebrated as an expression of national identity and footballing culture. Few questioned whether it amounted to mixing religion with sport. In India, however, a performance inspired by Hindu traditions quickly became the subject of a wider secularism debate.
Nobody is arguing that sporting events should become platforms for religious preaching. However, it is equally difficult to ignore the perception that Hindu cultural expressions often face greater scrutiny than similar expressions associated with other faiths.
As India continues to debate the meaning of secularism, perhaps the more important question is not whether religion and culture appear in public life- they do, across the world. The real question is whether the same standards are applied consistently to everyone.
If Christian symbolism can be viewed as culture in Brazil and Islamic observances can be viewed as identity in sporting events across the world, then it is worth asking why Hindu symbols so often become subjects of controversy in their own civilisational homeland.
The US Trade Representative (USTR) has proposed to impose fresh tariffs on around 60 trading partners for reasons as vague as ‘forced labour’. The USTR released a 98-page report on 3rd June, in which it proposed tariffs ranging from 10 to 12.5% on India, China, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea, Brazil and Switzerland, among others.
The USTR has proposed 10% tariffs on Canada, Mexico, Taiwan and the United Kingdom over alleged failure to enforce a forced labour import ban.
In the report titled “Acts, Policies, and Practices of Various Economies Related to the Failure to Impose and Effectively Enforce a Prohibition on the Importation of Goods Produced with Forced Labor”, the USTR detailed the findings of the investigation launched into trading partners under Section 301 (b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974.
Notably, Section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 authorises the US Trade Representative to initiate an investigation to determine whether an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is actionable under Section 301 of the Trade Act. Actionable matters under Section 301 include acts, policies, and practices of a foreign country that are ‘unreasonable’ or ‘discriminatory’ and burden or restrict US commerce.
Under the section “India: Findings of Investigation”, the USTR claimed that India failed to effectively enforce the forced labour import ban.
“In sections III.A.7 and III.B.7, USTR found that India has failed to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition. In section IV, we found that the failure to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition is unreasonable. In section V, we found that the failure to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition burdens or restricts U.S. commerce,” the USTR report reads.
“For the foregoing reasons, the results of this investigation indicate that the acts, policies and practices of India related to the failure to impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition are unreasonable and burden or restrict U.S. commerce,” it adds.
Regarding the scope of the proposed tariffs, the 10 to 12.5% tariffs, if approved, would apply to almost all US imports, with exemptions covering 70 products, including aircraft, beef, coffee, etc. The USTR has also proposed a textile or apparel quota mechanism for relief on limited volumes.
Source: Relevant Registry Notice
While the USTR report has sparked debate and even political mudslinging in India, it must not be forgotten that this is just a proposal that may or may not be approved. Despite this, several opposition leaders and their media allies have already started portraying the USTR proposal for imposing new tariffs on India as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘failure’.
Public comments on the tariff proposal are due by 6th July.
Trump’s tariff tirade against India, strained ties, and the US court’s ultimate hammering down of his ‘weapon’
In August 2025, the Trump administration imposed ‘reciprocal’ tariffs on Indian goods, and later doubled them to 50%. The additional tariff was a ‘punishment’ for buying Russian oil. OpIndia reported earlier how India’s refusal to give a fake credit to Trump for ending the India-Pakistan conflict in May last year irked the US President, and he unleashed tariffs and rhetorical attacks against India.
India and the US have never been the best of friends. To be perfectly honest, America has no friends. During his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington advised the young America, “Steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”.
The US has never permanently allied with any country, although geopolitical circumstances have compelled the ‘superpower’ to explore ties with various countries. During the 1971 war, the US supported Pakistan against India. The US imposed sanctions on India when the country conducted successful nuclear tests, becoming a nuclear power. America consistently attempted to undermine India. However, in the last two decades, Washington made efforts to woo India on its side, not out of any love or remorse for past actions, but as a democratic counterweight against an autocratic China.
Then enters Donald Trump, who destroyed the years of American efforts to bring India to its side by launching a tariff tirade that India did not deserve. For nearly three years, India bought discounted Russian oil, refined it and supplied it to various countries across the world and sustained global energy supplies as Russia faced sanctions for its war against Ukraine.
Even America supported India in buying Russian oil. Even Trump was fine with India’s Russian oil purchases until the May India-Pakistan conflict. However, as India killed Trump’s hopes for a Nobel Peace Prize, the megalomaniac American President began coddling Pakistan and antagonising India.
Trump’s approach, however, was quite hypocritical. On one hand, Trump would say that he is a “fan” and “good friend” of Prime Minister Modi, on the other, he would call India a “dead economy” and his officials, Howard Lutnick, Peter Navarro and others, would constantly villainise India and accuse it of fuelling the “Russian war machine”.
All this while, talks between India and the US also continued for a bilateral trade deal. As the Modi government refused to open up India’s dairy sector for American exports, Trump’s officials intensified their anti-India rhetoric.
As America launched a war against Iran in February this year, and an energy crisis followed the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the Trump administration ‘allowed’ India to buy Russian oil to ensure global supplies and control price spikes. When India was buying Russian oil earlier for the same reasons, the Trump administration cried hoarse; however, when it became imperative to ensure energy supplies to the world amidst the crisis America caused, to save themselves from becoming global villains, they turned to India for help.
Although India made it clear that New Delhi will continue buying Russian oil regardless of whether America allows India to do so or not, the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, recently said that America wants to end the license allowing countries like India to buy Russian oil “as soon as possible”, as Iran and the US negotiate a peace deal amidst a fragile ceasefire.
Breaking: America wants to end license allowing countries like India to buy Russian oil "as soon as possible", says US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pic.twitter.com/E8Bm3EEmjz
Not to forget, Trump, who speaks nicely of PM Modi and India and has increased investments in India for his private businesses, recently amplified the racist “hellhole” remark by an American podcaster against India in a Truth Social post.
Marco Rubio, who was in India last month for a two-day visit, received a relatively cold welcome and was questioned by the Indian media about increasing racism against India, the Russian oil issue, and America’s newfound love for the same Pakistan that Trump used to criticise for squeezing dollars out of America in the name of counter-terrorism measures.
While Trump and his officials vilified India for months since August 2025, for New Delhi’s Russian oil purchases, although America itself continued buying various non-essentials from Russia directly, Marco Rubio downplayed the matter. He said that the Russian oil issue was “never specifically about India”.
Rubio, however, did not explain that if the Russian oil issue was not specifically about India, then why India and not China, which has been the largest buyer of Russian oil, was called out for supposedly fuelling the Russian war machine. Why US impose maximum ‘penalty’ tariffs on India and not China? Is it because Trump knows that Washington cannot really harm China, as Beijing has leverage in the form of rare earth elements or RREs essential for the semiconductor industry?
The world saw that Trump’s recent visit to China was nothing more than a nice outing for the American president, yielding no breakthroughs. China even threatened Trump with a direct conflict for backing Taiwan.
America’s hypocrisy and cowardice have been blatant all throughout.
As the India-US trade deal talks advanced, the US lowered its effective tariff rates on most Indian goods to 18% and removed the 25% Russian-oil penalty. While the US claimed in some statements that India has committed to buy more of American energy, diversifying away from Russia, India has maintained that it will continue buying Russian oil and has, in practice, done so.
In fact, during a joint press briefing with Rubio in New Delhi, Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar clearly stated that India will continue to diversify its energy sources to fulfil its energy needs. He went on to say that if the Trump administration follows an “America First” policy, India has an “India First” foreign policy.
It is apparent that America is not very pleased with India for not acting like a second-tier client state and staying firm on its strategic autonomy. In fact, this USTR tariff proposal with a 70-product exemption comes across as a pressure tactic ahead of the American delegation’s four-day India visit for trade deal talks.
In February this year, the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs, stripping him of his brand-new weapon to arm-twist countries into aligning with the US subserviently. The court ruled that Trump’s tariff terrorism was illegal. Since the Trump administration has been searching for ways to reimpose tariffs, and has found a twisted way in the imposing tariffs for the supposed ‘failure’ to impose prohibitions against forced labour. Approved or not, the USTR tariffs proposal against India is only contributing to the deepening trust deficit.
The USTR’s proposal to impose tariffs on India and over two dozen countries over ‘forced labour’ shows that America is yet to come out of the delusion that it is some teacher who needs to discipline children.
India’s reaction: Proposal not final, consultations underway
India has reacted to the development, statting that despite the political attention generated by the report, the proposed tariffs are not yet final.
“As per the report, the proposed tariffs are not yet final and stakeholders can submit requests to participate in public hearings by 22 June 2026. Written comments can be submitted until 6 July 2026. Public hearings will be held on 7 July 2026. The USTR will consider the comments and testimony received before taking a final decision on the proposed measures,” the Ministry of Commerce & Industry said in a press statement.
India has formally engaged with the United States as part of the ongoing Section 301 proceedings and is expected to present its position during the consultation process. Simultaneously, New Delhi and Washington continue negotiations on a broader trade framework agreement announced on 2 February 2026 and reaffirmed in the joint statement issued on 7 February 2026.
