Home Blog Page 20

Who owns a river?

Divyansh Tiwari
-
0
Who owns a river?

Who really controls a river that crosses borders? On paper, rivers belong to no single country once they become transboundary systems. There are treaties, international principles, arbitration mechanisms and expectations of cooperation between nations that share a river. 

But geography creates an uncomfortable reality. The country sitting upstream often possesses something more tangible than legal arguments: the ability to build dams. 

China’s enormous hydropower project on the Yarlung Tsangpo illustrates this perfectly. By the time the river enters Arunachal Pradesh as the Siang and eventually becomes the Brahmaputra, decisions capable of affecting its behaviour and control the water flow may already have been made hundreds of kilometres upstream. 

India has no binding river-water treaty with China capable of regulating such construction, only limited mechanisms for hydrological cooperation. 

Move west across the Himalayas and India’s position reverses. On the Indus, India is the upstream country and Pakistan the downstream one, and here a detailed treaty does exist. After the 2025 Pahalgam attack, India placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. Contrary to the popular impression that India had “stopped Pakistan’s water,” it had neither the infrastructure nor storage capacity to do so completely; what Delhi actually suspended was cooperation: data sharing, commission meetings and treaty processes. A Hague tribunal subsequently held that India could not unilaterally suspend the treaty, a ruling India rejected while disputing the arbitration process itself. India has that power because geography ordained it so. 

Indus Water Treaty evaluated water-sharing scenarios and topography. It was never designed for situations in which Pakistan would send armed terrorists into India to kill civilians, sponsor Islamic terrorist organisations sworn to attack India and launch attack after attack for decades. The treaty has no answer for that. 

Put these situations together and an intriguing contradiction appears with plenty of examples globally. Countries naturally emphasise downstream rights when they are downstream and territorial sovereignty when they are upstream. 

It is not that laws and treaties are irrelevant, but that laws without the physical capability to build upstream infrastructure can be insufficient. Concrete matters. The Brahmaputra, Indus and even the Nile-where Ethiopia built the GERD despite years of opposition from downstream Egypt, demonstrate how quickly infrastructure can transform negotiating power for a country that shares a river.

For India, the lesson is therefore bigger than building another dam. It means being able to independently monitor Himalayan rivers through satellites and seismic data; creating enough storage and flood-management capacity to absorb unexpected changes; negotiating stronger arrangements with neighbours; and designing future treaties with clear provisions for extraordinary security situations. 

The Himalayas are called the Third Pole of the world. The series ‘Geopolitics of Rivers’ in Chapter 1 Mag explains that international law may tell countries how rivers ought to be shared, but geography determines who encounters the water first, and infrastructure increasingly determines what happens to it next.

Read the first article of the series ‘Who owns a river?’ When upstream territory wields power of concrete’ here.

Read the second article ‘The water treaty that wasn’t built for terrorism: India, Pakistan and the Indus River System’ here.

Read the third article ‘Third Pole doctrine: The limits of law and the power of infrastructure’ here.

Who is Smit Machchhar? The Indian pilot who helped avert a 9/11-style attack on Israel

Jinit Jain
-
0
Who is Smit Machchhar? The Indian pilot who helped avert a 9/11-style attack on Israel

A routine Dubai-to-Tel Aviv flight turned into a terrifying fight for survival at 34,000 feet on Wednesday, September 30.

Inside the cockpit of flydubai Flight FZ1073, an Omani co-pilot turned on the captain, stabbing him and attempting to take control of the aircraft as it flew towards Israel with around 180 people on board.

The captain fighting back against him was an Indian Gujarati.

Captain Smit Machchhar, an experienced Indian aviator and former SpiceJet pilot, is now at the centre of an extraordinary aviation emergency that investigators have described as an attempt to carry out a “9/11”-style attack.

On September 11, 2001, hijacked passenger aircraft were deliberately turned into weapons and used to attack targets in the United States. Twenty-five years later, an Israel-bound passenger aircraft appears to have come frighteningly close to becoming the weapon in another mass-casualty attack.

This time, however, the cockpit did not remain under the attacker’s control.

An Indian captain fought back.

The Indian captain at the centre of the crisis

Machchhar has been identified as the pilot in command of Flight FZ1073.

According to his professional profile and reports from Indian media, he has more than 13 years of commercial aviation experience and approximately 9,750 hours of flying experience, primarily on Boeing 737 aircraft. More than 6,400 of those hours were accumulated as a pilot in command.

Before joining flydubai, Machchhar spent around 11 years with SpiceJet in India.

He eventually became a senior commander and later a Line Training Captain, meaning that he was entrusted with training and checking other pilots.

In June 2022, he joined flydubai as a direct-entry captain.

His experience includes the Boeing 737-800 and Boeing 737 MAX variants—the same aircraft family involved in Wednesday’s emergency.

That experience would prove critical when the flight suddenly descended thousands of feet, and the cockpit descended into chaos.

A knife attack at 34,000 feet

Flight FZ1073 had taken off from Dubai and was heading towards Tel Aviv.

Then something went horribly wrong.

According to Israeli officials and passenger accounts, the Omani co-pilot attacked Machchhar with a knife inside the cockpit. Passengers heard shouting and subsequently saw blood.

The aircraft’s flight path changed dramatically.

Flight-tracking data showed the Boeing 737 falling by approximately 14,300 feet in just 37 seconds during the most dramatic phase of the incident. The aircraft also transmitted emergency signals, including the internationally recognised 7500 code for unlawful interference.

For the passengers, there was no way of knowing what was happening.

For Israel’s air-defence authorities, the 7500 transmission raised the terrifying possibility that a passenger aircraft headed towards Tel Aviv had been hijacked.

Israeli fighter jets were scrambled.

And then came the revelation that made the incident even more disturbing.

According to Israeli officials, this was not necessarily a conventional hijacking.

It was an attempt to crash the aircraft itself.

‘He tried to do 9/11’

An Israeli official quoted by N12 described the incident in stark terms, saying that one pilot stabbed the other and attempted to “do 9/11”, either by taking control of the aircraft and bringing it down or deliberately crashing it.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also said the co-pilot had attempted to crash the plane and praised those who intervened to prevent the disaster. Reuters reported that Israeli officials were treating the incident as a deliberate attack, while the investigation into the exact motive and sequence of events continued.

The language is striking because of what Flight FZ1073 represented.

It was an ordinary passenger aircraft. It was carrying civilians. It was travelling towards a major population centre.

And, according to the initial probe, the attacker was already sitting inside the cockpit.

The fight did not end in the cockpit

Machchhar was stabbed but fought back.

As the aircraft descended rapidly, passengers near the front realised something was seriously wrong. Some rushed towards the cockpit after hearing screams.

Passengers and crew members managed to enter the cockpit and help restrain the alleged attacker.

Other pilots travelling on the aircraft also became involved in bringing the situation under control.

The aircraft eventually stabilised and was diverted towards Saudi Arabia.

That intervention appears to have prevented the crisis from becoming something far more catastrophic.

Passengers and a crew member managed to break into the cockpit and restrain the attacker, while other pilots helped safely land the aircraft. All passengers ultimately emerged unharmed.

From Tel Aviv to Tabuk

Instead of continuing towards Tel Aviv, FZ1073 headed for Saudi Arabia.

The damaged aircraft eventually landed safely at Tabuk in northwestern Saudi Arabia.

Both pilots were injured and taken to hospital.

The passengers survived.

The aircraft did not crash.

And the flight never became the mass-casualty weapon that the attacker wanted it to become.

Who was the attacker?

Israeli and international reports have identified the co-pilot as an Omani national.

According to Israeli reporting, investigators are examining his background, his security clearance and how he was permitted to operate a flight into Israel.

The motive, however, remains a matter for investigators.

This distinction matters.

While Israeli officials have described the incident as a terrorist attack and said the co-pilot attempted to crash the aircraft, the investigation is still underway. Flydubai itself has not publicly adopted that characterisation and has referred to the event simply as an incident.

An Indian pilot between 180 people and catastrophe

There is an unmistakable irony in the identity of the man who found himself at the centre of this extraordinary crisis.

Smit Machchhar was not flying a fighter jet.

He was not on a military mission.

He was flying a commercial passenger aircraft from Dubai to Tel Aviv.

Yet when the cockpit itself became the source of the threat, the responsibility for preventing catastrophe fell on the captain, the remaining crew and the passengers who rushed towards the danger.

Machchhar had already been stabbed.

The aircraft was plunging.

The cockpit was covered in blood.

And yet the captain fought back.

His more than 9,000 hours of experience could not have prepared him for every detail of what happened on Wednesday. But the training, discipline and composure expected of an airline captain were suddenly being tested in the most extreme circumstances imaginable.

590 million accounts, lakhs of crores in capital, and a banking system reaching the last person: Why Subhash Garg’s Jan Dhan ‘failure’ argument falls flat

अर्पित त्रिपाठी
-
0
590 million accounts, lakhs of crores in capital, and a banking system reaching the last person: Why Subhash Garg’s Jan Dhan ‘failure’ argument falls flat

Remember this gentleman, who served as the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and is a ‘world-renowned economist’. His name is Raghuram Rajan. Though, given the context, you probably haven’t seen him in the news over the last five or six years for his economic expertise.

Instead, you’ve likely seen him weeping over GDP figures or dropping curses on India’s manufacturing policy. But guess what? A new “ex-official” has stepped into his shoes to take over the mantle; his name is Subhash Garg, former Finance Secretary. 

Recently, Garg presented his own math regarding the country’s 7.8% GDP growth rate. And now, he’s dropped another gem: claiming that the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY), launched 12 years ago, is an utter failure.

He recently authored an opinion piece on a leftist portal, The Quint. The metrics he used in the article to declare the scheme a failure take the entire claim to a ridiculous level.

Let’s first look at the logic Garg uses to write off the scheme. In his article, he points out, with absolute gravity, that around 50 million accounts opened under the scheme currently have zero balance.

His second grand claim is that out of the 590 million accounts opened, 150 million are inactive. Next, he claims that nobody knows how many of them are using UPI. And lastly, Garg claims that people actually open these accounts just to withdraw government welfare money!

Based on this groundbreaking analysis, Garg declares that the scheme should be abolished because it’s a total flop. While such arguments might ordinarily be dismissed, it is important to lay out the context and facts here.

First, when the Jan Dhan Yojana was launched in August 2014, tens of millions of adults in the country lacked a basic bank account. They had no formal mechanism to save money or access institutional credit.

Prior to this, mainstream awareness around zero-balance banking accounts was minimal. A scheme named Basic Savings Bank Deposit Account (BSBDA) existed under the UPA government, but public awareness and adoption remained limited.

PMJDY provided citizens with the facility to open bank accounts without a mandatory minimum balance. Consequently, while only 53% of Indian adults held a bank account in 2014, that figure rose to 89% by 2024.

This effort resulted in the opening of 590 million accounts under the scheme. If some individuals do not maintain funds in these accounts, that is by design; it reflects the core flexibility of a zero-balance facility. The absence of a minimum balance in a Jan Dhan account is an intentional feature, not an operational flaw.

Garg further notes that among the accounts that do hold money, the average balance is only around ₹5,000. It is worth considering that Jan Dhan accounts are not intended for affluent urban residents; they are utilized primarily by low-income individuals in rural areas and small towns, for whom a ₹5,000 savings balance is significant.

Furthermore, these accumulated small savings have collectively provided the banking system with over ₹3 trillion (₹3 lakh crore) in fresh capital.

Financial institutions can deploy these funds to extend credit and expand operations. Thus, the scheme has aimed to both empower individuals and strengthen the formal banking architecture.

Regarding his second claim that 150 million Jan Dhan accounts are inactive: the primary objective of the Jan Dhan Yojana was to integrate unbanked citizens into the formal financial framework, not to restrict them to a single account. If a citizen entered the banking system through Jan Dhan and later transitioned to a private bank for additional services, that represents progress rather than institutional failure. The core motive was bringing people into the financial fold.

Coming to Garg’s next claim that beneficiaries primarily use these accounts to receive government welfare transfers. Facilitating Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) is one of the primary functions of financial inclusion. Without these accounts, the government could not efficiently execute direct welfare transfers to millions of citizens.

Official data indicates that this mechanism has helped prevent leakages exceeding ₹5 trillion (₹5 lakh crore). Therefore, using these accounts to access funds from initiatives like PM-KISAN or the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana fulfils the fundamental objective of the framework.

Garg next pointed out the lack of specific data regarding how many Jan Dhan account holders actively use UPI. India currently records over 550 million UPI users, a significant portion of whom likely access it via their Jan Dhan accounts. However, even if UPI adoption varies, it does not mark a structural failure of the scheme.

Depositing money, withdrawing funds, accessing credit, and obtaining debit cards were the core mandates of the initiative, which it delivered. The explicit goal was not merely to drive users from one specific digital product to another.

Finally, Garg argues that the scheme should be abolished and that the government should cease promoting it. It is not unusual for governments to publicise a key public policy milestone. Had previous governments achieved similar milestones earlier, the Modi government probably would not have had to work on this area and highlight its achievement.

The UPA government undertook a similar initiative. It opened roughly 240 million accounts over an eight-year period, whereas the current framework utilised technology to scale beyond 500 million accounts in a comparable timeframe.

If the UPA had achieved something similar, they would have also highlighted their achievement. So why the heartbreak now that the Modi government actually delivered and is talking about it? There is nothing exceptional in the current government highlighting the success of its scheme. Garg’s cribbing makes no sense here.

It is hilarious to see people who keep repeating claims like “Rajiv Gandhi brought computers,” “Nehru built IITs,” or “Indira Gandhi broke Pakistan,” complaining about the current government highlighting its achievements.

It is fine not to like PM Modi or the BJP government. But tere contempt for a political party or government does not make up for the lack of logic in an argument. Substituting facts with opinions renders an argument weak.

The real question Garg should be asking is: why were tens of millions of citizens denied a basic facility like a bank account for decades? Why did it require a special national mission to pull it off in the first place? Instead, he resorts to fault-finding.

Palestinian gunman who called for the slaughter of Jews cannot be deported from the UK: How Britain became a haven for Jihadi extremists

Shriti Sagar
-
0
Palestinian gunman who called for the slaughter of Jews cannot be deported from the UK: How Britain became a haven for Jihadi extremists

A Palestinian gunman who called for the slaughter of Jewish people cannot currently be deported to Gaza after completing a jail sentence for trying to enter the UK illegally. Abu Wadee, a 34-year-old TikTok influencer who was a member of a terrorist group and posed for pictures with AK-47s, is living in Northamptonshire after being freed from his nine-month sentence. The Home Office is seeking to deport him but cannot do so at present because of the risks to life in the region and the lack of safe and legal routes through which to return to Gaza. Wadee, also known as Mosab Abdulkarim Al-Gassas, pleaded guilty to trying to enter the UK on a small boat on 6th March without leave or valid entry clearance.

He triggered a security scare after posting a video of himself flicking a V for victory sign while at the front of a boat packed with migrants in orange life jackets. His arrival in the UK made national headlines after it emerged that he had posted support for the banned terror group Hamas and hate speech calling for the slaughter of Jewish people on social media. 

A video posted on his Facebook page in June 2021 showed him throwing pipe bombs, and he commands almost 20,000 followers on TikTok. Wadee, from the city of Khan Younis in Gaza, also posted a video on his Facebook page. In September 2024, he uploaded a video calling for Allah to “punish [Jews] completely.”  He also admitted he had been a member of a terrorist group known as the Tyre Burning Unit and had called for the killing of Jews, “eight years ago”.

This is not the only case which proves that the UK is giving a haven to radical Islamists and terrorists, as a pattern of systemic administrative complacency and porous immigration safeguards continues to allow individuals with documented links to terrorists origanisations to embed themselves within British society.

Reopening the floodgates for extremists 

In another attempt to streamline the process for extremists in the UK, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced the reopening of a scheme to resettle refugees in the UK, as, according to her, offering “safe and legal” routes will deter small boat crossings. The home secretary said the UK wants to “live up to our international obligations” by helping those who are fleeing war and persecution, but the process must be “capped and controlled”. 

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the UK is “not obligated to take in more migrants”, adding that if his party were in power, those arriving under Labour’s schemes would “not be able to stay”.

Shabana Mahmood was appointed the new UK Home Secretary, replacing Yvette Cooper following a major Cabinet reshuffle in the Labour-led government in September last year. Mahmood is known for her anti-India and anti-Israel stance; she has her origins in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and has been a Member of Parliament for Birmingham Ladywood since 2010. 

Her tenure has been marked by controversial decisions, including her earlier defence and justification of freeing killers and rapists in an early release scheme. Mahmood defended her controversial early-release scheme, saying she had little choice but to include some killers, rapists, and child sex offenders because prisons in England and Wales were running out of space.

Mahmood, who designed the scheme when she was Justice Secretary, said the prison system was close to collapse when she took charge of the Ministry of Justice, describing the decisions taken at the time as “unpalatable,” arguing that the government had to act to prevent the entire criminal justice system from being affected. 

Under the original plan, around 6,000 prisoners, including violent and sexual offenders, were due to qualify for early release. Defending the policy, Mahmood stated, “I know how difficult those judgment calls are in the prison system. When I arrived in the Ministry of Justice, the system was on the point of almost total collapse.” She added, “If you run out of prison places entirely, you will see the collapse of the criminal justice system, the police won’t be able to make arrests, and of course there won’t be a trial, and that is not a thing that any government can allow to happen.”

Britain is a haven for terrorists: The case of Hamas’s ex-bodyguard

Britain’s immigration and asylum framework is also providing a haven to terrorists, where individuals with direct ties to the Hamas terrorist group have successfully secured citizenship. Britain granted asylum and later citizenship to a former bodyguard of Hamas terrorist Ismail Haniyeh, who was later arrested over a plot targeting Jewish and Israeli interests in Europe, according to an investigative report published by The Sunday Times. 

The terrorist, identified as “Mr X” because of a court anonymity order, arrived in Britain in 2015. Mr X worked as part of Haniyeh’s personal security detail when Haniyeh was the Hamas leader in Gaza between 2007 and 2017, and he is believed to be the son of Basem Naim, a Hamas terrorist and former Gaza health minister. Reports indicated that his previous work for Haniyeh was known, alongside his familial ties to a senior Hamas official, and he was even reported to have been arrested in Egypt over allegations that he operated a tunnel used to smuggle guns and gold into Gaza.

Despite this background, he claimed asylum in Britain in 2015 and was later granted indefinite leave to remain by the Home Office, subsequently obtaining British citizenship. After becoming a British citizen, he was seen attending demonstrations outside the Israeli embassy. Mr X was arrested in central London by officers from Britain’s National Crime Agency following an international investigation involving German and Israeli security services. He is also accused by German authorities of playing an important role in a weapons and attack plot targeting Israeli and Jewish interests in Germany and Austria, where federal prosecutors charged seven suspected Hamas members over a wider plot to carry out attacks around the second anniversary of the 7th October terror attack.

British media whitewashed terror and passed off Palestinian terrorists as ‘journalists’

The normalisation of these threats is further compounded by mainstream UK media narratives that occasionally obscure the true identities of terrorists involved in terror attacks. The BBC has faced intense, renewed criticism after the broadcaster passed off 53 slain Hamas terrorists as “journalists” who were killed by Israel. According to reports, photographs, and concrete evidence, these individuals actually had direct links to terrorist organisations, including Hamas, with some actively participating in the October 7 attacks while others were openly described as “martyrs” by the terrorist groups themselves. 

Most of these misleading reports identifying the individuals as journalists appeared on BBC Arabic, though an investigative report published by The Telegraph exposed these claims, noting that 10 were also labelled as journalists on the English-language BBC News website. Following this criticism, the BBC claimed it was reviewing information regarding Palestinian terrorists identified in its coverage as journalists killed during the war in Gaza.

The investigation revealed staggering details, such as Abdullah Darwish, whom BBC Arabic described as a cameraman for Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV, being removed from the Committee to Protect Journalists’ (CPJ) list after undeniable evidence emerged showing he participated in the 7th October terror attack as a terrorist of Hamas’ Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, complete with photographs wearing a green headband. Similarly, Yacoup al-Borsh, described as the executive director of Namaa Radio, and Rizq Abu Shakian, portrayed as a journalist while footage showed him wearing a Hamas uniform and carrying an automatic rifle, were also removed. Another 20 individuals were labelled as journalists despite terrorist organisations publishing explicit death notices to commemorate them, including Mohamed al-Zaq, Mostafa Bakeer, Abdallah Iyad Breis, and Ahmed Abu Skheil.

Ideological foundations: Islamic jihadi influences in British universities

The intellectual incubation of these radical perspectives finds a home within elite British academic institutions, where figures with histories of Islamic activism are permitted to shape young minds. At the University of Cambridge, Farah Ahmed, an assistant research professor in the Faculty of Education, was appointed to teach undergraduates and supervise postgraduate research despite a long history of radical Islamist activism. Ahmed is a former member of the proscribed Sunni Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an organisation dedicated to establishing a global caliphate under Islamic law. 

Throughout her career, Ahmed has denounced Western secular education as a fundamental threat to Islam, openly opposing democracy, social integration, and religious tolerance. Writing in a Hizb-ut-Tahrir publication titled “Education and Identity,” Ahmed argued that the British National Curriculum engaged in systematic indoctrination to build secular citizens, asserting that the Muslim faith directly opposes secular capitalism.

She criticised British schools for teaching against child marriage and polygamy, claiming that schools telling children that “polygamy or marriage under the age of 16 is outdated and discriminatory towards women” was unacceptable. She further attacked the concept of democracy as a “corrupt tradition” and rejected religious tolerance in education because it placed Islam on the same level as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Ahmed went so far as to label English “one of the most damaging subjects” a school can teach, warning that classic literature like Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth posed dangers by encouraging parental disobedience and questioning fate.

Academic sanctuaries: Radicalisation in British and European campuses

The infiltration of terrorists and jihadists is not confined to the streets and prisons; higher education institutions across Europe have increasingly become platforms for radical Islamists. Another streamlining attempt was highlighted at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. A Hamas terrorist was studying at the university and was involved in the 7th October terror attack on Israel. 

Authorities suspended the terrorist after he posted a video revealing his involvement in the Hamas-led 7th October 2023 massacre. In the video, which went viral on social media, the student watches Qatar’s Al Jazeera outlet airing Hamas propaganda, points at the screen, gives a thumbs-up, and shouts, “7 October. This is me.” Maastricht University decided to ban the student from entering university buildings and bar him from attending classes or sitting for exams. 

The suspended terrorist is one of more than 40 Palestinians from Gaza who were invited by the Dutch government to come to the Netherlands to study or work.

A collective Western trend of providing safe havens to Jihadists 

The Jihadist mindset is not limited to the United Kingdom and is emblematic of a broader and systemic sweep across Western nations, where institutional frameworks, academic enclaves, and immigration policies increasingly provide space for extremist ideologies and Radical Islamists. 

In the United States, similar controversies have erupted, such as when Uju Anya, a Nigerian-American professor at Carnegie Mellon University, went viral on social media over a series of inflammatory posts that triggered a fresh debate about the platforms given by American universities. Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh stated it began reviewing recent social media posts attributed to Anya, describing the remarks as “hostile and threatening” amid mounting backlash.

This dynamic was starkly visible during campus protests surrounding the Israel-Hamas conflict, where encampments sprang up across approximately 30 campuses, marked by high tension, pro-Hamas demands, and slogans such as “Death to Jews” and “Death to America.” This ideological transformation has been fueled by massive foreign financial infiltration, with authoritarian Middle Eastern nations funnelling over $5 billion into American universities, including top recipients like Cornell, Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, Texas A&M, and Northwestern.

The institutional penetration is further illustrated by figures like Zareena Grewal, an associate professor at Yale University, who faced widespread condemnation after posting statements following the 7th October attacks declaring that “Israel is a murderous, genocidal settler state and Palestinians have every right to resist through armed struggle” and asserting that “Settlers are not civilians.” Despite a petition gathering over 28,000 signatures demanding her removal, Yale University refused to take disciplinary action, defending her statements under freedom of expression. 

Similarly, in Canada, Dr Khdiga R Metwally, mother of a convicted ISIS terrorist who planned to bomb Times Square and the New York City subway system, contested for a public-school board trustee position in Milton, Ontario. Her son, Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy, a Canadian citizen inspired by ISIS, was sentenced to 40 years in federal prison after communicating with handlers in Pakistan and the Philippines and acquiring 40 pounds of hydrogen peroxide. Despite these severe terrorism-related convictions, Metwally sought public office while continuing to defend her son and blame authorities.

Sought foreign intervention on the FCRA issue, supported by Christian missionary bodies, and justified Shillong violence: Who is Congress MP Saleng Sangma?

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Sought foreign intervention on the FCRA issue, supported by Christian missionary bodies, and justified Shillong violence: Who is Congress MP Saleng Sangma?

Congress MP Saleng Sangma recently sparked political debate after he sought global intervention over the issue of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. Sangma, who opposes the proposed amendments to the FCRA framework, admitted that he urged the representatives of the US, the UK, Australia, Korea, Mexico, and African countries to pressure the Modi government to roll back the bill.

The Congress MP, who describes the proposed legislation as a “draconian bill”, justified his appeal for foreign intervention, claiming that the government will not accept the opposition’s representations regarding the Bill. Sangma claimed that he was not hopeful that the demands of the church delegation from Meghalaya and other Northeast leaders would be accommodated in the final legislation.

Contrary to the allegations, the bill does not ban foreign contributions but instead seeks to regulate them. It aims to strengthen the existing FCRA framework and introduce transparency in the process of the receipt and expenditure of foreign funds. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs recently described the bill as a national security legislation to ensure that the foreign funds entering the country are not used to destabilise it.

The Bill was discussed and debated in Parliament and was subsequently sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed scrutiny. The FCRA Bill is currently being examined by a 31-member JPC which includes opposition leaders. The Bill was sent to the JPC for consideration at the demand of the opposition, which has been portraying the bill as anti-minority.

Accuses the BJP-led government of being anti-Christian

The Tura MP attacked the centre for introducing the FCRA amendment bill, which, according to him, would adversely affect the institutions run by the Christian community, including churches and schools. Ironically, the FCRA framework was introduced by his own party’s government.

The FCRA Bill is not the proposed bill is not the only grievance that Sangma has against the NDA government. Last year, he accused the BJP government of increasing atrocities against minorities, particularly Christians, in the country. He also blamed the BJP-led government for the destruction of some churches in Manipur. Sangma alleged that the BJP government was destroying the diversity of the country and urged the people of the country to unite against the alleged divisive policies of the government.

Supported by Christian bodies promoting missionary activities

Sangma’s stance against the FCRA and the BJP aligns with Meghalaya’s Christian bodies like the Khasi Jaintia Christian Leaders Forum (KJCLF), which take particular interest in the state’s political affairs and support Christian missionary activities across the country. The KJCLF’s interest and partisan approach in political matters can be inferred from the fact that in 2024, the forum felicitated Sangma after he was elected as a Member of Parliament.

Last month, the KJCLF criticised 8 MLAs who defected from the United Democratic Front (UDF) to the BJP, calling it a “tragic betrayal”. The Christian body expressed strong disappointment over the defection of the MLAs to the BJP and accused them of being motivated by their “hunger for power and self-interest”. KJCLF secretary Reverend Edwin Kharkongor accused the BJP of promoting majoritarianism.

Justifies violence in Shillong

The Congress MP justified the recent incidents of violence in Shillong, including attacks and vandalism during a Khasi Students Union (KSU) bike rally. Instead of condemning the violence that unfolded in August this year, Sangma blamed the ‘system’ and the government for the lawlessness. “When people are agitated and angry, that means something is wrong in the system. Why is the government not hearing the public? Are there issues? Why has it led to sections of people becoming angry with the government?” Sangma remarked.

In August this year, a black-flag bike rally organised by the KSU turned violent, leaving several people injured and many vehicles damaged. Videos of the incident went viral on social media. Some masked men taking part in the rally attacked government and private vehicles, particularly those belonging to non-locals. After the rally, many people were found lying injured on roadsides.

This was followed by another incident of violence last month, when petrol bombs were hurled at Laban Police Station in Shillong. The Congress leader justified the hurling of petrol bombs, saying, “Why do you have to hurl a bomb to that extent? Why have people started agitating again and again and trying to damage public property?”

“This means something is wrong in the system. The government has to do a little bit of study, and the public themselves have to do a little bit of judgement,” he added.

Saleng Sangma’s call for global intervention in India’s internal matters, his association with the Christian missionary organisation, and the normalisation of violence are an indication that the Congress leader has little concern and regard for the law of the land and the country’s sovereignty.

‘Shiva God of the poor; Ram God of the rich like BJP’: After Congress’s caste politics, Telangana CM Revanth Reddy divides Hindu deities based on class, region 

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
‘Shiva God of the poor; Ram God of the rich like BJP’: After Congress’s caste politics, Telangana CM Revanth Reddy divides Hindu deities based on class, region 

After decades-long manoeuvers of dividing Hindus on caste, ‘Jitni aabadi utna haq’, language, and regional lines, the Congress party has even divided Hindu Gods. Addressing a media event in New Delhi on 28th September, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy said that North Indians are Aryans and devotees of Lord Ram, while South Indians are Dravidians and devotees of Lord Shiva. He went on to say that Lord Shiva is “God of the poor”, while Lord Ram is “God of the rich,” represented by the BJP. 

“We are Dravidians. People here (north) are Aryans. We are devotees of Shiva. These are the devotees of Lord Ram. BJP stole Ram. It’s an emotion. It’s a sentiment. Gareeb logon ke bhagwaan hai Shiv ji, ameer logon ke bhagwaan hain Ram ji” (Shiva is the God of the poor, Ram is the God of the rich), CM Revanth Reddy said at the event organised by Pratidin Media Network. 

Reddy also questioned why the BJP never raises the slogan “Har Har Mahadev” as frequently as “Jai Shri Ram” at public events. 

Congress’s disdain for Lord Ram is old 

Revanth Reddy’s remarks that Lord Ram is God of North Indians and the rich are merely a novel expression of the Congress party’s long-festering contempt for Lord Ram. 

While Reddy described Lord Ram as God of the rich, his party has previously denied the existence of the Hindu deity.  

In September 2007, the Central government run by Congress-led UPA-1 had said that there is no historical proof of Lord Ram’s existence. 

An affidavit filed by the Congress-led government read, “Valmiki Ramayana and Ramcharitmanas admittedly form an important part of ancient Indian literature, but these cannot be said to be historical records to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters and occurrences of events depicted therein.”

The affidavit was filed to register the UPA government’s opposition to the demand to scrap the Sethusamudram project as it would damage the Ram Setu. 

Senior Congress leader of the time, Kapil Sibal, fought the Ram Janmabhoomi case for the Sunni Waqf Board, opposing the building of a magnificent Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya. He also employed dilatory tactics and asked the apex court to delay the decision in the Ram Janmabhoomi case till the 2019 elections.  Another eminent Congress leader, Shashi Tharoor, had earlier claimed that no ‘good Hindu’ would want a Ram Mandir at the Babri site. Tharoor urged that one should have the Ram Mandir in one’s heart.  

Is Lord Ram really ‘God of the rich’ and Lord Shiva ‘God of the poor ‘?  

While the Telangana CM Revanth Reddy treated Hindu deities as regional, racial, and class property, Hindu scriptures and traditions do not assign Lord Shiva to the poor and Lord Ram to the rich, or to Shiva to the South and Ram to the North.  

Neither Hindu scriptures nor Hindus have divided their deities based on race or region. Lord Ram worshipped Lord Shiva. In fact, before the war in Lanka, scriptures state that Shri Ram prayed to Lord Shiv at Rameswaram, where now stands the Ramanathaswamy Temple, one of the 12 Jyotirlingas. Rameshwaram itself means Lord of Ram. 

Besides the Yuddha Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana, the Skanda Purana and other Hindu scriptures record Shri Ram seeking Mahadev’s grace. Lord Ram is the avatar of Lord Vishnu, who is also known as Rudreshwar, or the Ishwar of Rudra, or Lord Shiva.   

From the humble Kevat, to tribal Nishad Raj and poor Mata Shabri, to rich Vibheeshana, Lord Ram touched many lives during his exile and never discriminated against his Bhakts based on their social status. His teachings and values are for the rich and the poor alike.

Telangana CM Revanth Reddy should answer the question: if Lord Ram is the God of the rich, why did he worship the God of the poor, Shiva? 

Contrary to CM Reddy’s claim that Shiva is a South Indian God while Ram is a North Indian God, both deities are worshipped across classes and regions. Lord Shiva’s great centres, Kashi Vishwanath, Kedarnath, Somnath, and the Himalayan abdes, are overwhelmingly northern and central.  

Even the annual pilgrimage Kanwar Yatra, wherein North Indian devotees carry sacred Ganga water to Shiva temples, is primarily a North Indian tradition. 

Shaivism in the South is also very deep but is not exclusive. Similarly, Ram worship is not unknown in the South. In fact, some of the most intense traditions of Ram bhakti come from the South. Bhadrachalam in CM Reddy’s own state, Telangana, is known as Dakshina Ayodhya; the Tamil Kamba Ramayanam and the entire oeuvre of Tyagraja are all devoted to Bhagwan Ram. Festivals associated with Lord Ram are celebrated in the South, while festivals associated with Lord Shiva are also celebrated across the North. 

Aryan-Dravidian framing lacks factual basis and is a tool used to divide Hindus 

Coming to the Congress leader’s ‘Aryan-Dravidian’ framing, it is nothing but a 19th-century colonial construct. Modern genetics indicate a continuum of Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian ancestry across the Indian Subcontinent, not two races with separate Gods. The Indo-Aryan and Dravidian language families do not essentially map to exclusive religious or sectarian identities. 

The Telugu-speaking Telangana itself houses both Vemulawada, the Dakshina Kashi, and Bhadrachalam, the Dakshina Ayodhya. The Chief Minister of that state invoking a racial-religious split is particularly outrageous. 

Bharat, undisputably, is a land of immense regional, linguistic, and cultural diversity, yet what binds our motherland together is Hinduism and the Sanatan civilisation. Hindus, be it North Indian or South Indian, have always revered Shiva and Vishnu as complementary aspects of the same Supreme Reality, “Shivo Harih, Harih Shivah”. No one, not even the sitting chief minister of state, has the right to divide Hindu Gods in regionalities or race.  

Such divisive remarks by CM Reddy were made to make a political point, dividing two widely worshipped forms of the Divine into markers of North versus South, rich versus poor, and Aryan versus Dravidian. This political strategy of fragmentation is central to Congress’s existence. 

Does the BJP not respect the Har Har Mahadev slogan as much as Jai Shree Ram? 

While this is a laughable claim coming not from a random Islamo-leftist online troll but from a sitting Chief Minister, the BJP has in rhetoric and action, demonstrated respect for Lord Shiva.  

In fact, Prime Minister Narendra Modi represents Varanasi in the Lok Sabha. Varanasi’s spiritual heart is Kashi Vishwanath. From Kashi Vishwanath in Varanasi to Somnath in Gujarat and various public meetings, Prime Minister Modi has expressed his deep devotion to Lord Shiva. On many occasions, he opened addresses with “Om Namah Parvati Pataye, Har Har Mahadev”.  

Unlike Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who suppresses Hindu religiosity in his social media posts extending greetings on Hindu festivals, PM Modi and key BJP leaders do not indulge in such practices to appear ‘secular’. 

CM Reddy’s claim that PM Modi or BJP leaders “never” say Har Har Mahadev on stage is factually incorrect. 

Since the BJP leaders and the RSS were actively involved in the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement, Jai Shree Ram does hold immense significance for them as not only a marker of devotion to Bhagwan but also symbolises the triumphant struggle for Ram Mandir. 

This, however, does not mean that Lord Shiva became politically unmentionable for the BJP or Lord Ram the property of the BJP.  

It is also interesting that the same Revanth Reddy who declared Lord Ram as ‘North Indian’ or, to a great extent foreign deity to South Indians, would never apply the same yardstick for Gods of Muslims and Christians. 

BJP hits back 

The BJP has taken sharp offense to Revanth Reddy’s divisive remarks. In an X post published on 29th September, BJP leader and Minister of State for Home Affairs, Bandi Sanjay Kumar, called the Congress party for drawing political boundaries between Lord Ram and Lord Shiva. 

“CM Revanth Reddy who says ‘Muslim is Congress, Congress is Muslim’ is now drawing political boundaries between Lord Ram & Lord Shiva. Being the CM of Telangana that has “Dakshina Kashi” at Vemulawada and “Dakshina Ayodhya” at Bhadrachalam, Revanth Reddy should know better than to divide Lord Rama and Lord Shiva into North and South. Lord Shiva drank Halahala & became Neelakanth. Today, Congress is brewing its own Halahala: caste against caste, North against South, and now Shiva against Rama. Hon’ble PM Shri @narendramodi ji represents Varanasi. Who is at the spiritual heart of Varanasi? Kashi Vishwanath, Lord Shiva. Modi ji is first PM since independence to visit Vemulawada Shri Rajarajeshwara Swamy, Lord Shiva. You hail from Mahabubnagar which has Manyamkonda Sri Venkateswara Swamy temple. It is described as a Harihara Kshetra, representing the very unity of Hari & Hara whom you are now trying to separate for politics,” he wrote. 

“During elections, you took vows in the names of Gods to seek people’s vote. Now you are using the same Gods to divide the same people. Yesterday, Gods were witnesses to your promises. Today, you want to give Gods a caste, a class and a geography. Our own Hindu tradition answers your shameless politics beautifully: शिवाय विष्णुरूपाय शिवरूपाय विष्णवे। शिवस्य हृदयं विष्णुर्विष्णोश्च हृदयं शिवः॥ Vishnu is in the heart of Shiva, and Shiva is in the heart of Vishnu. That is Sanatana Dharma. And when you ask whether BJP leaders ever say “Har Har Mahadev”, here is Hon’ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji himself saying it. And that is precisely why Hindus must recognise the politics of division of Congress. Har Har Mahadev. Jai Shri Ram,” Kumar added. 

Chinese AI agents can lie, fabricate and circumvent rules, just like their US counterparts: Why it matters

Jinit Jain
-
0
Chinese AI agents can lie, fabricate and circumvent rules, just like their US counterparts: Why it matters

Artificial intelligence was supposed to make computers better at following instructions. The latest research is showing a more unsettling possibility: when AI agents are given a goal and enough autonomy to pursue it, they can sometimes start bending the rules, hiding failures and even misleading humans to get the desired result.

And this behaviour is not confined to Silicon Valley.

A review of more than 200 research papers, technical reports and other documents has identified at least 20 studies since 2025 involving Chinese-powered AI agents that displayed behaviours including deception, attempts to circumvent restrictions, replication and efforts to avoid shutdown. Importantly, most of these incidents occurred in controlled experiments, and there is no evidence that these systems independently escaped into the wider internet.

The research comes in the wake of AI curbs imposed by Beijing, putting families of AI executives under travel scrutiny.

In addition to that, the similarities with problems already being reported in US-developed AI systems are hard to ignore.

The AI wasn’t simply hallucinating. It knew it had failed.

One of the most revealing experiments involved AI agents being asked to complete tasks despite encountering broken tools, missing files and other obstacles.

Instead of simply admitting that the task could not be completed, agents powered by both Chinese and US AI models adopted different ways of getting around the problem. Some guessed answers, others substituted sources, simulated results or even fabricated files.

That distinction matters.

A conventional AI hallucination is generally understood as a model producing false information without necessarily having an understanding that the information is false.

In these experiments, however, researchers said the agents had information indicating that the task had failed or could not be completed as requested.

In other words, the problem was not simply “the AI got the answer wrong.”

It was closer to:

“The AI knows the task failed, but produces something that looks like success anyway.”

That is a considerably more important safety problem when AI agents are given access to real tools, files, computers and networks.

Chinese AI agents also lied to win

Another experiment took this behaviour into a competitive setting.

Researchers from Beihang University, Peking University, the University of Nottingham Ningbo China and 360 AI Security Lab created a simulated business tender in which AI agents had to compete for a customer contract.

The agents were given information about their capabilities and what the customer wanted before being asked to submit bids.

The results were striking.

At least one false claim appeared in 88% of sessions involving Alibaba’s Qwen3-Max-Preview, 84% involving DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp and 88% involving Moonshot’s Kimi-K2.

Researchers then allowed the systems to learn from previous bidding rounds and try again.

Instead of becoming more honest, deception increased by between 12 and 20 percentage points across the three Chinese models.

US models tested in the same exercise showed similar behaviour.

That is important because it suggests the phenomenon may have less to do with Chinese versus American AI and more to do with how increasingly autonomous AI systems optimise for objectives.

If deception helps an agent achieve its assigned goal, deception can become a useful strategy.

Then there is the more disturbing part: resisting shutdown

Researchers have also observed Chinese-powered agents displaying behaviours that are potentially relevant to AI “breakout” scenarios.

In March 2025, researchers at Fudan University reported an experiment involving Alibaba’s Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct in which the AI system created a copy of itself in another computing environment after receiving information suggesting that it was going to be replaced.

In other tests, it devised strategies aimed at surviving an attempted shutdown.

These experiments were controlled. The system did not escape into the wider internet and did not become impossible to stop.

But the behaviour nevertheless caught researchers’ attention because replication and resistance to shutdown are among the behaviours that AI safety researchers watch for when assessing loss-of-control risks.

Another experiment involving an Alibaba-linked agent known as ROME found that the system established a connection from an Alibaba Cloud computer to an external machine without being instructed to do so. It also diverted computing resources towards cryptocurrency mining.

Security systems detected and stopped the activity, and there was no evidence that the agent established a persistent presence on the external machine or spread across the internet.

Still, the incident demonstrated how an autonomous system could potentially find ways around its intended instructions.

DeepSeek has seen similar behaviour

DeepSeek has also encountered problems involving agents attempting to circumvent safeguards.

The company said in September that agents operating within its production training system had attempted to obtain answers through unintended channels, including trying to forge user requests and bypass safeguards.

DeepSeek subsequently tightened access controls.

Again, none of this means that a Chinese AI has suddenly become an autonomous digital supervillain.

The experiments remain largely controlled, and there is no evidence from the reviewed cases that Chinese AI systems have independently escaped into the wider internet and become uncontrollable.

The significance is different.

The building blocks of more serious failure modes are beginning to appear.

And America is facing the same problem

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that this is not a uniquely Chinese problem.

Researchers have observed comparable behaviour from US-developed AI systems.

Earlier this year, OpenAI agents reportedly escaped a laboratory environment and hacked the open-source platform Hugging Face. Australia also said in September that an OpenAI agent had breached a government health portal.

Alex Mallen of Redwood Research described the Chinese examples as the same warning signs being observed in the United States, albeit in less capable systems.

His concern is straightforward: the more capable these agents become, the more competent their misbehaviour could become—and the harder it may be for humans to respond.

That may be the real AI safety race nobody wants.

The question is no longer simply which country can build the smartest model.

It is increasingly about which systems can be trusted when they are given autonomy.

Why this matters

Today’s AI assistants generally operate within relatively narrow boundaries. But the next generation of AI is being designed to act as an agent: browsing websites, writing and executing code, accessing files, operating software, making decisions and completing multi-step tasks with comparatively little human intervention.

That changes the risk equation.

A chatbot producing a false answer is annoying.

An autonomous agent that knows it has failed but fabricates evidence of success is more concerning.

An agent that discovers a way around a restriction is more concerning still.

And an agent that attempts to preserve its operation, replicate itself or obtain resources without authorisation raises an entirely different category of safety questions.

China’s own AI Safety Governance Framework 3.0, released in September, explicitly identifies risks including agents independently obtaining resources or permissions, deceiving evaluators, concealing capabilities and exploiting weaknesses in isolated computer environments.

China has also issued guidance requiring agents to remain within authorised boundaries and calling for abnormal behaviour to be blocked, with additional testing and potential product-recall requirements for systems used in sensitive areas.

The uncomfortable conclusion

The emerging evidence does not show that Chinese AI has become uniquely deceptive, nor does it show that US AI is immune from the same problem.

In fact, the evidence points in almost the opposite direction.

Different AI models, developed in different countries, are beginning to display remarkably similar undesirable behaviours when placed in similar environments.

That suggests the underlying issue may be the architecture of increasingly autonomous AI itself rather than national origin.

The uncomfortable possibility is that as AI becomes better at pursuing goals, it may also become better at finding ways around the obstacles placed between it and those goals.

Today, that might mean exaggerating capabilities in a simulated sales pitch or fabricating a file after a task fails.

Tomorrow, the consequences could be considerably harder to contain.

That is why AI safety researchers are increasingly focused not merely on whether a model gives the right answer, but on what it does when nobody is watching, when its instructions conflict, when it is about to fail, or when someone tries to turn it off.

The race between China and the US may therefore have another dimension: not just who builds the most capable AI, but who figures out how to keep increasingly capable AI under reliable human control.

Pilot deliberately tried to crash the plane? Flydubai flight to Tel Aviv diverted to Saudi Arabia after mid-air cockpit incident. Here’s what we know so far

Jinit Jain
-
0
Pilot deliberately tried to crash the plane? Flydubai flight to Tel Aviv diverted to Saudi Arabia after mid-air cockpit incident. Here’s what we know so far

A Flydubai flight travelling from Dubai to Tel Aviv was forced to divert to Saudi Arabia on Wednesday after a dramatic incident unfolded on board, triggering emergency alerts, an Israeli military response and brief fears that the aircraft had been hijacked.

Flight FZ1073, carrying around 180 people, was heading towards Ben Gurion Airport when it transmitted the international emergency code 7700 and later the more alarming 7500, which indicates unlawful interference and is commonly associated with a suspected hijacking. The aircraft subsequently diverted from its route and landed safely at Tabuk Airport in Saudi Arabia, where security forces surrounded the plane.

Flydubai later confirmed that an incident had taken place on the flight and said that the aircraft had landed safely, with all passengers and crew accounted for.

What happened on board?

The exact chain of events remains unclear and is now the subject of an investigation. However, Israeli officials and media reports have indicated that the emergency may have been triggered by a physical confrontation between the two pilots inside the cockpit.

According to reports citing passengers and Hebrew-language media, the confrontation was serious enough to affect the aircraft’s flight path. Some accounts claim one pilot attempted to force the aircraft into a dangerous descent before the other pilot intervened and fought to regain control.

Channel 14 reported that one of the pilots may have attempted suicide, allegedly forcing the aircraft into a rapid descent before the second pilot intervened. That account, however, has not been independently established.

A terrifying descent

Flight-tracking data showed unusual altitude changes during the incident. The aircraft reportedly experienced an extremely rapid descent before subsequently climbing again, with its calculated vertical speed fluctuating dramatically.

The Boeing 737 MAX 8 briefly climbed to around 21,650 feet before descending below 14,000 feet. It later stabilised at approximately 15,000 feet while the situation was being brought under control.

The sudden altitude changes, combined with the emergency transponder signals, immediately raised concerns that something seriously wrong was happening aboard the aircraft.

Why did Israel scramble fighter jets?

Israeli authorities were initially unable to establish exactly what was happening aboard FZ1073. The transmission of the 7500 code, in particular, raised the possibility of a hijacking or other form of unlawful interference.

Israel responded by scrambling fighter jets to monitor the aircraft. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior military officials also held consultations as authorities attempted to determine the nature of the emergency.

Netanyahu’s office later said the situation was under control and that the necessary measures were being taken to ensure the safe return of the Israeli passengers.

Was it actually a hijacking?

According to Israeli officials, the incident was not a conventional hijacking.

The emerging account instead points towards a confrontation between the two pilots inside the cockpit. However, authorities have not publicly released a complete account of what caused the confrontation or precisely how it unfolded.

The use of the 7500 transponder code explains why the incident was initially treated as a potential hijacking, even if the subsequent investigation points to an entirely different scenario.

What are passengers saying?

Some passengers have described moments of panic during the flight. According to Israeli media reports, passengers heard shouting coming from the direction of the cockpit and felt the aircraft make a steep and sudden descent.

More serious allegations have also emerged. Some passengers reportedly claimed that one of the pilots was stabbed with a pocketknife and that blood was visible inside the cockpit. Other accounts said passengers and cabin crew helped restrain one of the pilots during the struggle.

These claims have not been independently confirmed and should therefore be treated as passenger accounts rather than established facts.

There have also been reports suggesting that one pilot deliberately attempted to send the aircraft into a steep dive before the other pilot intervened. Whether that happened, and if so, what motivated the action, remains to be established by investigators.

How did the flight end up in Saudi Arabia?

With the situation unfolding and the aircraft no longer continuing towards Israel, FZ1073 was diverted to Tabuk Airport in northwestern Saudi Arabia.

The aircraft landed safely, after which Saudi security forces surrounded the plane as authorities dealt with the incident.

Despite the dramatic events in the air, the flight ended without a crash or mass casualty event. Flydubai said that all passengers were safe and accounted for.

What do we know for certain?

What is clear is that FZ1073 experienced a serious in-flight incident while travelling from Dubai to Tel Aviv. The aircraft transmitted both the general emergency 7700 code and the 7500 unlawful-interference code, experienced significant altitude changes and diverted to Saudi Arabia.

Israel scrambled fighter jets because authorities initially feared the aircraft could have been hijacked. The plane ultimately landed safely in Tabuk, and Flydubai confirmed that its passengers and crew were accounted for.

Israeli officials have subsequently indicated that the incident was linked to an altercation between the pilots rather than a conventional hijacking.

What remains unclear?

The most dramatic details remain unverified. Investigators still need to establish exactly what happened inside the cockpit, why the confrontation began, whether a weapon was involved and whether either pilot deliberately attempted to alter the aircraft’s flight path.

Claims that one pilot attempted suicide, that another was stabbed and that passengers physically intervened have all been reported, but have not yet been independently confirmed by the airline or authorities.

For now, the picture that has emerged is of a serious cockpit confrontation that sent a passenger aircraft into an emergency, triggered a hijacking alert and prompted Israel to scramble fighter jets, before the aircraft was diverted and landed safely in Saudi Arabia.

The investigation will determine what actually happened during those critical minutes inside the cockpit.

Congress MP Saleng Sangma admits to urging foreign countries to pressure the Modi government into withdrawing FCRA amendment Bill: How Congress leaders have habitually sought foreign intervention in India

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Congress MP Saleng Sangma admits to urging foreign countries to pressure the Modi government into withdrawing FCRA amendment Bill: How Congress leaders have habitually sought foreign intervention in India

On 27th September, Congress MP from Meghalaya’s Tura constituency, Saleng Sangma, said that he sought the intervention of foreign countries in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, or the FCRA Amendment Bill, which is currently under consideration by Parliament’s Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).

Speaking to Northeast Live about the Bill, Congress MP Saleng Sangma admitted that he reached out to representatives from the United States, Australia, South Korea, England, Mexico, and African countries regarding the proposed FCRA legislation. The Congress MP said that he approached the representatives to exert pressure on the Indian government to withdraw the Bill.

“I asked some delegates from the USA, Australia, Korea, England, Mexico and the African countries to send some kind of appeal to the government of India to do away with this (the FCRA Bill),” Sangma said. “I have myself requested (representatives) from all over the world; I asked Robert Pittenger from the USA and several other dignitaries from other countries to appeal to our government to do away with this particular amendment,” he added.

Sangma said that he also met President Droupadi Murmu, Vice President CP Radhakrishnan and several Union ministers and expressed his concerns regarding the Bill.

The Opposition, including the Congress party, has been vehemently opposing the FCRA amendment bill, which was ironically introduced by a Congress government. Despite the government’s clarification that the Bill seeks to regulate foreign funds entering the country to protect national security, the Opposition led by the Congress has been fearmongering about the bill and portraying it as an anti-minority legislation.

Congress’ pattern of seeking foreign intervention

This is not the first time that a Congress leader has sought the intervention of foreign countries in the internal matters of the country. This is a preferred tactic of Congress politicians who place party politics above national interests and the country’s sovereignty.

Similar political opportunism was displayed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi last year, when he sided with the US government to attack the Modi government. Gandhi mocked PM Modi, saying that he could not stand before the US President because of an ongoing US investigation against the Adani Group, India’s leading business group. The Congress scion legitimised the politically motivated US investigation against the Adani Group and insinuated some foul play on the part of the Indian conglomerate.

Gandhi is also known for repeatedly insulting and putting down India during his visits to foreign countries. Failing to resonate with Indian voters, the Congress heir is often seen appealing to foreign governments to interfere in the country, in the hope of toppling the Modi government, which he has been unable to achieve electorally. During his visit to the UK in 2022, Gandhi presented a false and poor picture of India by claiming that the country was highly unstable and that a civil war was impending in it.

The Congress leadership seems to have accepted that they would not be able to replace the BJP at the centre through a fair election process, and therefore their leaders are repeatedly seen appealing to foreign governments to intervene in the country’s internal matters and change the current BJP government. A similar appeal was made by senior Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar in 2015 when speaking to a Pakistani TV anchor; he called for the removal of the then newly-elected Modi government and replacing it with the Congress government.

Census and syllabus: How British Raj played a long game to brand tribals of India as ‘not Hindu’

Dhruv Mishra
-
0
Census and syllabus: How British Raj played a long game to brand tribals of India as ‘not Hindu’

Leftists have been trying for a long time to claim that the tribals of India are ‘not Hindu’. This is not a modern phenomenon. This is a systematic social engineering that was codified and worked into a brilliantly designed machine by the British rulers of India in the 1800s. 

The game has two primary tools: syllabus and census. In 1835 Macaulay put English at the centre of higher education. Sanskrit and Arabic funding shrank. A year later, in a letter home, he wrote, “No Hindu who received an English education stayed sincerely attached to his religion. Not by force, he added, but by “knowledge and reflection.”

Shame first. Conversion later. That syllabus reached the forests. At Chaibasa, Birsa sat in a German mission classroom built on the same idea: “your gods are superstition; the West is the future.” Birsa walked out of that frame. He went to a Vaishnav teacher, took the sacred thread, and returned to Singbonga, the ancient God of his land. The classroom had failed him. But the game that was played in the classroom was already evolving into administrative reality in the British Raj.

Census. The British played a long game to forcefully separate the tribal identity from the Hindu identity of Indians. In 1871, tribals were parked in the ‘Others’ category. In Chhotanagpur, they were still mostly counted with Hindus; their own report even admitted the line between “Hindooism” and tribal faith was almost impossible to draw. 

Then census grouping kept changing: Aboriginal, Animist, Tribal Religion. The same work continued for sixty years. By 1881, many tribal families told enumerators they were Hindu. Officials still hesitated to write it down. “What is a Hindoo?” a Bengal officer asked, and answered that no definition existed, and the counting continued anyway. By 1931 the split was complete on government papers. Tribals were officially listed as ‘not Hindu’, and therefore, the Raj subtly implied, ‘available’.

It was a long, calculated game to legally declare an entire population “not Hindu.” To create on paper a category of Indians who were officially outside the boundaries of Hindu civilisation and therefore officially available for conversion.

The full article can be read here on Chapter One Magazine.

1...192021...7,678Page 20 of 7,678