The year was 2021. It had been almost 2 years since the Congress had received a massive drubbing during the Lok Sabha election. The party, which had lost relevance among the country’s youth, was hoping to reconnect with its potential voters. As such, the IT Cell of the Congress set up a website, urging the youth to become a ‘Social Media Warrior’ of the party.
The official X handle of Congress had tweeted, “This is not an army of hatred, this is not an army of violence, this is an army of truth, this is an army that will defend the idea of India – Shri @RahulGandhi…Come be a Congress Social Media Warrior. #JoinCongressSocialMedia https://incsmw.in“
5 years later, the website designed to platform youths and turn them into ‘social media warriors’ of the Congress party redirects to an online casino and betting website.
Screengrab of the tweet by the official X handle of the Congress party
The new URL reads ‘https://www.thenascent.in/‘. The name of the site is ‘YOLO 247’, which claims to have been in operation since 2022. The month, however, is not specified. The homepage of the website carries the following description –
“YOLO247 is an online sportsbook and casino platform for players in India. Enjoy betting on 30+ sports, access to 5,000+ casino games, 100+ live dealer tables, and 24/7 betting and gaming. The platform supports deposits and withdrawals in INR for a seamless experience. Register now and get a 500% bonus on your first deposit!“
Screengrab of the online casino website
OpIndia looked up the WHOIS Database and found that the site’s ownership details have been made private. It is interesting to note that the domain was registered on 2nd July 2026, and it is due to expire around the same time in 2027.
Screengrab of the WHOIS website data
But one question remains unanswered: Why is a website set up by the Congress party redirecting the youth to a betting and casino platform?
Although the Congress party collected personal details, including names, addresses, phone numbers, email IDs, social media profiles, and education details of individuals who volunteered for the cause, it was out in the open for at least 5 days after the launch of the site.
Leaked details of Congress supporters applying to become social media warriors for Rahul Gandhi
“The data can be downloaded by anyone, by simply tweaking a few queries on their website!” Twitter user @rsgovin (account now suspended) revealed in a thread.
A year after creating ‘social media warriors’, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi set out on a luxurious political pilgrimage called ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ in September 2022. His supposed ‘nationwide walk’ had a fleet of 59 containers, equipped with state-of-the-art facilities.
Nonetheless, the Congress party launched yet another website in the hopes of mobilising voters, although it had no impact on the outcome of the 2024 Lok Sabha election. The website was named after ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ and had the following URL -‘https://bharatjodoyatra.in/‘
Screengrab of Bharat Jodo Yatra website
Unlike the website for ‘Social Media Warriors’, the one for ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ continues to exist. But if you click on the ‘Nyay Yatra’ menu and hover over the ‘Find My Photo’ tab, then you are faced with the same problem.
The website designed by the Congress party redirects you to another site that carries the URL: ‘https://bjnyphotos.in/. Interestingly, this too is a betting and casino site named ‘Winexch’.
The homepage says clearly – “Winexch is an Indian licensed online betting platform offering 1000+ games across sports and casino categories for Indian players. With a 100% Welcome Bonus up to ₹20,000 on the first deposit and a minimum entry of ₹500, Winexch delivers cricket, kabaddi, live casino, and slots with Indian payment support including UPI and Net Banking.“
Screengrab of the online casino website
The website is identical in its layout design and content to the one for ‘YOLO 247’.
OpIndia again looked up the WHOIS Database and found that the site’s ownership details have been made private. It is again interesting to note that the domain was registered on 1st July 2026, and it is due to expire around the same time in 2027.
As such, it is clear that the ‘Winexch’ domain was registered a day earlier than the one for ‘YOLO 247’.
Screengrab of the WHOIS website data
How did the Congress party allow redirection to 2 different betting and casino platforms? Obviously, it couldn’t have been done without the administrative permission and supervision of the administrators of the website.
Congress needs to explain why it allowed the domains to expire if its intention was to run a service for volunteers.
Coincidentally, some Congress party leaders had objected when the Modi government sought to ban betting apps in India through the implementation of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025.
It remains to be seen how swiftly the party acts to undo the damage it is causing to the country’s youth through its own political sites.
The Indian Express published a report on Wednesday, 26th August, with the headline, “91% of names back in Bengal electoral roll as SIR tribunals dispose of handful of appeals.”
91% of names back in Bengal electoral roll as SIR tribunals dispose of handful of appeals https://t.co/Ml090Kacao
The headline quickly faced criticism on social media, with users pointing out that the 91% figure referred only to 82,782 appeals disposed of by the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) appellate tribunals, and not to the nearly 27 lakh voters whose names were marked “Not Eligible.”
Following the social media backlash, The Indian Express subsequently changed the headline. The new headline reads: “91% of 82,782 names back in Bengal electoral roll as SIR tribunals dispose of appeals”. Unlike the earlier headline, the revised headline clearly specifies that the 91% figure relates to the 82,782 appeals disposed of so far and therefore does not create the same misleading impression.
What The Indian Express reported
According to the report, the SIR appellate tribunals in West Bengal have so far disposed of 82,782 appeals. Of these, 75,443 names, or 91%, were added back to the electoral rolls, while 7,339 names, or 8.86%, were excluded.
The newspaper said the Election Commission (EC) revealed these figures in response to an RTI application filed by Congress MP Isha Khan Chowdhury.
The report also said that 38,10,620 appeals have been filed before the SIR appellate tribunals. This number is significantly higher than the 27,28,500 voters who were marked “Not Eligible” during the adjudication process.
Congress MP Isha Khan Chowdhury questioned the difference between the two figures.
“The major concern is that 38,10,620 appeals were filed against 27,28,500 voters recorded as ‘Not Eligible’ – a difference of 10,82,120 appeals. The Election Commission filed these to exclude voters who had voted in this year’s Assembly elections. This requires immediate clarification by the Election Commission,” Chowdhury said.
Pointing to the 75,443 names restored out of the 82,782 disposed appeals, Chowdhury said, “more than 91% of the disposed cases have resulted in restoration” and questioned whether genuine voters had initially been deleted.
Congress leader Prasenjit Bose, who heads the party’s SIR panel, also said that only around seven lakh of the 27 lakh voters excluded during the adjudication process had filed appeals seeking inclusion.
“We informed the Supreme Court that the state government officials are claiming that only 7 lakh out of the total 27 lakh deleted electors have filed appeals so far. The rest of the appeals have been filed by EC or individual objectors,” Bose said.
Why the old ‘91%’ headline was misleading
The original headline was misleading because it did not clearly mention the denominator behind the 91% figure. It was giving the readers the impression that 91% of the 27 lakh voters deleted during the SIR process have had their names restored. That is not what the EC data cited in the report shows.
The 91% figure applies only to the 82,782 appeals that have been disposed of so far. Of these, 75,443 names were restored. It does not mean that 91% of the nearly 27 lakh voters marked “Not Eligible” have been restored to the electoral rolls.
This distinction is particularly important because the tribunals have disposed of only around 82,000 appeals, while more than 27 lakh voters were marked “Not Eligible” during the adjudication process.
Moreover, according to the information presented before the Supreme Court, only around seven lakh of these 27 lakh voters filed appeals seeking inclusion. A large number of voters deleted during the adjudication process therefore have not approached the tribunals.
The newspaper’s decision to change its headline after the criticism addresses this particular issue. By adding “in 82,782 appeals disposed of by tribunals”, the revised headline makes clear that the 91% figure is limited to cases already decided.
‘Not even 1/3rd’ of deleted voters appealed
A Times of India report further highlighted this distinction. During the Supreme Court hearing, it was informed that against the 27 lakh-plus deletions on grounds of “logical discrepancy”, only around seven lakh people had filed appeals seeking restoration.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant that of the 38.1 lakh appeals filed before the tribunals, around 31 lakh were filed by people challenging the inclusion of names, claiming those individuals were ineligible to vote.
This means that nearly 20 lakh of the 27 lakh voters deleted for logical discrepancies had not filed appeals against their deletion.
The Supreme Court noted that a substantial number of appeals were actually challenging inclusion rather than seeking it. The EC was asked to provide a breakup of the appeals into those seeking inclusion and those seeking exclusion of names.
The court also expressed concern over the slow disposal rate. The 19 appellate tribunals had disposed of only around 82,000 appeals in four months. It directed the EC to suggest ways to speed up the process, including the possibility of increasing the number of tribunals.
The old headline was misleading because it presented the 91% restoration figure without making its limited scope clear. The figure relates to 82,782 disposed appeals, not the entire 27 lakh voters deleted during the SIR adjudication process.
China has long been running hacking campaigns against its friends and adversaries alike through its proxy networks for cyber espionage. The US authorities have detected and disrupted a major Chinese proxy network. On 26th August, the US Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced the disruption of a global botnet used by a Chinese state-sponsored group known as QTFY to target US critical infrastructure.
Chinese state-sponsored group QTFY created hacking platforms QScan and QTRouter to target US critical infrastructure
The hackers affiliated with the Chinese state-sponsored QTFY group were employed by Nanjing Xinjiuwei Network Technology Company, a China-based tech company. The QTFY group created and operated QScan and QRouter computer hacking services.
In a press release, the US Justice Department said, “The Justice Department and FBI announced court-authorised domain seizures today to deny malicious cyber actors access to two complementary hacking platforms known as “QScan” and “QTRouter,” used to target U.S. critical infrastructure and other sensitive networks. As described in court documents unsealed in the Southern District of California, a People’s Republic of China (PRC) state-sponsored group known as “QTFY,” employed by China-based Nanjing Xinjiuwei Network Technology Company (南京鑫玖维网络科技有限公司), created and operated QScan and QTRouter.”
The US authorities claim that the cyber-espionage group QTFY offered computer hacking services to its paying customers, including the Chinese government’s Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). These services included QScan and QTRouter.
Today, the @FBI and @TheJusticeDept announced the disruption of a global botnet used by Chinese state-sponsored group known as QTFY to target U.S. critical infrastructure.
Our investigation attributes QTFY to the Nanjing Xinjiuwei Network Technology Company, which sells stolen… pic.twitter.com/I5xOueyg2U
“Payments from the PRC’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) to Nanjing Xinjiuwei, for example, indicate that the company conducts malicious cyber activities on behalf of the PRC Government,” the US authorities said.
First, QScan scans and automatically infects thousands of internet-of-things (IoT) devices globally, then these targeted IoT devices are added to the QTRouter network of QTFY-controlled devices.
Notably, an internet of things (IoT) device is any computing device accessible on the Internet, including home routers, security cameras, smart TV devices, smart appliances, etc.
The QTRouter comprises compromised IoT devices, commercial proxy service devices and leased virtual private servers.
The QTRouter then functions as an obfuscation network, allowing QTFY and related Chinese cyber-espionage actors to hide the Chinese origin of their computer intrusion activities “because the malicious communications appear to originate from computers (such as those compromised by QScan) that are outside of the PRC and may even be local to the targeted networks.”
Since the seized domains were hard-coded into both the QScan and QTRouter malware and used for essential tasks such as communication and authentication, “the court-authorized seizures made QScan and QTRouter inoperable,” the US Justice Department said.
Chinese state-sponsored QTFY cyber-espionage network included former PLA members
As per the US Justice Department and the FBI, the QTFY actors included former members of the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army. These ex-military personnel leveraged their PLA relationships to secure contracts and subcontracts supporting offensive cyber operations.
The QTFY network has been active since 2018 and has been used to compromise critical infrastructure in the US, including the Senate.
The targeted US institutions included the “National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Federal Reserve, Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and, in 2026, the Senate,” the court affidavit reads.
In addition, the QTFY network also targeted hospitals, telecommunications providers, power companies, financial institutions, and defense contractors.
From cyber-espionage networks, spy recruitments, secret police stations, funding propaganda networks and election interference: How China serves its interests and weakens adversaries
From the 2025 Plug X surveillance malware removal by the FBI post-infection by the China-sponsored hacker group Mustang Panda, the 2024 Flax Typhoon group’s IoT infection for Chinese government customers, the 2023 Volt Typhoon network dismantlement to the now disrupted QTFY network, China has erected numerous cyber-espionage and hacking networks targeting critical infrastructure in the US and worldwide.
China’s tactics comprise a blend of human intelligence, cyber-espionage, and economic leverage to achieve its objectives.
The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has devised numerous tactics to further its interests on foreign soil and weaken its ‘adversaries’ from within.
Recently, it was reported that the British Royal Navy surveillance or spy drones used by elite special forces were found sending basic operating data to an IP address in China. The discovery was made during a routine cyber vulnerability assessment. Investigators found that cameras fitted to the drones contained some components made in China and were sending “heartbeat communications” to an IP address in the country.
While the British authorities denied any leakage of sensitive information, the discovery created national security concerns because the drones had been used near the headquarters of the Special Boat Service (SBS) in Poole, Dorset.
Last year, British domestic security and counter-intelligence agency MI5 warned MPs that Chinese intelligence services were “relentless” in their efforts to interfere with and influence Parliament. The warning included concerns that employment websites such as LinkedIn could be used to collect sensitive information.
The warning came weeks after a case involving two men, including a parliamentary researcher accused of spying for China, collapsed. The case was affected by the Labour Government’s inability to describe Beijing as an enemy.
Back in 2020, the Conservative government ordered Huawei to be removed from Britain’s 5G network following security concerns.
In India, the Indian government banned around 59 Chinese apps, including TikTok, WeChat, and UC Browser, in 2020, after it emerged that some apps originating from China were stealing user information and sending it to Chinese servers. The Modi government said that these apps were banned as they “engaged in activities which are prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state and public order”.
In April 2020, the Modi government effectively excluded Huawei from India’s 5G core networks and faced sustained restrictions on telecom contracts and equipment.
Notably, Huawei has long been under the scanner globally over allegations that Huawei devices and equipment collect sensitive data of foreign countries and pass them to the CCP in China. In 2022, the FBI investigation found that Chinese-made Huawei equipment was capable of disrupting US nuclear arsenal communications. Huawei equipment could not only intercept commercial call traffic but also critical communications made by the US Strategic Command via restricted airwaves.
In March this year, it was reported that India was pushing out Chinese CCTV makers including TP Link, Hikvision and Dahua out of the internet-connected camera market in the country. Back in 2021, the Indian government stated that around 10 lakh CCTV cameras installed in government institutions were sourced from Chinese companies. It acknowledged that video data captured through such devices could be transferred to servers located abroad, raising serious security concerns.
Beyond weaponisation of technology, China also relies on conventional spy recruitment methods. In early August 2026, it was reported that a former French Navy pilot, Pierre-Henri Chuet, came under formal investigation in France over allegations of passing sensitive military information to Chinese operatives.
Chuet made at least two undeclared trips to China in September 2018 and August 2019 while he was still serving in the French Navy. The trips were organised through the Test Flying Academy of South Africa (TFASA), a South African aviation company, which reportedly arranged training programs for Chinese military personnel.
The French Navy pilot under investigation had falsely claimed that during Operation Sindoor in May 2025, Pakistan’s Chinese-made fighter jets had shot down Indian Air Force (IAF) Rafales.
In September 2020, an Indian journalist, Rajeev Sharma, was arrested by a special cell of Delhi police under the Official Secrets Act for spying for China. Sharma was accused of passing sensitive information, including defence secrets, to Chinese intelligence. One Chinese woman and her Nepalese associate were also arrested for paying him large amounts of money routed through shell companies.
In December 2020, Afghanistan arrested 10 Chinese citizens on charges of espionage and operating a terror cell in the capital city of Kabul. The accused were allegedly collecting information about Al-Qaeda to nab Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) jihadis in Afghanistan, an internationally recognised terrorist group that China accuses of fomenting separatism in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).
Back in February 2021, the UK media reported that the authorities had expelled three Chinese spies who had posed as journalists.
The MI5 concluded that the three worked for China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) but had been using the cover of working for the country’s press agencies.
In July 2021, four Chinese nationals were charged in the US for being part of a Chinese global espionage campaign in which 12 countries including the US were targeted between July 2009 and September 2018.
In July 2020, when the US was grappling with the COVID pandemic, the Trump administration accused Chinese citizens of stealing scientific research and told the country’s diplomats in Texas to leave. The former US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo had then called the Houston Chinese consulate as a ‘hub of espionage activities”.
Recently, it was reported that secret email exchanges indicated that US health official colluded with scientist Peter Daszak to dismiss Wuhan lab leak theory about Corona virus’s Chinese origins.
China infiltrated corporates and foreign consulates for spying
In December 2020, it was reported citing the leaked CCP documents that the CCP through a recruitment agency executed a well-coordinated infiltration by getting its members employed in senior, specialist and advisory positions in consulates of countries such as India, UK, USA and Australia.
It must be recalled that Shaoquette Moselmane, an Australian MP was investigated in 2020 on charges of being a member of a global Chinese spy ring. Moselmane was highly pro-China and vocal about his inclination towards China.
China infiltrated foreign academia
The CCP has long faced allegations of having concocted a spy ring at top US universities, including Boston and Harvard. China sends trained spies disguised as students, who are tasked with stealing intellectual property and research documents from the university labs and send it back to China. In many cases, these spies are Chinese military officials masquerading as ‘students’.
Interestingly, Chinese students form the second largest pool of international students studying in US universities after India. In May 2025, the Trump administration announced its plans to revoke the visas for Chinese students, including those having links with the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.
The US authorities discovered about the Chinese spy ring in the US academic ecosystem in 2020, following the arrest of Professor Lieber, who was a research scientist at Harvard. Two Chinese spies posed as researchers were also charged as agents of a foreign government. The Chinese spies lied about their research work and used their access to smuggle research samples out of the US.
In October 2022, the US authorities indicted four Chinese nationals including three Ministry of State Security (MSS) intelligence officers for spying for China. The Chinese nationals, identified as Wang Lin, Bi Hongwei, Dong Ting, aka Chelsea Dong, and Wang Qiang, were entrusted to recruit individuals, particularly, professors, former law enforcement officials, state homeland security officials, for the Chinese government.
In 2025, Greece arrested four Chinese nationals, two men, a woman, and a teenager near the Tanagra airbase for spying on Rafale fighter jets.
China’s secret police stations on foreign soil
In the recent years, intelligence agencies of various countries have raised alarms that China is running illegal police stations on foreign land in at least 21 countries on five continents. Countries such as Ukraine, Canada, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom have such arrangements for Chinese police stations, and the leaders of the majority of these countries publicly question China’s rise and its deteriorating human rights records.
China has also been accused of using consulates and courts in other countries to suppress dissent against the CCP.
In January 2025, the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) report found that China was imposing its legal system on American soil through a network of nonprofit organisations in the United States linked to a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intelligence agency.
In December 2024, an American citizen pleaded guilty to involvement in operating a secret Chinese police station in Manhattan’s Chinatown.
Reports indicate that the CCP’s objective behind operating such illegal police stations is to suppress anti-China sentiments across the world, to spread communist ideology, bring back Chinese expats who violated Chinese law while abroad and to interfere in the governance and democratic processes of other countries.
Ashley Tellis, Neville Roy Singham and CCP’s narrative control network
For the CCP, narrative control both domestically and globally is crucial for clinging to power and furthering its interests. For authoritative regimes, the military is the main source of power and control; however, for the CCP, information/narrative is the key.
Be it suppressing the truth of the Tiananmen Square massacre to firewalling anti-government criticism, the CCP regime is of the view that its survival and unquestioned rule is contingent on narrative control. It is for this reason that the CCP has kept tight control over media, social media, public and private institutions, and even businesses.
China has cultivated assets in the US and other rival countries that not only extract sensitive information but also facilitate the CCP in maintaining a grip over how these countries and the perceives China.
In 2025, the US Department of Justice charged Ashley J. Tellis, a senior adviser to the U.S. State Department and a contractor with the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, for espionage and unlawful retention of classified documents.
Tellis, notorious for peddling anti-India propaganda, is accused of removing sensitive military documents from secure facilities and meeting Chinese officials multiple times in Virginia between 2022 and 2023. Federal prosecutors allege that Tellis discussed “emerging technologies” and “Iran–China relations,” and was seen carrying manila envelopes and accepting gift bags from Chinese representatives.
Tellis’s modus operandi was also being replicated in India. In August 2023, The New York Times published an explosive exposé revealing that Neville Roy Singham, an American millionaire “working closely with the Chinese Communist Party’s media machine,” was funnelling money to NewsClick, a far-left Indian portal.
Delhi Police chargesheet filed in 2024 described the Chinese state as the “ultimate paymaster”, with funds routed to stoke anti-India narratives, especially regarding Kashmir, and farmers’ protests. The case is ongoing in the court.
In 2021, OpIndia published an investigative report on the links of NewsClick and uncovered how it was linked to several individuals who regularly spew venom against India, from Urban Naxals to those like Teesta Setalvad, Abhisar Sharma and several others.
OpIndia previously reported about how the CCP created a transnational network of non-profits, activist groups, think tanks, and media outlets, operating as its propaganda machinery. The CCP orchestrated a pro-China information laundering network helmed by Neville Roy Singham, the US-born tech tycoon who sold his IT consulting firm Thoughtworks for about $785 million in 2017 before relocating to Shanghai.
This information laundering network erected at the CCP’s behest modifies raw activism into polished propaganda, which is then amplified by the Roy-Singham-funded network to sow discord in the US and other democracies while burnishing China’s image as a ‘benevolent’ counterweight to ‘imperialism’, particularly American imperialism, with the ongoing left-wing activism in Cuba being a textbook case of this.
From pro-Palestine activism in the US, influx of far-left activists in Cuba amidst President Trump’s rising interest in the country, to ‘No War’ activism over the Iran war, these seemingly spontaneous and genuine anti-war protests are in reality, a part of well-organised, well-funded, and politically-motivated campaign, orchestrated by organisations and activists all finding their roots in the Neville Roy Singham’s network of philanthropic organisations, think thanks, media, and activists, intellectuals, celebrities, political organisers and comrades.
As reported earlier, Neville Roy Singham funnelled over $278 million directly into his pro-China propaganda network since 2017, with total money flows exceeding $591 million across 223 transactions spanning five continents through the year 2025. The massive amount was pumped into over a thousand interconnected organisations, of which around 200 are directly involved in creating and propagating pro-China and anti-America messaging at the CCP’s behest.
China’s foreign election interference
For years, China has been accused of meddling in and influencing elections in several countries through numerous tactics. In mid-July 2026, US President Donald Trump declassified and publicised several intelligence and law enforcement documents from 2020, alleging that China acquired 200 million American voter data and exploited vulnerabilities in the US election system to influence the poll in Joe Biden’s favour.
China has also been accused of meddling in Canadian elections. In June 2024, a Canadian intelligence watchdog, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), released a report titled: Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions. It uncovered the extensive interference of China in Canada’s electoral and legislative affairs. The redacted report mentions how certain Canadian MPs colluded with China.
The report also mentioned the CCP’s alleged illegal attempts to intervene in Canadian elections, bribing Canadian officials, and using covert techniques to exploit Canada’s indigenous people for resource extraction, as mentioned in the non-redacted 2019 version of the report.
The NSICOP report stated that China used social media alongside the legacy media to influence the opinions of Canadian voters, ethnocultural groups and parliamentarians.
During the 2021 federal election in Canada, the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force (SITE) noted that mainstream media and social media activities aimed at discouraging voters from supporting the Conservative Party. While a direct link to the Chinese government did not emerge, the pattern indicated a coordinated campaign orchestrated by China.
In addition to Canada, China has also weaponised social media to influence elections in India and the US. In 2023, Facebook’s parent Meta revealed that it took down a network of 4789 China-based fake and misleading accounts. These accounts were created with the purpose of propagating misleading information about sensitive issues related to US politics, US-China relations, and Indian politics.
While China obviously denies any wrongdoing, there is a clear pattern of the CCP’s covert and sinister activities to undermine its perceived adversaries and rivals.
A chilling incident came to light in Sector 20 of Noida, Uttar Pradesh, where a 13-year-old Hindu boy was brutally murdered, and his body was dumped in a bag. The Noida Police reportedly found the victim, Ayush Shukla’s, mutilated and semi-decomposed body stuffed in a bag in a park in Sector-54 on the night of 21st August. Three minor accused have reportedly been detained by the police in connection with the incident.
Ayush went missing after he went to attend a birthday party
Ayush, who studied at Kendriya Vidyalaya in Sector 24, went missing on 17th August (some reports mention 16th August), when he left home to attend a birthday party. When Ayush did not return, his mother, Yogmaya, went to the police station and informed the police that her son did not return. The victim’s mother said that she paid multiple visits to the Sector-12/22 police post and the Sector-24 and Sector-20 police stations, but the police refused to register a missing person’s report, citing jurisdiction issues.
As per reports, two days after Ayush’s body was found by the police, it was sent for post-mortem. The police showed a photograph of the body to the victim’s family on Monday night (24th August). The next morning, the victim’s family visited the mortuary where Ayush’s body was kept and identified it through his belt and a kalawa tied around his wrist.
What Ayush’s mother said
Ayush’s mother, Yogmaya, works at the Bhangel Community Health Centre (CHC) on a contractual basis. She lives in a rented house in Sector 20 with her children, while her husband lives in Lucknow. Ayush was the only son among her three children.
According to Yogmaya, some Muslim boys named Asad, Asrad, Asrad’s friend, and another took Ayush with them, saying that there was a birthday party. She said that the Muslim boys took Ayush to their place, where they brutally stabbed him to death, chopped his body into pieces and dumped it in a drain. She said that Ayush’s hands and legs have not been found. She has refused to cremate her son until her killers are killed in an encounter.
“I will perform my only son’s last rites only when his killers are killed in an encounter. They stabbed him repeatedly. His hands and legs have not even been found. Despite recovering the body, police did not inform us,” the mother reportedly said.
#NOIDA में खोड़ा जैसी वारदात से हड़कंप!#नोएडा के चौड़ा गांव में 14 साल के आयुष शुक्ला की हत्या से सनसनी। आरोप है कि असद जन्मदिन की पार्टी के बहाने आयुष को घर से बुलाकर ले गया था। इसके बाद चाकू से हमला कर हत्या किए जाने का आरोप है। बताया जा रहा है कि असद ने दोस्तों के सामने आयुष… pic.twitter.com/7yyReKP8a4
— निशान्त शर्मा (भारद्वाज) (@Nishantjournali) August 25, 2026
The incident has triggered outrage in the entire neighbourhood, as Ayush’s family and neighbours are demanding stringent action against the killers.
Minor Hindu boy Ayush Shukla brutally murdered and dismembered by three Muslim accused in Noida.
His body was stuffed into a sack and dumped in a drain. A horrific crime that has left a family shattered.
Police issues statement, says accused and victims belong to the same community
While Ayush’s mother said that some Muslim boys killed her son, the police issued a clarification in the matter.
Additional DCP Manisha Singh stated that a case was registered immediately upon receiving the family’s complaint on 24th August. She added that a minor has been taken into police custody in connection with the case, while a search for the other accused is underway.
थाना सेक्टर-24 नोएडा क्षेत्रांतर्गत दिनांक 25.08.2026 को वादिया द्वारा तहरीर दी गई कि उनका 13 वर्षीय पुत्र हैप्पी उर्फ आयुष शुक्ला घर से खेलने के लिए अपने दोस्तो के घर गया था, जिसके बाद वापस नहीं आया। वादिया की तहरीर पर सुसंगत धाराओं में अभियोग पंजीकृत है। मुख्य बाल अपचारी को… pic.twitter.com/Fse0GYA5IY
— POLICE COMMISSIONERATE GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR (@noidapolice) August 25, 2026
Addl DCP Singh further said that no visible external injuries were found on Ayush’s body during the post-mortem examination. Viscera samples have been preserved to determine the exact cause of death.
The incident has refreshed the painful memories of a similar incident that happened in the Khoda area of Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh in May. A 17-year-old Hindu boy, Surya Chauhan, was stabbed to death by his Muslim friends after being invited to a Bakrid gathering.
The Jammu and Kashmir State Investigation Agency (SIA) has again started the inquiry into the Wandhama massacre, in which 23 Kashmiri Pandits lost their lives in the Ganderbal region of central Kashmir, after 28 years. The move is part of a larger effort to probe long-standing cases of targeted killings during the peak of terrorism in the valley. The intention is to uncover new evidence regarding the deaths as well as trace and convict the perpetrators.
According to sources, the agency has also intensified its inquiry into the assassination of Justice Neelkanth Ganjoo, who awarded a death sentence to JKLF (Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front) founder Mohammad Maqbool Bhat and that of well-known Kashmiri Pandit lawyer Tika Lal Taploo, who was the vice-president of Jammu and Kashmir BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) and an RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) member, reported India Today.
It also reopened the cases about the deaths of writer Sarwanand Koul Premi and his son Virender Koul, as well as Kashmiri Pandit nurse Sarla Bhat. The insiders revealed that SIA raided many places in Kashmir a few days ago in relation to Taploo’s murder and the Wandhama horror. Terrorists and those who assisted them in carrying out these heinous acts are currently being identified by investigators to determine their roles in the attacks.
The agency is also looking into the larger terror network that is involved in these assaults, including potential financial handlers, white-collar terror conspirators and overground aides who are believed to have provided safe homes and reconnaissance. Simultaneous raids have been conducted across north, south and central Kashmir to retrieve digital devices, financial information and historical papers that might help authorities in filling in any gaps in the case. Moreover, the SIA is pursuing leads that remained unsolved for decades through public outreach and digital forensics.
“SIA Kashmir has already launched a focused investigation into these decades-old cases as a mission of utmost importance. All-out efforts are underway to unravel the underlying conspiracies, unearth and establish credible evidence, and identify the perpetrators strictly based on evidence and witness testimony. The objective is clear: to bring these cases to their logical conclusion on the merits, ensuring that truth prevails and those responsible are brought to justice,” a senior official shared.
What was the Wandhama massacre?
The gruesome tragedy happened overnight on 25th January 1998 during Shab-e-Qadr, the holiest night of Ramadan and on the eve of India’s Republic Day. Nearly 20 terrorists with their Kalashnikov rifles arrived at the doors of Kashmiri Pandit families staying in their ancestral homes in Wandhama. The assailants raised no suspicion because they were wearing Army camouflage. They then asked for tea to buy time to contact their collaborators who were covering the residences.
The terrorists completed the coordination and unleashed gunfire on the vulnerable Hindus. Some were hauled up from their homes and had bullets sprayed into their bodies, while others were shot dead at point-blank range with AK-47 rifles. Such an act of targeted savagery and violence had not been witnessed against the community since the 1990 atrocities that prompted the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits
Nine women, nine men and four children were among the twenty-three fatalities. The bodies also included those of five visitors who had travelled from Jammu to meet their relatives in the area. The jihadis claimed the lives of four families that fateful night. Vinod Kumar Dhar, a 14-year-old boy, managed to survive the brutality after going into hiding as his family members were being slaughtered.
However, he was so traumatised that he refused to leave the house whenever army officials showed up. “He just saw people in army uniform killing his family members with brutality and was so afraid,” recounted Kashmiri Pandit activist Sanjay Tickoo. The boy did not step outside until the next morning when Jammu and Kashmir Police reached in their khaki attire.
Afterwards, the attackers desecrated temples and set the Hindu homes on fire, annihilating the Kashmiri Pandit community from Wandhama. Notably, these defenceless victims had decided to remain in Kashmir and did not leave even after terrorism erupted in the region in the early 1990s. The episode caused the community to flee the valley for the second time.
The police attributed the brutality to Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) as Kashmiri Pandits in Jammu and Delhi staged rallies. Nine protestors were hurt as demonstrators in the national capital marched in the direction of the National Human Rights Commission on 26th January and clashed with the cops.
The aftermath
The survivor, who is presently employed by the government on a compensatory basis, reportedly told the authorities that the gunmen were in Army disguises. A formal complaint was submitted at the Ganderbal Police station on his allegations and further statements from the families who escaped the assault. A probe was initiated, but its results were not disclosed.
S L Bhat, the Kashmir Divisional Commissioner at the time, was one of the first to react to the carnage and called it the “worst incident” he had ever seen. He added that “foreign mercenaries” were responsible for the murders. The backlash against the insufficient security arrangements intensified as the Army unveiled that the perpetrators were identified as a gang of 10 to 12 foreigners who were assisted by local terrorists.
According to a spokesperson for the defence ministry at the time, the natives were known to have links to some local political figures, which emboldened them to commit the attack. Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist Hamid Bhatt, also known as Hamid Gada, was neutralised in 2000 by the Jammu and Kashmir Police after it was established that he was responsible for that attack.
He was reportedly the son of the guardian of the renowned Kheer Bhawani temple and had ascended to the highest ranks of Hizbul Mujahideen in the valley after being inspired by Jamaat-e-Islami.
Reopening of old cases
SIA has reopened several cases which revolve around the murders of the Kashmiri Pandits throughout the past three years. The case of retired judge Neelkanth Ganjoo, who was murdered in Srinagar on 4th November 1989, was revisited in 2023. He was attacked because he condemned Maqbool Bhat to death in 1968.
The case of Sarla Bhat, a nurse who worked at the Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) in Srinagar, was reopened by the SIA in August of last year. On 18th April 1990, terrorists kidnapped her from her hostel, and her body was discovered the following day with several gunshot wounds. In June, the agency filed a 737-page chargesheet in a court regarding the matter.
On 14th September 1989, Tika Lal Taploo was shot dead outside his residence in Srinagar. It was among the first targeted killings of prominent Kashmiri Pandits as terrorism established roots in the valley. The case is presently under investigation by the SIA.
Similarly, the May 1990 double homicide of 65-year-old Kashmiri Pandit poet and writer Sarwanand Kaul Premi as well as his 27-year-old son Virender Kaul in their hometown of Soaf Shali in Kokernag of Anantnag is also being examined. SIA searched nine places in the union territory on 12th August in relation to the case.
Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta has urged Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to appoint a Chief Justice from another state to the Rajasthan High Court “with immediate effect”. In three letters written on 2nd, 10th and 17th August, Justice Mehta accused the High Court’s acting Chief Justice, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, of “maladministration” and “malpractices”.
Justice Mehta said that Justice Sharma had been misusing his administrative powers as master of the roster and selectively moving cases to his own bench. He also claimed that certain cases involving influential or wealthy litigants were being handled in a manner that raised questions about the functioning of the High Court.
A rare controversy has emerged within the judiciary after Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote to CJI Surya Kant, seeking a change in leadership at the Rajasthan High Court. His letters alleged misuse of administrative powers by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash… pic.twitter.com/l8EoyosLaZ
Justice Mehta says cases were shifted without justification
In his 2nd August letter, Justice Mehta said he had earlier raised concerns about the functioning of Justice Sharma with the CJI. He claimed that he had pointed to several instances in which cases listed before other benches were suddenly withdrawn and moved to Justice Sharma’s court “without any justifiable cause”.
According to Justice Mehta, the CJI had initially asked him to provide details of such cases. However, he later told him that there was no need to put the allegations in writing and assured him that “suitable action” would be taken.
Justice Mehta said that despite this assurance, his request for the appointment of a Chief Justice from another state to head his parent High Court had not received a positive response. “However, till date, the request to have a Chief Justice from another State in my parent High Court has met no positive response,” he wrote.
He also said he had received complaints about Justice Sharma’s judicial functioning which, in his view, “prima facie, raise doubts on his integrity”.
Udaipur land case and mining matter cited
In another letter written on 10th August, Justice Mehta cited two cases that he described as “living proof” of an attempt by Justice Sharma to use his administrative powers before his retirement on 26th September.
One of the cases involved a batch of appeals concerning what Justice Mehta described as “priceless lands” in Udaipur. He said that these matters were shifted to a bench headed by Justice Sharma at Jaipur even though Justice Sharma had previously held that cases falling within the jurisdiction of the principal seat at Jodhpur should be heard there.
Justice Mehta also referred to senior advocate Kamlakar Sharma, who was appearing for one of the parties. He added that Justice Sharma was “espousing the elevation” of the senior advocate’s daughter-in-law as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
Justice Mehta argued that because the original order was passed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a special appeal could not be maintained against it. He alleged that the Registry nevertheless “manipulated” the case by registering it as a Special Appeal Writ and listing it before Justice Sharma’s bench.
According to Justice Mehta, the bench condoned a delay of 457 days on the first day itself and stayed a direction contained in the single judge’s order.
He also pointed out that the lawyer representing the petitioner, Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, had been associated with Justice Sharma during his years as a lawyer.
“These instances manifest brazen misuse of powers by the Acting Chief Justice Mr S.P. Sharma to favour influential parties and smack of corruption,” Justice Mehta wrote.
Allegations over administration of Rajasthan HC
Justice Mehta’s third letter, written on 17th August, raised several other concerns about the administration of the Rajasthan High Court and the treatment of members of the subordinate judiciary.
He referred to a message written by Rajasthan High Court judge Justice Uma Shankar Vyas to a group of sitting judges. According to Justice Mehta, the message expressed concern over what he described as retaliatory action by Justice Sharma against Nandini Vyas, the judge’s wife and a senior officer in the district judiciary.
Justice Mehta also raised the issue of a new building for the Jodhpur District Court (Metro). He said the building had been operationally and functionally complete for about a year but that Justice Sharma had put its inauguration on hold after visiting the site and ordered major changes to its infrastructure.
Justice Mehta said this was particularly concerning because several courts in the Jodhpur Metro judgeship were still operating from rented premises. He described the resulting loss to the institution as “unpardonable”.
The 40-court building was eventually inaugurated by CJI Surya Kant on 15th August after Justice Mehta and Supreme Court judge Justice Vijay Bishnoi requested him to do so, according to the letter.
Concern over judges’ conference and senior advocates
Justice Mehta also criticised the organisation of a three-day international conference in Jaipur from 31st July to 2nd August.
He claimed that almost all Rajasthan High Court judges had been nominated to attend the event, leaving the Jodhpur principal seat without a functional court for two days. He further added that around 20 to 22 district judges were also nominated, leaving their respective districts without their senior-most judicial officers.
Justice Mehta said the conference was largely organised by lawyers’ organisations and was substantially funded from the public exchequer. He claimed that the Rajasthan government spent around ₹80 lakh on the event.
He also wrote that a Full Court meeting held on 31st July was used to push a proposal to designate around 96 advocates as senior advocates without adequate prior discussion or a uniform criterion. According to him, the proposal could not be approved because some judges opposed it.
‘Judges expressed anguish’ over Justice Sharma’s conduct
Justice Mehta further claimed that several Rajasthan High Court judges had approached him during his visits to the state and complained about Justice Sharma’s conduct.
“Numerous Judges of Rajasthan High Court have met me and expressed their anguish at the behaviour of Mr Justice SP Sharma, who frequently threatens his colleague Judges of retributive action including transfer claiming his closeness with Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India,” he wrote.
Justice Mehta also said that Justice Sharma had a “seriously skewed and biased perception” of the Jodhpur principal seat and had been heard saying that he would “destroy the very fabric” of the seat. He therefore repeatedly urged the Supreme Court Collegium to appoint a Chief Justice from another High Court and transfer Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan.
“Continued ignorance of the request is, in my opinion, wholly against the interest of the Institution,” Justice Mehta wrote in his 17th August letter.
Justice Sharma’s judicial career
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma was appointed a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016. He was transferred to the Patna High Court in January 2022. His request to return to Rajasthan on health grounds was not accepted by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023, and he was instead transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Collegium later recommended his repatriation to Rajasthan in May 2025.
Justice S Shriram became Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court in July 2025 but retired from the post in September that year. Justice Sharma has since been serving as the acting Chief Justice for more than 10 months.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, meanwhile, was appointed a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in May 2011. He became Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court in February 2023 and was elevated to the Supreme Court in November of the same year.
Over the years, it has become ritualistic to use Hindu festivals for pushing the flawed idea of progressiveness, modernity, secularism, and feminism. This year, a jewellery brand advertisement for Raksha Bandhan, featuring actress Kriti Sanon, has sparked backlash online for her attire and the concept of the ad.
Revealing outfit of Kriti Sanon, missing traditional elements, and inclusion of a dog: GIVA Raksha Bandhan ad triggers outrage
In the recently released pet jewellery collection ad by GIVA centred on the Raksha Bandhan theme, actress Kriti Sanon is wearing an ivory or off-white bralette-style blouse with a cape and draped skirt while tying Rakhi to an on-screen brother and then to a dog described as family.
While Sanon’s ‘revealing’ outfit drew maximum criticism for being “inappropriate” for the Hindu festival celebrating sibling bond, social media users also criticised the absence of the key religious markers associated with the festival; the puja thali was present only as an insignificant prop. Many also deemed the inclusion of a dog as a mockery of the ritual.
The debate is turning to feminism and women's choices.. but it is not.
GiVa wanted to sell Dog's Rakhis and bracelets by showing bralette of Kriti sanon.
Nothing wrong with it per se. Sex sells. And coz they wanted to sell Pet Rakhis, so they chose occasion of Rakshabandhan… pic.twitter.com/ppTclVwNDy
Kriti Sanon defends revealing outfit in Rakhi ad, Rahul Gandhi jumps in to support her
After the outrage over the GIVA Raksha Bandhan ad, Kriti Sanon published an expected defence via her Instagram Story, arguing that the essence of festivals lies not in the clothes one wears but in the emotions and meaning held for the traditions. Regarding outrage over her outfit in the ad, Sanon asked, “When will we stop telling women what to wear??”
“The essence of festivals is not in the clothes you wear; it is in the emotions and meaning you hold for the traditions. Rakshabandhan is a bond of protection. My sister and I tie rakhi to each other. We know we can protect each other no less than a brother would have. We pray for each other’s health, happiness & long life. And for us, this prayer and promise extends to our dogs too! Afterall, they are family!” she wrote.
“Also, when will we stop telling women what to wear?? Ethnic fashion has evolved over the years, but still a woman’s respect for her culture is measured with just her clothes!! Culture & Traditions are in her heart, not in her neckline!” Sanon added.
Quite conveniently, Kriti Sanon turned the matter into a feminism issue, making it about women’s autonomy and agency; however, the issue was, in fact, about preserving the sanctity of a sacred Hindu festival.
Meanwhile, Congress MP Rahul Gandhi jumped in to exploit the issue to gain traction and bolster his image as a ‘feminist hero’ amidst the controversial ‘Smash The Patriarchy’ campaign that selectively targets Hindus.
Gandhi wrote, “What a woman wears, what she does and where she goes – is her choice. Stop trolling women for exercising their freedom,” adding the hashtag #SmashThePatriarchy.
Kangana Ranaut slams GIVA jewellery ad over the outfit worn by Kriti Sanon
Actress and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut expressed sharp criticism against the Raksha Bandhan ad by GIVA jewellery featuring Kriti Sanon. While Ranaut was not opposed to Sanon’s outfit itself, she questioned, “Why would you tie your brother a Rakhi in your bikini?”
In an Instagram Story published on 25th August, Kangana Ranaut wrote, “It’s is a wonderful time to be a woman, our closets are full of variety of clothes, today’s woman is a global woman, from cocktail dresses to lehnga cholis, jeans to saris, bikins to salwar kameez, from all the options that are available to us today why would you tie your brother a Rakhi in your bikini/ undergarments? Where are all your styling options? Ha ha the advert looks intentionally creepy!
GIVA retracts controversial ad amidst outrage, makes it about dogs even as the primary issue was Kriti Sanon’s inappropriate attire
On 26th August (Wednesday), the jewellery brand GIVA announced that it had taken down its Raksha Bandhan ad with actress Kriti Sanon, a day after her attire drew harsh criticism on social media. The company withdrew the advertisement and stated that it did not want to “hurt the sentiments of some segments of society.”
“We have the highest regard and deep respect for Indian culture, traditions and festivals. As a brand, we have always believed in celebrating these joyous moments with the entire family and this time we wanted to extend the love and celebration to our pets. If our recent advertisement has inadvertently hurt the sentiments of some segments of society, that was not our intent at all. Out of respect, we have withdrawn the said advertisement from all media,” the company tried to defend itself in an official statement.
However, GIVA quite oversmartly made its statement about the controversial commercial’s concept of tying Rakhi to a dog, even as the main issue was Kriti Sanon’s outfit inappropriate for the occasion of Raksha Bandhan.
GIVA jewellery brand, perhaps, thought that they would lose ‘progressive’ points if they acknowledged that the primary outrage was about Sanon’s attire in the ad and not tying Rakhi to dogs.
The commercial’s retraction is essentially a damage control move designed in a way that the retraction would pacify those outraged, and also ensure that they will not have to address the issue of Sanon’s inappropriate attire, and appear ‘regressive’.
No, Kriti Sanon, outrage over neckline was not about suppressing a woman’s choice or agency; it was about the sanctity of Raksha Bandhan
Let it be made clear: no one has any objections to Kriti Sanon’s choice of wearing any attire. No one is even interested in telling her what clothes she should wear or should not in her personal life, as that is totally her prerogative. Sanon is a public figure and has worn diverse types of attire from suits and sarees to bikinis in her movies, but no one has ever raised questions.
Invoking personal choice and agency is wrong when the context is public commercialisation. The issue was solely about her outfit being inappropriate for the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, a sacred Hindu festival celebrating the sibling bond. The sexualisation of a sacred Hindu festival is intolerable. Context-based appropriateness matters.
Had the actor portraying her on-screen brother in the film been shown bare-chested, the public outrage would have been similar because the issue is not about gender but context and the sacredness of the festival.
The criticism was specifically about the occasion and representation. The commercial built around Raksha Bandhan used a bralette-style, plunging neckline blouse instead of traditional festive clothing, combined with tying Rakhi to a dog and skipping even the basic aarti and tilak rituals.
The outrage was not that women should not wear deep neckline outfits or that Kriti Sanon has no right as a woman to wear such outfits or any other outfit she likes. The criticism remained focused on this particular styling and concept in this specific advertisement explicitly invoking a sacred sibling-protection festival.
These high-sounding arguments that ‘clothes don’t define culture’ are factually incorrect. Attire is a crucial marker of cultures globally. You see a Lehenga-Choli, you know it’s Indian, specifically Hindu attire. You see a Burqa, you know it’s Muslim attire; you see a Kimono, you know it’s Japanese attire. Just as
The question was about how the makers of the ad film took the liberty to treat the sacred Hindu festival as a flexible fashion and lifestyle backdrop.
“The essence of festivals is not in the clothes you wear, it is in the emotions”, “a woman’s respect for her culture is measured with just her clothes”, “when will we stop telling women what to wear?” None of Kriti Sanon’s remarks grasps the crux of the issue.
Kriti Sanon gave the issue a rhetorically effective spin, making it about illegitimate and regressive policing of women’s bodies and choices. Perhaps Sanon knew that it would respond to the charge about sanctity and suitability with an argument about agency and evolution of ethnic fashion; one would either fail to argue in abstract terms or end up appearing regressive and patriarchal gatekeepers of religion and culture.
While Sanon initiated relocation of the conversation from the festival’s sanctity and her attire’s suitability to personal liberty and feminism, Rahul Gandhi completed it with his “what a woman wears…is her choice…Smash the Patriarchy” remarks. The debate soon shifted from the GIVA jewellery commercial diluting the essence and religiosity of Raksha Bandhan to ‘trolling women for their clothing choices’.
Hinduism, Hindu culture, festivals and their celebrations are very diverse. In many places, particularly North India, a Puja Thali for Raksha Bandhan comprises a Rakhi, Kumkum for Tilak, turmeric-mixed uncooked rice or Haldi-Akshat, Doob or Durva grass.
Since the GIVA commercial was shot in Hindi and in a North Indian setting, at least some of these, if not all, elements should have been incorporated in the ad, however, the makers were so invested in the concept of glorifying the concept of glorifying Rakhi to a dog and picking inappropriate attire for Kriti Sanon, that they omitted even the basic traditional elements associated with the festival.
The question also arises as to who has given the authority to the makers of ad films to misappropriate Hindu festivals and disrespect Hindu traditions to push their supposed ‘progressive’ agenda.
Why did GIVA not release its pet jewellery collection advertisement on Bakrid, with the message, “This Bakrid, don’t slaughter goats, gift them our jewellery”.
Kriti Sanon has visited Gurudwaras, wished Eid on social media pages, and in all such appearances, she wore occasion-appropriate dresses.
In June 2017, Kriti Sanon visited the Gurudwara Bangla Sahib in New Delhi. During her visit, she wore a light pink salwar suit and covered her head as per the tradition. Why did she not wear a revealing outfit and boast that ‘ethnic fashion has evolved’, ‘respect for Gurus is in the heart, not in the neckline!”
Social media users have highlighted Kriti Sanon’s past posts extending wishes on Eid, and other non-Hindu festivals wherein her attire appeared to a great extent, if not fully appropriate culturally.
There are also pictures and videos wherein Kriti Sanon is seen attending someone’s funeral or related prayer meet. Sanon chose to wear a traditional white dress. Why wear white attire, isn’t respect in heart and does not reflect in attire?
From GIVA ad to Manyavar’s Kanyamaan: Why are Hindu festivals and traditions an easy tool for ad creatives to push their liberal-progressive agenda?
Notably, this is not the first time that a commercial has misused Hindu traditions for pushing unrelated agendas at the cost of mocking the tradition itself. Back in September 2021, Clothing brand Manyavar received flak after its ad campaign painted Hindu rituals and customs as ‘regressive’. The advertisement featuring Alia Bhatt portrays ‘Kanyadaan’ as an oppressive practice and suggests ‘Kanyamaan’ as an alternative.
Manyavar claimed that it was “Promoting a progressive way of thinking, one tradition at a time!” Apparently, ‘Kanyamaan’ “gives a new spin to wedding rituals, highlighting the idea of respecting brides instead of ‘giving them away’.”
People had questioned back then why Manyavar did not make similar ‘progressive’ suggestions for Islamic Nikah ceremonies, which are essentially a form of contract marriages. It was also rightly asked that Hindu marriages accord maximum respect to women and yet they only get scrutinised through ‘Kanyamaan’ type propaganda, while Muslims continue to practice polygamy, and remain exempt from criticism or scrutiny of any kind.
In 2019, Hindustan Unilever received backlash over a Surf Excel Holi advertisement, showing a small Hindu girl making sure her neighbourhood kids are out of colour so that she could take her Muslim neighbour, also a kid of the same age, for namaz without fear of getting colour splashed at him.
Before this, the FMCG conglomerate released another Hinduphobic ad reducing the Kumbh Mela to a place where people go to abandon their ageing parents.
In 2021, Fab India secularised, rather Islamised, the Hindu festival of Diwali by launching its Diwali collection with the name ‘Jashn-e-Riwaaz’. The brand made a reference to the ‘festival of love and light’ in one of their deleted tweets.
It needs to be seriously studied how and why Hindus, be it Bollywood actors, social media influencers or common Hindus, have conditioned themselves into associating modernity, progressiveness, secularism, inclusivity, and all sorts of activism with Hindu festivals, even at the cost of stripping them of their religious and cultural significance.
Why is it that these maximal liberties with reinterpretation of festivals, their meanings, and symbolism are taken only with Hindu festivals and traditions, while when it comes to Eid, Christmas, or any other non-Hindu festival, their religious and cultural significance is highlighted and sanctity is protected?
Apparently, the answer lies in knowing the extent of the outrage of the affected community. Hindu festivals, traditions, beliefs, even scriptures are subjected to public scrutiny, sometimes even to derogatory questioning and ridicule because it is known that the Hindu community would not react violently. Their outrage would either stay confined to social media, peaceful demonstrations or legal remedies.
The reason ad creatives, filmmakers, actors and politicians do not dare to execute even performative scrutiny of the traditions, beliefs, festivals, or scriptures of Muslims, Christians, or any other religious community, knowing that their outrage will not be limited to social media.
Muslims have a history of hitting the streets, running riots, giving open calls for Sar Tan Se Juda against those whom they perceived have ‘insulted’ their religion. None exemplifies this better than the 2022 Nupur Sharma episode. The ex-BJP spokesperson had only uttered the facts mentioned in the Islamic scriptures, and yet Muslims perceived it as an ‘insult’ and rioted across the country, burning Sharma’s effigy.
Once PETA India attempted to preach to Muslims kindness towards animals on Eid, they were assaulted, and since then, the body has reduced its advocacy against animal slaughter on Bakrid largely to social media.
Salman Rushdie was attacked by a Muslim man years after his book Satanic Verses was first published.
Even at present, the Congress party has opened a front against the Manusmriti, the Hindu scripture, calling it ‘anti-woman’, selectively highlighting its verses and misinterpreting them. However, the so-called ‘secular’ party did not dare to throw light on Quranic verses that declare women as less intelligent than women, or regressive verses from any other religious scriptures.
Why? Because they know that these communities are ‘minorities’ only in number, but are unparalleled when it comes to weaponising street veto.
From films, advertisements, to intellectual and political discourse, Hindu festivals, traditions, beliefs, and even Gods are subjected to scrutiny, criticism, and even mockery, because somehow the country which had been under Congress rule for a significant period of time, fostered a culture of criticising and ‘reforming’ everything Hindu to come across as liberal and progressive, protecting the sanctity of the religious traditions, symbols, and culture regardless of ‘minorities’ to uphold secularism, tolerance, and ‘idea of India’.
The Kriti Sanon-Raksha Bandhan ad episode is a disturbing continuation of exploiting Hindu traditions for peddling supposedly ‘progressive’ and ‘modern’ agendas by stripping the tradition or festival itself of its true religious and cultural essence. Once again, Hindus have been painted as ‘regressive’ for pushing back against misappropriation and distortion of their festival, while those behind this violation are being hailed as progressive feminists braving ‘patriarchy’.
The silver lining, however, is that the Hindu community has stopped bothering about what Islamo-leftists label them for protecting the sanctity of their festivals and traditions. Hindus no longer allow unchecked turning of their festivals into blank canvases for ‘progressive’ advertising.
It’s been over two months since Indian Merchant Navy Captain Ajay Pant was arrested after the British forces intercepted a tanker he was commanding in the English Channel. Pant was arrested on 14th June when the UK National Crime Agency and the British Armed Forces seized the oil tanker, MV Smyrtoz, which was reportedly carrying 98,000 tonnes of crude oil.
The British authorities have alleged that Pant was captaining the tanker, which is said to be part of Russia’s ghost fleet, a network of vessels allegedly used by Moscow to evade oil sanctions imposed by the West following the war with Ukraine in 2022. The Russian ghost fleet vessels reportedly have opaque ownership and insurance, which make it difficult to trace their ownership or origin.
Pant is the only one in the crew facing charges
Captain Ajay Pant, who hails from Uttarakhand’s Nainital, has been accused of breaching the British sanctions on Russian oil shipments. He is the only sailor among the entire crew of the vessel to face criminal charges. The remaining 24 sailors on the vessel, which remains anchored off the southern English coast, have been let off, with most of them having been repatriated.
The UK prosecutors have alleged that Pant was the master of the vessel and was responsible for the ship’s movement and therefore had knowledge about what the vessel was carrying. However, Pant’s lawyer rejected the allegation and contended that he was only following the vessel owner’s instructions.
The British prosecutors have charged Pant with the alleged supply or delivery of sanctioned Russian oil or oil products to a third country. The offences he is charged with carry a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. His trial begins on 15th December.
The case has triggered concerns among sailors regarding their safety and accountability amid the recent tensions between countries and the resultant sanctions and actions at sea.
Speaking to the AFP on the case, Steve Yandell, coordinator of the seafarers section of the International Transport Workers’ Federation, reportedly said that sailors are not always aware of what their vessel is carrying. He added that this puts sailors at risk of being stuck in the middle of a geopolitical conflict. “Seafarers will often not know that their ship might be carrying sanctioned oil, and that they’re potentially open to getting caught up in a geopolitical conflict,” Yandell reportedly said.
Pant’s family awaits his return
Captain Pant’s wife Ritu Pant, who has been awaiting his release, said that her husband has been made a scapegoat. Speaking to the media for the first time since her husband’s arrest, Ritu Pant reportedly told AFP, “My husband just became the scapegoat. He was at the wrong place at the wrong time”. She said that when she spoke to him over a phone call, he sounded devastated and broke down during the conversation.
She said that Pant told her that he had no clue about what had happened. “He didn’t know what had happened to him… He just said, ‘I am in jail, please take me out’,” she said. Recalling a conversation days before his arrest, Ritu said that Pant spoke to her about how dangerous it had become to work at sea in recent times. He was pointing to the deaths of Indian sailors around the Strait of Hormuz amid the US-Iran war in the Middle East.
“He said that the sea is becoming very difficult now. I was just praying and telling him that, ‘Just be calm, be careful and just keep contacting us’,” Ritu said. Pant has been in British custody since his arrest, as he was denied bail. His family in India is trying to comprehend the circumstances of his arrest. His mother Deepa has appealed to the Indian government to intervene and secure the release of her son.
Indian authorities keeping a close watch
Soon after Pant’s arrest in June, the Indian government released a statement informing the public that it has been closely monitoring the situation through the Indian High Commission in London. The Indian High Commission sent a letter to the Uttarakhand CM Pushkar Singh Dhami in the same month, updating him on Pant’s case. The Indian High Commission informed him that Pant was in judicial custody at HMP Winchester.
On 19th June, days after his arrest, Indian officials contacted Pant through the telephone system of the prison, where he was lodged. During the conversation, Pant reportedly informed them that he was in good health, had access to medical care and was regularly in touch with his wife.
The Indian High Commission has also raised the matter with the UK authorities to ensure that Pant gets consular access. The Commission has also been in touch with Pant’s family, lawyers and employer, Energios Maritime Private Limited, which promised to provide him legal assistance and support his family.
What was the operation?
The vessel reportedly left Russia’s Ust-Luga port on 5th June and was sailing towards Egypt’s Port when it was intercepted by the British forces. Reports quoting the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) said that the operation lasted six hours and was carried out with the support of aircraft from the Maritime Air Group (Chinooks, Merlin Mk4 and Wildcat), an RAF P-8 aircraft, HMS Sutherland and HMS Ledbury. During the operation, British troops descended from a helicopter onto the vessel and took over. The first of its kind UK-led operation was described by the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer as a “blow to Russia”.
Pant’s case will have a significant bearing on India, which has over 320,000 seafarers, forming a major part of the global merchant shipping workforce.
Something is revealing about the ease with which some Congress leaders speak about Hinduism and its scriptures.
The latest example comes from senior Congress leader Pawan Khera, who responded to a post featuring a woman lighting a cigarette with a burning copy of the Manusmriti by tweeting: “Smoking and ManuSMRITI are injurious to health.”
This was not political satire. Khera was not merely making an irreverent joke about an ancient text. By endorsing a post in which a copy of the Manusmriti was being burnt and declaring that “ManuSMRITI” is “injurious to health”, he was reinforcing a much more pointed message: that the text itself is dangerous and ought to be treated as something harmful. It is an attempt to demonise the Manusmriti rather than engage with it. The distinction matters. A serious critique would examine what the text says, its historical context, its competing interpretations and its place in Hindu intellectual history. Khera instead chose the easier route—associate a Hindu scripture with harm, amplify its desecration and package that message as a punchline.
Imagine the same political calculation being applied consistently to the scriptures of every faith. Would Khera casually make a similar joke about the Quran? Would he find equal amusement in a video desecrating the Bible? Would Congress leaders rush to amplify it? Or would suddenly emerge the familiar vocabulary of “sensitivity”, “communal harmony”, “responsible discourse” and “respect for religious sentiments”?
That is the uncomfortable question Congress needs to answer.
The issue here is not whether every Hindu considers the Manusmriti a sacred text. They do not. Nor is anyone suggesting that ancient texts should be placed beyond criticism. Manusmriti can be debated, criticised, contextualised and subjected to historical and philosophical scrutiny. In fact, serious engagement with any ancient text requires precisely that.
But criticism and contempt are not the same thing.
A political leader deliberately joining a social-media spectacle in which a Hindu text is being burnt, and then adding a mocking one-liner, is not some profound constitutional intervention. It is cheap political signalling. And when the person doing it is a senior office-bearer of the Congress party, the question becomes even more pertinent: why does this particular brand of irreverence appear to have such a strong appetite for Hindu targets?
This is where Congress’ claim to be the “flag bearer” of secularism begins to look increasingly selective.
Congress’ secularism has always had a Hindu blind spot
Congress has spent decades presenting itself as the institutional custodian of Indian secularism. Yet its political history contains enough examples to make one wonder whether its version of secularism sometimes means something very different: extraordinary sensitivity towards minority religious sentiment, combined with extraordinary confidence that Hindu sentiment can absorb virtually unlimited provocation.
The contrast is not merely rhetorical.
Consider triple talaq. Congress leaders did oppose the Modi government’s Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019. To be fair, the party’s objections were substantially focused on the criminalisation provision, due-process concerns and the architecture of the legislation rather than a defence of triple talaq itself. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, for instance, explicitly said he was not defending triple talaq while opposing the Bill’s criminalisation provisions.
That distinction matters.
But it also exposes the political asymmetry. When confronted with a practice that had already been struck down by the Supreme Court, Congress chose to oppose the criminalisation mechanism while arguing that the legislation was legally excessive. In the Rajya Sabha, Congress was among the opposition parties seeking further scrutiny and objecting to the criminalisation provision.
There is nothing inherently illegitimate about opposing a criminal law on constitutional or legal grounds. A secular party should be able to do precisely that.
But where was the same urgency to protect Hindu devotees from contemptuous political rhetoric?
Where is the Congress leader who will say that mocking a Hindu scripture is beneath the dignity of public discourse?
Where is the internal reprimand when a senior leader turns a Hindu religious text into the punchline of a social-media post?
There is a conspicuous silence.
Would Pawan Khera make the same joke about every scripture?
This is perhaps the simplest test of secularism.
If the principle is that religious texts can be criticised, then criticise all of them. If the principle is that ancient scriptures must be evaluated through the lens of modern constitutional morality, apply that standard consistently. If the principle is that nobody gets a veto over criticism of religion, defend that principle universally.
But selective irreverence is not secularism.
It is political convenience.
Khera’s tweet becomes particularly revealing because it does not amount to a scholarly critique of Manusmriti. It does not quote a passage, examine its historical context or engage with competing interpretations. It simply piggybacks on an act of burning the text and labels the book itself as “injurious to health”. The message is unmistakable: Manusmriti is being presented not as an ancient text open to debate, but as a dangerous object worthy of symbolic destruction.
That is not intellectual criticism. It is demonisation dressed up as social-media wit.
And the question of consistency becomes unavoidable. Would Congress’ social-media ecosystem treat the desecration of the Quran or Bible with the same breezy humour? Would senior party leaders compete to amplify it?
The answer is almost certainly no, not because criticism of either scripture is inherently impermissible, but because political parties understand that religious communities have different sensitivities and that irresponsible rhetoric can have serious consequences.
Hindu sensitivities deserve the same consideration.
When ‘Shakti’ becomes a political punching bag
This is not the first time Congress leaders have generated controversy by making Hindu religious concepts part of political rhetoric.
In March 2024, Rahul Gandhi said he was “fighting against Shakti” at a rally in Mumbai, before later clarifying that he was referring to a different conception of power and alleging that PM Modi had twisted his words.
The controversy was not simply about one word. It was about the extraordinary political carelessness involved in invoking a term deeply embedded in Hindu religious vocabulary and then expecting people to accept that its religious meaning was irrelevant to the controversy.
Earlier, Gandhi had also described Parliament MPs as being like murtis in temples without power. He has used Hindu mythology, the Mahabharata, Shiva and other religious references repeatedly in political speeches. There is nothing wrong with politicians invoking religious imagery. India’s political vocabulary has always drawn from its civilisational traditions.
The problem arises when Hindu religious concepts are simultaneously appropriated for political rhetoric and treated with contempt when convenient.
The contradiction becomes even sharper when one considers Gandhi’s 2022 interaction with Catholic priest George Ponnaiah. Ponnaiah made derogatory remarks about Hindu Shakti while contrasting it with Jesus Christ. Gandhi’s presence and interaction with him generated widespread criticism.
Again, the issue is not that a politician can never meet someone controversial. Politicians meet controversial people all the time.
The issue is the broader pattern.
Why does Hinduism so often become the religion that can be dissected, mocked, psychoanalysed, pathologised and used as a prop in political argument, with the Congress ecosystem expecting Hindus to simply take it on the chin?
Rahul Gandhi’s Manusmriti attack gave Congress’ campaign a political imprimatur
If Pawan Khera’s post could be dismissed as the indiscretion of one Congress leader, Rahul Gandhi’s remarks in Pune make that defence considerably harder to sustain. At the August 22, 2026 ‘Chhatron Ki Goonj’ event, Gandhi attacked what he called a “Manusmriti mindset”, described the text’s prescription concerning women’s subordination to male relatives as shameful, and linked that mindset to the patriarchal politics he was criticising.
An ancient Hindu text is presented as the ideological source of a contemporary social order, with the RSS and BJP placed in the same rhetorical frame. That transforms a debate and puts historical context into a sweeping political indictment of a Hindu scripture and, by extension, the civilisation from which it emerged.
And this is where the sequence of events matters. When the Leader of the Opposition himself makes Manusmriti a political symbol of oppression, it inevitably creates political space for other Congress leaders and activists to adopt the same framing. Khera’s subsequent post did not emerge in an ideological vacuum. It came after the party’s most prominent leader had publicly made the Manusmriti a target in a campaign centred on women’s rights.
It would be too strong to claim that Gandhi explicitly instructed Congress workers to attack the text; there is no evidence of such an instruction. But politically, his intervention can reasonably be seen as lowering the threshold for Congress functionaries to treat the Manusmriti not as a text to be debated, but as a symbol to be condemned and ridiculed.
The old politics of ‘saffron terror’
Congress’ history also contains another particularly instructive episode.
In August 2010, then Home Minister P Chidambaram spoke of a “new phenomenon of saffron terrorism” while addressing police chiefs.
But attaching a religiously loaded colour associated with Hindu civilisation to terrorism was bound to attract severe backlash. Congress itself subsequently attempted damage control following the controversy.
That episode demonstrated something important: language matters. Will Congress use the same language to describe Islamic terrorism? No. In fact, when asked about the threat of Islamic terrorism, Congress leaders often employ mental gymnastics to either dodge answering it or accuse the interviewer of being ‘Hindutvawadi’.
If Congress understood that saffron could not casually be fused with terrorism because saffron carries deep cultural and religious significance for millions of Hindus, why does that sensitivity disappear when the target is a Hindu scripture?
Why is “be careful with words” a principle worth invoking only after political damage has already been done?
Intellectual dishonesty of Congress in attacking Manusmriti
There is another intellectual dishonesty that frequently accompanies attacks on Manusmriti.
The argument generally proceeds like this: Manusmriti contains prescriptions relating to social hierarchy and caste; therefore, Manusmriti represents Hinduism; therefore, attacking Manusmriti is equivalent to attacking an oppressive religious order.
This is an astonishingly regressive understanding of Hindu civilisation, shaped in no small measure by a post-Independence historiographical tradition heavily influenced by Marxist scholars. The claim that the Manusmriti served as a universally enforced social code also deserves far greater scrutiny: it was a normative Dharmashastra, not a comprehensive record of how Indian society actually functioned. There is, arguably, no primary source of historical evidence that it mandated and enforced divisions within the society.
But more importantly, the Indian Constitution is the supreme legal framework of the Republic. It prohibits discrimination and provides extensive constitutional protections against caste-based discrimination and untouchability. No ancient religious text overrides the Constitution.
Indeed, that is precisely the point.
A modern democratic republic does not need to burn an ancient book to establish the supremacy of constitutional equality. Nor does it need politicians to mock that book to demonstrate their commitment to social justice.
If Congress wants to fight caste discrimination, fight caste discrimination.
If it wants to defend constitutional equality, defend constitutional equality.
If it wants to critique Manusmriti, produce scholarship, evidence and argument.
But turning the burning of a religious text into a social-media punchline is not social reform. It is political theatre.
And the irony is that such theatre can actually deepen the very social divisions Congress claims to oppose. And such activism for ‘social inclusion’ is limited only to Hindu scriptures. Any questions asked about contentious doctrines of other faiths, and the Congress leaders suddenly pass sermons of secularism and inclusivity.
The real politics behind selective outrage
The Congress’ problem is not that it criticises religion. A democracy needs the freedom to criticise religion. The problem is that its political ecosystem often appears to understand religious sensitivity as a one-way street.
Hinduism is treated as robust enough to withstand ridicule. Hindu gods and symbols can become props in political speeches. Hindu scriptures can become jokes. Hindu civilisational symbols can be politically reinterpreted. And when Hindus object, the response is frequently a lecture on secularism, constitutionalism and the need to tolerate criticism.
But when the political temperature rises around other religions, the vocabulary changes.
Suddenly, sensitivity becomes paramount.
That is precisely why Khera’s tweet deserves criticism.
He is not merely a private citizen posting an ill-considered meme. He is a senior leader of one of India’s oldest political parties. His words carry institutional weight, even if his following doesn’t suggest so. When the senior leader of the Congress party shares such videos, he is effectively sending a message to thousands of others that desecration of that religious scripture will not attract any legal penalty.
Moreover, Congress cannot simultaneously claim to represent constitutional secularism while appearing indifferent to the religious sentiments of a large section of Indians.
If Congress genuinely believes in equal respect for religions, it should demonstrate that principle rather than merely repeating the word “secularism”.
And equal respect does not mean that every scripture must be believed, worshipped or shielded from criticism.
It means the same standard of intellectual seriousness and civility must apply to all.
The question Congress cannot escape
So here is the question for Pawan Khera and the Congress leadership:
Would you post the same post if the book were the Quran?
Would you post it if it were the Bible?
The answer is no because, for Congress leaders, Hindu scriptures alone are considered acceptable targets for this kind of political humour. Khera is restricted from the decades-old votebank that the party has assiduously cultivated, forcing him to not post anything controversial when it comes to Islam. The other aspect could be to keep his head intact from torso, for such an ‘insult’ would instantly attract ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ threats, like the ones still faced by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for simply defending her faith.
What Congress cannot do is have it both ways: invoke secularism when defending itself, invoke constitutional morality when attacking Hindu traditions, demand sensitivity when another community’s religious sentiments are involved, and then treat Hindu religious symbols as disposable political props.
The Manusmriti can be criticised. Its historical claims can be debated. Its prescriptions can be rejected. Hindus themselves have every right to reject portions of it.
But that cannot be grounds to encourage and normalise its desecration. Will it be acceptable for the Congress party if Hindus began “criticising” scriptural texts from other faiths?
India’s secularism cannot mean that one religion is expected to develop an infinite capacity for insult while everyone else is granted an increasingly expansive right to sensitivity.
That is not secularism.
That is selective secularism.
And Pawan Khera’s tweet, rather than disproving the charge, has once again placed the question squarely before Congress: if your secularism demands equal respect for every faith, why does your irreverence so often stop at the doorstep of other religions and begin so confidently at the doorstep of Hinduism?
Parliament is meant to be the place where disagreements are argued out and not avoided. The government can be challenged, policies questioned and demands pressed, but all of that requires the house to function. However, the Indian National Congress-led opposition appears to have transformed the disruption of Parliament into a political strategy, choosing repeated obstruction over meaningful deliberation.
They have turned their protests into an obstacle to the very parliamentary process and democracy it claims to defend by repeatedly preventing debate and discussion. They have allowed political confrontation to take precedence over constructive engagement instead of using the House to debate issues and work towards solutions.
Notably, the central government headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party has repeatedly shown willingness to consider and address several of the opposition’s demands and objections. However, the latter continues to hold up parliamentary proceedings, wasting both precious time and public resources rather than using the opportunity to move the discussion forward.
A functioning democracy requires the government and opposition to engage. Of course, political differences are inevitable, but Parliament cannot become collateral damage in the battle to score political points. The country’s lawmakers need to focus on the challenges at hand, but the opposition’s tactic serves little purpose beyond deepening the impasse, especially when the government has been open to accommodating them.
Vocal protests and sloganeering caused the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha’s business to reach a multi-year low, making the Monsoon Session of Parliament a near washout, specifically regarding debates and discourse. During the 25-day session, which commenced on 20th July and concluded on 13th August, the Rajya Sabha recorded 39% productivity, compared to 19% for the Lok Sabha.
The Rajya Sabha was only allowed to run for 33% of its allotted time, and the figure was 15% for the Lok Sabha. The findings from Question Hour revealed a similar story, with only 1% of the authorised time being utilised for the session in the lower house, whereas the upper house dedicated 12% of its time.
A total of 12 bills were approved in each house, while discussions took place only in relation to the “Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026,” also known as the anti-paper leak legislation.
Predictably, the opposition attributed the situation to the government, alleging it was “unprecedented” and accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah of staying away from Parliament. On the other hand, the government firmly held the opposition accountable for the disappointing performance.
“For the first time, we have seen the opposition running away from debate in Parliament when the government wanted discussions. Congress is solely responsible for unfairly disrupting the proceedings. They did not allow the House to take up the Question Hour. Another thing I observed, especially in the Congress, was that its MPs now seem to think their job is just to raise slogans and create a ruckus while brandishing placards and banners,” stated Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju.
Opposition’s political posturing comes at parliament’s expense
The opposition’s political uproar initially centred on the NEET paper-leak controversy and the reported embezzlement of donations at Ram Mandir. They were quick to express their supposed concerns over the use of “violence” against protesters during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) march to Parliament and pushed for a discussion on the matter. They wanted PM Modi and Amit Shah to make a statement in the House.
The opposition sought to cast the episode as an example of the government’s purported intolerance towards dissent, placing the disputed conduct of the police and security forces at the centre of the political debate. Naturally, the brutal attack on the authorities which resulted in the injuries of at least 250 cops did not raise even an iota of similar alarm.
The government proposed a debate on the paper leak along with a reply from Shah in a bid to resolve the standoff, but the Congress turned it down. He again agreed to have a detailed discussion on the police action and charges surrounding the agitation to break the stalemate.
“The government is ready to discuss every aspect of the student protests over NEET. I am also ready to answer any question in Parliament,” Shah conveyed, remarking that the centre had “nothing to hide.” Shah also slammed the opposition for blocking Parliament for their political shenanigans
However, Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, declined the offer, arguing that he and the opposition had no interest in attending his “imagination and lecture” or speech. This is clearly indicative of how the opposition desires to orchestrate a political drama to prevent Parliament from functioning. It merely aims to seem concerned about student issues but retreats the moment the government nods.
It is the first sign of exposure of their underlying motives. If the intention was genuinely to seek answers, why walk away once the opportunity to hear them was actually provided? How did the Gandhi scion already know that he would be lectured rather than given a substantive response without even allowing the minister to speak?
Different issues, same political script
The opposition has embraced disruption of Parliament as its political manual. The introduction of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill 2026 drew strong reactions from Congress and other opposition parties. However, the legislation’s history makes the convenient criticism difficult to overlook.
The FCRA was first introduced under the Indira Gandhi government and later strengthened by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, while the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government brought in an even more restrictive framework. The same party that once tightened the rules controlling the foreign-funded NGOs (non-governmental organisations) now objects when the current government wants to regulate the flow of such financial assistance.
More importantly, this “aid” facilitates religious conversions, protests to undermine India’s development and efforts to influence internal affairs. However, for the opposition, the politics of “minority victimhood” for electoral gain seems to overshadow its own track record as well as the broader interests and security of the country.
The government did pay heed to their contentions and referred the bill to a 31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further scrutiny. However, the opposition remained adamant and insisted instead that it should be withdrawn altogether because it purportedly targeted minority institutions.
Congress also tried to make a comparison with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), announcing that the group receives donations from overseas while the government was selectively imposing regulations on NGOs. The pursuit of minority votes is increasingly coming at the expense of national interest, both within and beyond the Parliament.
Conclusion
Rahul Gandhi often presents himself as a champion of democracy, demanding accountability from the government while his own record in Parliament tells a rather different story. His attendance in the Lok Sabha stood at just 51%, well below the national average of 79%. He participated in only eight debates, compared with the national average of 46.7, and asked 99 questions against the national average of 210. He also introduced no Private Member’s Bills.
The Raebareli MP and his party have honed a special political strategy known as shoot-and-scoot: raise an allegation, create a political uproar and retreat at the slightest hint of being countered. He seems to have diminished Congress to a mere entity of slogans and disorder, as the opposition appears to be unable to differentiate between a street demonstration and behaviour appropriate on the floor of Parliament.
Moreover, these antics not only disrupt Parliament but also deprive newly elected members of the opportunity to learn, gain experience and understand the functioning of the revered House.
