Home Blog Page 51

Who is SDPI leader Riyaz Farangipete, sentenced to jail for the 2015 ‘PFI will slaughter cows, sell beef’ hate speech case

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Who is SDPI leader Riyaz Farangipete, sentenced to jail for the 2015 ‘PFI will slaughter cows, sell beef’ hate speech case

A Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court in Karnataka’s Belthangady has sentenced Mohammed Riyaz Farangipete, the National General Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), the ‘political’ front of the outlawed Islamic terror group, Popular Front of India (PFI), to six months in jail in a 2015 hate speech case. The court has also imposed a fine of ₹10,000.

Mohammed Riyaz Farangipete delivered ‘PFI will slaughter cows’ hate speech

The case against Mohammed Riyaz Farangipete stems from a speech he delivered on 23rd July 2015 at a PFI protest meet near the Belthangady Taluk Office.

The police chargesheet said that Riyaz Farangipete had said that “If assaults of Muslims in the name of cows continued, PFI workers will slaughter cows in public and, on Bakrid, we will sell beef in front of the Belthangady bus stand.”

He also threatened to “teach a fitting lesson” to anyone who tried to stop PFI jihadis.

The police had registered a case against Riyaz Farangipete, who remains an active politician in Karnataka’s Dakshina Kannada, under Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC.

In a 33-page judgment delivered on 4th August 2026, the court held that Farangipete’s speech had the potential to disturb communal harmony even though no violence occurred. The court noted that the SDPI leader’s offence cannot be dismissed as trivial.

From inciting anti-Hindu Delhi Riots, to defending pro-Pakistan sloganeering: Islamist activities of Riyaz Farangipete

Serving as the National General Secretary of the Islamist outfit SDPI, Riyaz Farangipete has been embroiled in many controversies, and has several police cases against him.

During the violent 2020 anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) protests in Mangaluru in December 2019, Riyaz Farangipete and another SDPI leader were accused of inciting people via WhatsApp messages despite the imposition of Section 144. Police subsequently registered cases against them under IPC sections for sedition (Section 124A) and promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion.

Back in September 2022, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had raided Farangipete’s residence in Mangaluru. The raid was linked to a case involving a conspiracy to create disruption during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rally in Bihar in July 2022. Riyaz Farangipete was serving as the SDPI in-charge for Bihar at the time. The NIA interrogated him for hours and seized certain documents and mobile phones.

Back in July 2022, the NIA had raided his houses in connection with the Phulwari Sharif terror module case busted by the Bihar police. In 2023, Farangipete contested the election from Mangaluru (Ullal) on an SDPI ticket and also lost the deposit, receiving little over 15,000 votes.

Farangipete also has a record of defending pro-Pakistan sloganeering by SDPI members in 2021. In January 2021, during the vote counting for local panchayat elections in Dakshina Kannada, certain SDPI members were accused of raising pro-Pakistan slogans. Defending the members at the time, Riyaz threatened the police that his supporters would create unrest if the arrested members were not released.

In mid-July 2026, Riyaz Farangipete was peddling disinformation about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. In a video posted from the SDPI’s official account, Farangipete incited people not to trust the SIR process and claimed that the BJP was “using it” to win elections. He claimed that voters’ names were being deleted from Bihar to Bengal and alleged that the BJP was not winning elections through democratic means.

Riyaz Farangipete has seven criminal cases against him registered at Belthangady, Mangalore South, Konaje, Mangalore North, Mangalore East police stations, and one case in Delhi. His alleged crimes range from promoting enmity between religious groups to waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India.

The charges against him have been filed under sections 153A, 295A, 143, 147,332, 341, 353, 427, 504, 149, 511, 124A, 121A, among others.

SDPI: The political front of the banned Islamic jihadist group PFI

Founded in 2009, the SDPI is active in electoral politics. However, the activities of the PFI’s political front are not confined to just politics. Several SDPI leaders and workers have been involved in various crimes, ranging from Islamic terrorism, murder of Hindus, to love jihad.

In 2018, SDPI Jihadis hacked an ABVP worker, Shyama Prasad, to death. Prasad was a student of Kakkayangad ITI and also served as the mukhya sikshak of the RSS shakha at 17th Mile in Kannavam, was murdered on the evening of January 19, 2018, under the limits of the Peravoor police station. Later, police arrested four SDPI activists, Parakkandam native Muhammed, Minikkol Salim, Neeveli Ameer, and Palayod native Shahim, in connection with the murder. 

Earlier, the SDPI had fielded Shafi Bellare as its election candidate. Bellare is an accused in the brutal murder of BJYM leader Praveen Nettaru in Karnataka.

In 2025, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had revealed that the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) relied on the banned organisation Popular Front of India (PFI) for its daily operations, policy decisions, and candidate selection for election campaigns. 

The revelation came after the authorities arrested SDPI President Moideen Kutty K, alias MK Faizy, from Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

The ED said they raided premises linked to the arrested SDPI and recovered some documents that provided insight into the true objectives of the PFI, describing it as an organisation committed to advancing an Islamic movement in India by “endorsing the principles of Jihad in all forms.”

“It positions itself internally as an Islamic movement and externally as a social movement. To achieve these goals, the PFI has established SDPI and several front organisations.

Several copies of minutes of meeting and handwritten documents revealing evidence of PFI funding elections contested by SDPI, approval by the National Executive Council (NEC) of PFI for SDPI to collect funds in Gulf countries, and PFI covering legal expenses for SDPI members accused in criminal cases registered by the police which have seized during the searches conducted at Unity House, Kozhikode (PFI’s Kerala State HQ). It also emerged that  PFI had funded SDPI to the tune of Rs 3.75 crore for election-related purposes.

While the PFI was outlawed by the Modi government in September 2022 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Islamic jihadist outfit is furthering its agenda of converting a Hindu-majority India into Dar-ul-Islam, or an Islamic country, by 2047 through various violent and non-violent methods executed via its various fronts, including the SDPI.

OpIndia reported earlier about how the PFI had a long-term plan, code-named “India 2047”, which aimed at establishing Islamic rule in the country. The agenda was discovered during an earlier investigation by the Delhi unit of the investigating agency into a case first registered in Phulwari Sharif of Bihar in 2022. A six-page document outlining the plan was recovered from accused Muhammed Jamaludheen.

The NIA asserted that the murder of RSS leader Sreenivasan in Palakkad was not an isolated act but part of the broader conspiracy aligned with the India 2047 goal. Audio clips and witness testimonies reportedly confirm the dissemination of the plan among PFI cadres. The PFI had prepared a hitlist comprising hundreds of names, mainly of prominent Hindu leaders.

The PFI believed that even 10% of India’s Muslim population would suffice to “subjugate” the majority Hindu community. The PFI had chalked a phased roadmap which involved uniting Muslims under PFI and providing arms/physical training; selective use of violence to exhibit strength and terrorise Hindus. It also pushed for infiltration of institutions and outreach to SC/ST/OBC groups to create divisions among the Hindu community. Through the SDPI, the PFI aimed to establish beneficial political alliances and electoral gains. The PFI wanted to assert its dominance, filling key institutions with loyalists, declaring a new constitution based on Islamic principles, and eliminating remaining adversaries.

Red Fort blast-linked Al-Falah case: Delhi court rejects every plea by accused Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui, refuses ‘sterling documents’, and ED records demand

शिव
-
0
Red Fort blast-linked Al-Falah case: Delhi court rejects every plea by accused Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui, refuses ‘sterling documents’, and ED records demand

Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui, an accused in the money laundering case linked to the Al-Falah Group, which came into the spotlight after the Red Fort blast, has suffered a setback from Delhi’s Saket Court. The court has dismissed two separate applications filed by him.

In the first application, Siddiqui had sought permission to place certain documents on the court record, describing them as being of “sterling quality” and of an “unimpeachable character”. Jawad had argued that examining these documents was extremely necessary for arriving at a just decision. In the second application, he had sought a list from the ED of those documents collected during the investigation on which the agency was not relying for its case (unrelied documents).

Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan dismissed both applications in a 48-page order passed on August 4, 2026. The court said that at the stage at which the matter is currently pending, the court primarily has to examine the ED’s prosecution complaint and the material filed along with it and determine whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused.

Understand the Stage at Which the Case Is

The case is being pursued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The ED has filed a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. However, the court has not yet taken cognisance of the complaint.

In simple terms, it is still to be decided whether, upon examining the ED’s complaint and the material placed along with it, the court finds a case sufficient to initiate further criminal proceedings against the accused or not.

The present order dated August 4, 2026, is mainly concerned with the manner and extent to which the accused can be heard before cognisance is taken. The court also noted that arguments on the question of cognizance from the ED’s side had already been completed, while arguments from the accused’s side were yet to be made. In the meantime, these two applications were filed, and it was necessary to decide them first.

Siddiqui is facing a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) involving approximately Rs 415 crore. His institution has also been accused of providing shelter to those accused in the Red Fort blast that took place in November 2025.

What Had Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui Sought?

The basis of both applications filed by Siddiqui was a provision contained in Section 223(1) of the BNS, under which a court cannot take cognisance of an offence without hearing the accused.

In the first application, Siddiqui told the court that certain documents related to his business had come from official sources. These were stated to include documents connected with various Indian government authorities and banks. Siddiqui described them as being of “sterling quality” and of an “unimpeachable character” and asked the court to take them on record.

Siddiqui argued that examining these documents would help the court understand the alleged contradictions in the ED’s allegations and would make the hearing taking place before cognisance more effective and meaningful.

Siddiqui’s second demand was that the ED be directed to provide a list of unrelied documents, that is, documents which the investigating agency had obtained during the course of the investigation but had not relied upon in its case.

In the second application, Siddiqui had sought that important questions of law arising in the matter be referred to the High Court under Section 436 of the BNSS. His main argument was that the first “proviso” to Section 223(1) is a new provision that gives the accused a right to be heard before cognisance is taken, but the “limits, nature and scope” of such a hearing are not yet completely clear.

The court’s order states, “In view of the facts emerging from the record of the present case, certain important questions concerning public interest, law and the Constitution arise. These questions have a direct bearing on the manner and extent to which a proposed accused should be afforded an opportunity of hearing at the stage preceding the taking of cognisance of the case.”

It further states, “Since these issues are complex in nature and have so far not been decided by any High Court in the country or by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is of utmost importance that these questions be resolved by a constitutional court before the hearing preceding cognisance takes place. Or, at the very least, these important questions may be kept in mind when this Hon’ble Court affords the applicant an opportunity of hearing.”

What Are Relied, Unrelied and Sterling Documents?

When an investigating agency seizes a large quantity of documents, devices, bank records and other material during raids or searches, it presents only some of these before the court along with its complaint/chargesheet. These are called “relied upon documents”, meaning documents on which the prosecution is relying.

The remaining documents which the agency does not submit along with the complaint are called “unrelied upon documents”. The accused side has always maintained that these “unrelied” documents may contain material that could be helpful to the defence and, therefore, at least a list of such documents should be provided to the accused.

Meanwhile, by “sterling quality documents”, the accused meant those documents that were already in the possession of the accused himself and which he wanted to place before the court himself.

What Arguments Did Jawad Ahmed Siddiqui Make?

According to the court order available with OpIndia, the defence initially claimed that Siddiqui was being subjected to serious harassment and persecution for completely baseless, malicious and irrelevant reasons, and that he was confident that in the further proceedings he would expose the hollow foundation of the case.

Through this application, an important question of law was also raised as to what exactly would be the nature, context, scope and limits of the hearing to be afforded to an accused before the court takes cognisance of an offence.

On behalf of Siddiqui, it was argued that a Magistrate cannot take cognisance of an offence without giving the accused an opportunity of hearing. The defence argued that the Supreme Court and various High Courts across the country have already interpreted this provision and that it is now an established legal position that an opportunity of hearing cannot be merely a formality. The accused must be given an effective, purposeful and meaningful opportunity to put forward his case.

The defence also said that when the law gives an accused an opportunity of hearing, it cannot mean merely that the accused should be allowed to appear before the court and be heard. It argued that in the interests of justice, the court should adopt a procedure through which the accused gets a real and effective opportunity to present his case.

It was argued that unless the accused knows how much material the investigating agency has withheld and what kind of material it is, he cannot properly prepare his defence. It was also said that such withheld material may contain evidence that favours the accused and may directly affect or weaken the allegations. The prosecution cannot be given the liberty to select only the material that establishes the guilt of the accused and keep back material that may assist the defence.

Attempt to Prolong the Proceedings: ED

The ED strongly opposed Siddiqui’s demands before the court. The ED described the entire application as a calculated attempt to deliberately delay the proceedings. According to the ED, the accused wanted to compel the court to undertake an inquiry that was completely outside the scope of a hearing preceding cognisance.

The ED argued that at the stage of taking cognisance and issuing process (summons), the court only has to see whether a prima facie case is made out based on the complaint and the material filed along with it by the prosecution. At this stage, the accused does not have the right to demand consideration of his defence material.

The ED also informed the court that a detailed order had already been passed on March 27, 2026, in the same case regarding Siddiqui’s demand concerning unrelied documents. In that order, the court had said that at the stage preceding cognisance, it was not necessary to provide a list of unrelied documents. The court had also held that the investigation was still underway at that time and that providing such a list could affect the ongoing investigation. On this basis, that application had been dismissed.

The ED said there was no need to refer the matter to the High Court. The agency also described the demand under Section 436 as incorrect and premature. According to the agency, the questions that Siddiqui wanted to have referred to the High Court were not necessary for deciding cognisance in the present case. They were broad questions of law and had no direct connection with the limited hearing currently taking place.

Regarding the ED’s arguments, the court order states, “This application is an abuse of the process of law and its sole purpose is to delay the consideration to be undertaken on taking cognisance of the case. For this purpose, the proceedings are being diverted towards other issues which have no connection with the limited proceedings to be undertaken by this Court at the stage preceding the taking of cognisance.”

The ED said that the scope of the hearing under the provisions of Section 223(1) of the BNSS is limited. The purpose of this hearing is not to examine the merits of the case in detail, decide disputed questions relating to facts, examine the defence arguments or give a final decision on questions of law.

The ED argued that Article 228 does not confer upon a subordinate court the power to invoke this provision or direct the Hon’ble High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under it. The power to exercise jurisdiction under Article 228 is vested only in the Hon’ble High Court. Its exercise entirely depends on whether the High Court is satisfied that an important constitutional question exists which requires determination.

According to the ED, there is no basis for referring the matter under Section 436 of the BNSS or invoking Article 228 of the Constitution of India. Article 228 does not confer upon a subordinate court the power to refer a case to the High Court or direct the High Court to exercise its constitutional powers under the provision.

What Did the Court Say in Its Order?

In her order, Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan said, “The demand made by the accused for providing a list of unrelied documents has already been decided by the Court in its detailed order dated March 27. The issue as to when and at what stage such documents should be provided to the accused has already been decided by the Supreme Court. The demand made by the accused is without any legal basis and is not liable to be accepted.”

The order further states, “At the stage of taking cognisance, the Court has to look only at the material placed by the complainant. The purpose is only to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out, based on which process may be issued for summoning the accused before the court. There is no legal basis for permitting the documents in the possession of the accused to be taken on record.”

While dismissing both applications filed by Siddiqui, the court said, “Section 436(2) of the BNSS provides that a Sessions Court trying a case may, if it thinks fit and the case does not fall under sub-section (1), refer any question of law arising during the trial of such case for the decision of the High Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the alleged questions of law raised by the accused are neither invalid nor ineffective.”

The court said, “The interpretation of these provisions has already been made in several judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no need for the present Court to refer the matter to the Hon’ble High Court for its opinion on these questions. Accordingly, there is also no legal basis in the application filed by the accused.”

Meta admits to being paid to boost certain types of content: How it amounts to an admission of deliberate content manipulation and misuse of Indian laws

Jinit Jain
-
0
Meta admits to being paid to boost certain types of content: How it amounts to an admission of deliberate content manipulation and misuse of Indian laws

Meta’s reported admission before senior officials of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) that “a lot of money was paid to boost certain types of content” has opened up a much larger debate than the temporary removal of PM Modi’s video. The social media giant acknowledged during a meeting with government officials that “significant sums were spent to boost certain categories of content” and also admitted that illegal content had been promoted on its platforms. CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologised for lapses relating to child sexual abuse material (CSAM), deepfake content and operational errors.

These disclosures by Meta are a damning indictment of deliberate content manipulation practised by the social media behemoth for its India operations. For years, the company has maintained that it functions as an “intermediary”, a platform that merely hosts user-generated content and therefore enjoys legal protection from liability for what users post. However, with the platform’s admission that it decides which content deserves greater visibility, especially in return for payment, the line between a neutral intermediary and an active publisher begins to blur, and it is a brazen content manipulation practice.

The admission goes beyond ‘selective technical glitches’

Public attention initially centred on the brief removal of PM Modi’s video from Facebook and Instagram. Meta later described the takedown as an operational error, restored the video and apologised.

However, the disclosures made during Wednesday’s meeting have shifted the focus from a single moderation mistake to the company’s broader content amplification practices.

According to sources, Meta officials admitted that substantial amounts of money were paid to boost certain kinds of content on its platforms. They also acknowledged that illegal content had been promoted. While the exact categories of content being referred to have not been publicly disclosed, the admission itself has raised questions about how Meta’s algorithms and paid promotion systems operate, something that was widely known but never publicly admitted by the company.

Unlike a simple hosting service, a platform that selectively amplifies content is making editorial decisions about what millions of users are more likely to encounter in their feeds. That distinction lies at the heart of the legal debate.

What does “boosting content” actually mean?

On platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, not every post receives equal visibility. Sophisticated algorithms determine which posts are shown to which users, in what order, and how frequently.

Boosting refers to increasing the reach of content beyond its natural audience. This may happen through paid promotion, recommendation algorithms or other amplification tools that push selected posts before significantly larger audiences.

Such amplification can dramatically alter the public visibility of a post. A piece of content that might otherwise have reached a few thousand users can suddenly appear before millions.

If money is involved in deciding which narratives receive wider distribution, critics argue that the platform is no longer functioning as a passive technological intermediary. Instead, it is actively influencing the information ecosystem by determining what users are encouraged to consume.

That distinction becomes even more significant if, as sources claim, some of the amplified content was illegal.

Why India’s intermediary law matters

The legal debate revolves around the concept of “safe harbour” under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The law grants intermediaries protection from liability for content uploaded by users, provided they comply with prescribed due diligence obligations and do not play an active role in creating or selecting unlawful material.

The rationale behind this protection is practical. A platform handling billions of daily posts cannot realistically examine every image, video or comment before it goes online.

However, safe harbour was designed for entities that merely transmit information rather than actively shaping public discourse.

The government officials informed the Meta delegation that the company cannot automatically seek protection under the intermediary provisions because its systems determine who receives particular content.

If a platform’s own algorithms decide what users should see, and especially if those decisions are influenced by commercial arrangements, it raises legitimate legal questions about whether the platform continues to satisfy the conditions necessary for intermediary protection.

Hosting content and promoting content are not the same

There is an important legal and practical distinction between hosting content and promoting it.

A passive intermediary simply provides digital infrastructure where users can upload information. It neither endorses nor selectively amplifies that content.

Promotion, however, involves deliberate choices. Recommendation engines identify posts that are likely to receive greater engagement and display them more prominently. Paid boosting enables content to reach audiences far beyond those who would ordinarily encounter it. Trending systems and personalised feeds similarly influence what users consume.

When a platform undertakes these functions, it is exercising a degree of editorial discretion over the visibility of information.

Meta’s admission that money was paid to boost certain content strengthens the view that the company performed a far more active role than that of a neutral intermediary.

Why this matters in India

India is Meta’s largest market by user base. Hundreds of millions of Indians rely daily on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp not merely for social interaction, but also for news, political discussions, entertainment and business communication.

The visibility decisions made by Meta’s algorithms therefore influence what a substantial proportion of India’s internet users see every day.

Most users assume that viral posts have become popular because of genuine public engagement. However, algorithmic amplification and paid boosting can significantly alter that perception by artificially increasing the reach of selected material.

If particular narratives receive disproportionate visibility because they have been boosted rather than because users naturally engaged with them, it can influence public debate without users necessarily recognising that commercial amplification has played a role.

This is precisely why governments around the world are increasingly demanding greater transparency regarding recommendation algorithms and paid promotions.

The PM Modi video controversy became the trigger

The government’s scrutiny intensified after PM Modi uploaded a vertical video message on July 23 during the height of protests led by the online Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The video was temporarily removed from Facebook and Instagram before being restored.

Meta attributed the incident to a technical error and apologised for the removal.

The explanation, however, reportedly failed to satisfy the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which summoned senior Meta executives, including Global Affairs Chief Joel Kaplan, for discussions.

According to reports, the meeting extended well beyond the Prime Minister’s video. Officials also questioned Meta over the spread of child sexual abuse material, deepfake content and broader failures in content moderation.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology, chaired by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, also reportedly sought an apology from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and pressed for stronger action against platforms carrying child sexual abuse material and content demeaning women.

Questions over Meta’s moderation systems

The admission that illegal content had been promoted has inevitably brought Meta’s moderation systems under renewed scrutiny.

The company has repeatedly stated that it invests billions of dollars in artificial intelligence, automated detection technologies and human moderators to identify harmful content before it spreads.

Despite these investments, Meta has frequently faced criticism globally over the continued presence of child sexual abuse material, deepfake videos, financial scams, misinformation, hate speech and other forms of unlawful or harmful content.

If illegal material was nevertheless amplified through recommendation systems or paid promotion mechanisms, critics argue that it raises serious questions about whether existing moderation safeguards are adequate and whether commercial incentives sometimes conflict with platform safety.

A global debate that extends beyond India

The concerns being raised in India mirror debates taking place across the world.

Regulators in the European Union, the United States, Australia and several other jurisdictions have increasingly focused on algorithmic accountability rather than merely content removal.

The European Union’s Digital Services Act, for instance, requires very large online platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks arising from their recommendation systems and to provide greater transparency about how algorithms influence users.

Governments globally are recognising that recommendation algorithms do not simply organise information—they shape public opinion by determining what receives visibility and what remains unseen.

Meta to be called again for further discussions

For Meta, the issue is far from over. It is expected to be called again for further discussions with Indian authorities.

Whether the meeting ultimately results in regulatory action remains to be seen. However, the controversy has already revived a fundamental legal question: can a platform that actively amplifies content through algorithms and paid promotion continue to claim the same protections as a passive intermediary?

At present, there has been no judicial determination that Meta has forfeited its intermediary status or violated Indian law in relation to these reported admissions. The claims regarding boosting certain content and promoting illegal material are based on sources quoted by NDTV and have not yet been tested through any formal legal process.

Even so, the episode has intensified scrutiny of one of the world’s largest technology companies. As social media platforms increasingly influence political discourse, public opinion and access to information, the debate is shifting from what users post to what platforms choose to amplify.

For policymakers, that distinction may ultimately prove to be the defining issue in the next phase of India’s digital regulation.

How Khalistani terror pushed Punjab Police to brutal retaliation after over 1800 personnel were killed

Anurag
-
0
How Khalistani terror pushed Punjab Police to brutal retaliation after over 1800 personnel were killed

During the Punjab insurgency, Khalistani terrorists did not restrict their attacks to senior police officers or personnel engaged in operations. Policemen were assassinated outside religious places, ambushed on patrol, bombed inside headquarters and abducted from their homes. Their guards, drivers and eventually their families were also targeted. Punjab Police says 1,784 of its officers and personnel were killed during the terrorism period.

One of the earliest shocks came in April 1983, when DIG Avtar Singh Atwal was shot dead after offering prayers at the Golden Temple. Three years later, terrorists wearing police uniforms entered the Punjab Armed Police headquarters in Jalandhar and opened fire on police chief Julio Ribeiro and his wife. Inspector General of Prisons Trilok Chand Katoch was killed near his Chandigarh home in 1987, demonstrating that senior officers were vulnerable even away from duty.

Lower-ranking personnel faced the same danger without the protection available to senior officers. Inspectors and ASIs were killed during raids and patrols, while guards and drivers often died in attacks aimed at their commanders. In 1991, ASI Lalu Ram and ASI Amin Chand were killed when a remote-controlled explosive targeted Chandigarh SSP Sumedh Singh Saini’s convoy. District memorials preserve the names of many constables, Home Guards and Special Police Officers whose deaths received little wider attention.

The conflict changed further when terrorists began targeting police families. KPS Gill wrote that 506 policemen were killed in 1990, most while at home on leave, while relatives were increasingly threatened and murdered. Families fled villages and some even published newspaper notices pleading with terrorist organisations not to punish them for having relatives in the police. Fear was becoming intensely personal.

By the early 1990s, repeated assassinations, bombings, attacks on homes and threats to families had helped transform the psychology of the force. Sections of Punjab Police moved from conventional law enforcement towards increasingly aggressive counterterrorism, and eventually brutal retaliation. The article argues that this context helps explain how the police response hardened, but does not justify unlawful killings, torture, disappearances or fake encounters.

The dead also challenge attempts to portray the insurgency simply as a Hindu-Sikh conflict. Many policemen killed by Khalistani terrorists were themselves Sikhs who opposed separatist violence and served the Indian state. The police force that eventually crushed the insurgency had itself been hunted for years, at work, at home and through its families.

Read the full article on Chapter One Magazine.

Who is Professor Annapurni Subramaniam? First Indian woman to win the prestigious COSPAR Vikram Sarabhai Medal

Jinit Jain
-
0
Who is Professor Annapurni Subramaniam? First Indian woman to win the prestigious COSPAR Vikram Sarabhai Medal

Professor Annapurni Subramaniam, one of India’s most accomplished astrophysicists, has been awarded the COSPAR Vikram Sarabhai Medal 2026, becoming the first Indian woman scientist and only the fourth Indian to receive the prestigious international honour.

She received the medal at the 46th COSPAR Scientific Assembly in Florence, Italy, in recognition of her outstanding contributions to space research in developing countries. The honour also places her among a select global group, as she is only the third woman worldwide to receive the award.

Currently serving as the Director of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics (IIA), Bengaluru, and heading the Centre for Nano and Soft Matter Sciences (CeNS), Professor Subramaniam has spent more than three decades advancing India’s capabilities in astronomy and space science through research, scientific leadership and mentoring.

A childhood fascination with the night sky

Born in Palakkad, Kerala, Professor Subramaniam’s interest in astronomy began long before she entered the world of scientific research. During her school years, she would wake before sunrise in the summer to study and spend time observing the night sky.

One sight in particular fascinated her, the bright band of the Milky Way, which appeared in the same part of the sky every morning. Curious about what it was and why it remained in the same position, she found herself searching for answers, although there was no one around her who could explain the phenomenon. That childhood curiosity eventually shaped her life’s work.

After completing her Master’s degree in Physics, she was determined to pursue a career connected with astronomy. She joined a collaborative astronomy programme involving the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, ISRO, and the Raman Research Institute before joining the Indian Institute of Astrophysics as a Research Fellow in 1990.

Nearly three decades later, in 2019, she created history by becoming the first woman to head the Indian Institute of Astrophysics.

Contributions to astronomy and space science

Professor Subramaniam’s research spans a broad range of subjects, including star clusters, stellar populations, nearby galaxies, classical Be stars, blue straggler stars, young stellar objects, the Magellanic Clouds and ultraviolet astronomy. Her work has significantly advanced understanding of stellar evolution and the life cycles of stars.

She has authored around 175 scientific publications and supervised 15 PhD scholars, while mentoring numerous young researchers in astronomy and astrophysics.

Among her most significant contributions has been her role in AstroSat, India’s first dedicated space observatory, launched in 2015. As the calibration scientist for the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (UVIT) onboard AstroSat, she led the telescope’s in-orbit performance verification and played a crucial role in ensuring its scientific success.

Building on that experience, she now serves as the Principal Investigator of INSIST (Indian Spectroscopic and Imaging Space Telescope), India’s proposed next-generation ultraviolet-optical space telescope.

Professor Subramaniam has also played an important role in the Thirty Metre Telescope (TMT) project, one of the world’s largest international astronomy collaborations. India is among the partner nations in the project, with the Indian Institute of Astrophysics serving as the country’s coordinating centre.

The prestigious COSPAR Vikram Sarabhai Medal

The COSPAR Vikram Sarabhai Medal is among the highest international honours in space science. Instituted in 1990, it commemorates Dr Vikram Sarabhai, the founder of India’s space programme and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

The medal is jointly awarded every two years by the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) and ISRO to scientists from developing countries for exceptional contributions to space research. COSPAR is an international scientific organisation affiliated with the International Science Council and recognised by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN-COPUOS).

With the 2026 honour, Professor Subramaniam joins an exclusive group of Indian recipients that includes U R Rao (1996), former ISRO Chairman, Gurbax Singh Lakhina (2014), noted space plasma physicist, and Anil Bhardwaj (2024), Director of ISRO’s Physical Research Laboratory.

Leadership beyond research

In addition to her scientific contributions, Professor Subramaniam has held several important leadership positions within India’s scientific community. Along with directing the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, she heads the Centre for Nano and Soft Matter Sciences (CeNS) in Bengaluru.

She is a Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, India, and a life member of both the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and the Astronomical Society of India.

She has chaired the Membership Committee of the International Astronomical Union, served as Chief Editor of the Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy between 2019 and 2024, and currently serves as Scientific Editor of Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Recognition and interests beyond science

Over the years, Professor Subramaniam has received numerous honours for her contributions to science. These include the Rashtriya Vigyan Puraskar – Vigyan Shri (2024) in Space Science and Technology, the NDTV Science Icon of the Year 2024, the Future Forward Female Award by CNBC-News18, the Devi Award, the Vanitha Ratna Award (2023)from the Government of Kerala, and recognition among India Today’s Top 100 Women Achievers (2023).

Away from astronomy, she is also a trained violinist, having grown up in a family deeply rooted in Carnatic music. She has often credited her musical upbringing for shaping her creativity and discipline. Another passion is creating traditional kolam (rangoli) designs, which she has described as a “morning puzzle” that stimulates her mind.

From a child captivated by the mysterious glow of the Milky Way to becoming one of India’s most distinguished astrophysicists, Professor Annapurni Subramaniam’s journey reflects decades of scientific excellence, perseverance and leadership. Her latest international recognition underscores India’s growing stature in global astronomy while inspiring a new generation of scientists, especially women, to pursue careers in space research.

Global shipbuilding concentrated among a few players, but India is catching up: The winds of change

Sanghamitra
-
0
Global shipbuilding concentrated among a few players, but India is catching up: The winds of change

HMS Trincomalee, still afloat in a naval museum in England, was laid down in 1816 at Bombay’s Wadia yard from Malabar teak by Indian craftsmen. Nine generations of the Wadias built more than 400 ships for the British. The paradox is that the same industry was then systematically suffocated by the colonial rulers. 

The Registry Act of 1815 blocked India-built ships from profitable British trades precisely because Malabar teak was superior to European oak and India-made ships were seen as a threat to the British shipbuilding industry. Indian yards were allowed to work for the Empire, as employees, not as independent commercial competitors. 

After Independence, the state rebuilt shipbuilding around defence needs. Mazagon Dock, GRSE, Hindustan Shipyard and Cochin Shipyard delivered warships and submarines, but commercial export scale never followed. 

South Korea, starting in the 1970s with an explicit export strategy and aggressive state finance, captured high-value orders globally. India stayed a minor commercial player. By 2026 the global market is extreme: China, South Korea and Japan account for more than 90% of output and orders. China holds roughly 65–70% of the order book and completed over 53 million DWT in 2025. Japan’s share has fallen. Europe has largely left bulk commercial work. India’s output rose 41% from 40,923 GT in 2024 to 57,637 GT in 2025, but it still sits far outside the top ten. 

Gaps remain in large bulk carriers, tankers, container ships, LNG/LPG vessels and green designs. Productivity is lower, financing costlier, high-grade steel and engines are often imported, and complex commercial designs are still frequently licensed. The ₹69,725 crore package aims to close that gap through financial assistance, a Maritime Development Fund, capacity expansion and three greenfield clusters in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. Early movement is already visible: SBFAS and MDF guidelines are out; HD Hyundai has signed for a mega yard in Tamil Nadu and a block-fabrication JV with Cochin Shipyard; Cochin won a $360 million CMA CGM feeder-container order; private yards have booked tankers and bulk carriers; demand aggregation covers hundreds of vessels. India is finally shifting from protected defence yards toward export-competitive commercial scale. Whether that succeeds depends on supply chains, design houses and sustained execution. 

The article reflects on the gaps in India’s shipbuilding capabilities compared to global players and how the government push is starting to show results on the ground. The full article can be read on Chapter One Mag. 

US Congressman cries ‘attack on Christians’ over FCRA Amendment Bill: How foreign entities fund conversions, anarchy, and undermine India’s growth 

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
US Congressman cries ‘attack on Christians’ over FCRA Amendment Bill: How foreign entities fund conversions, anarchy, and undermine India’s growth 

US Representative Riley M. Moore has criticised the proposed Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. The first-term Congressman claimed that the FCRA Amendment Bill permits the government to “take over churches and religious charities”, calling it “a clear attack against Christians.” 

“Christians have been in India since St. Thomas the Apostle travelled to the Malabar Coast just decades after the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.  But despite this long Christian history, India’s Parliament is considering amending Foreign Contribution Regulation Amendment (FCRA) rules to permit government takeovers of churches and religious charities,” Moore wrote on X on 4th August. 

“This is a clear attack against Christians. If this bill proceeds in this way, it would be a point of major concern in our bilateral relationship with India,” the Congressman representing West Virginia’s 2nd District added. 

Amusingly, Moore’s “takeover of churches” claim is as true as his claim about Thomas the Apostle’s visit to South India in the 1st century.  

However, the factual inaccuracies and alarmist framing of the FCRA Bill by the US Congressman warrant scrutiny. Introduced in March 2026, the FCRA Amendment Bill primarily addresses organisations whose FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered, or fails renewal. The Bill empowers the Central government-appointed “Designated Authority” to manage “foreign contributions and assets created from those foreign funds” in such cases for oversight and to prevent diversion or abandonment.  

Separately, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011, which were amended by a Gazette notification published by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on 22nd June 2026, have excluded proselytisation for several groups within the religious community.  

Interestingly, Moore is not the first US senator to cry hoarse over India’s FCRA. Amendment Bill. Ahead of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s late May 2026 visit to India, US Congressman Chris Smith has urged him to bring up the issue of suspension of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) licence of the controversial Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity.  

Indulging in fear mongering, Smith claimed that if adopted, India’s FCRA Amendment Bill, “the total property of entire churches and dioceses could soon be at risk of being taken over by the Indian state.” 

Similar to Riley Moore’s threats, Smith had also threatened that if the FCRA Bill was not put on hold, it might cause long-term harm to relations between the two sides. 

Not only foreign politicians, but even Indian media outlets are framing the FCRA Bill as some sort of attack on religious minorities and civil society.

FCRA is a foreign funding regulatory law, not religious legislation 

Riley Moore, however, has surpassed even the Indian left liberals in fear-mongering and victimhood propaganda. His claim that the FCRA Amendment Bill will empower the Indian government to arbitrarily take over churches is false. The authorities cannot take over or alter the religious character of places of worship. 

As per the rules, the powers of the authorities are limited to foreign-funded assets under specific cessation conditions, and even those orders are subject to revision or appeal. 

It is also interesting that Riley Moore, and even several Indian NGOs and ‘prominent’ individuals, have singled out Christians even as the law is religion-neutral and applies to all FCRA entities. Existing FCRA law, and even if the proposed amendment bill is passed, shall remain a funding law and not transform into a religious law. The law explicitly states that it applies uniformly. 

 
In fact, comparable laws exist in other democracies to regulate foreign funding. The US has the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the United Kingdom has the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS), the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act (FITAA), and many other countries have similar foreign funding regulatory laws.  

The only core difference in India’s FCRA is that it operates as a pre-approval and permission-based regime, in view of national security.  

A question here arises: Why is the US opposing, and even ‘warning’ of damage to India-US relations over the FCRA Amendment Bill? The answer is geopolitical interests and religious ambitions.  

Numerous US-based evangelical and missionary networks have channelled huge funding into India over decades for church planting, conversions among vulnerable groups, be it poor tribals or Dalits, and related works. From Compassion International to World Vision India, Joshua Project, to several other foreign Christian groups are still active in India, furthering Christian conversion and geopolitical interests of their home countries. 

OpIndia has consistently raised alarms over the activities of the US-based World Vision International. The Christian NGO received funding from the now-defunct USAID, which had a record of funding anti-India and anti-Hindu outfits and individuals. With activities confined not just to Northeast India, World Vision pretends to be a humanitarian organisation; in reality, it is a Christian fundamentalist organisation that has allied with other Christian fundamentalists to convert unsuspecting Hindus, especially children and women, for seven decades, as the Nehru government gave the Christian fundamentalist outfit a free hand. 

In 1972, the Indira Gandhi government even allowed World Vision’s Billy Graham to visit Nagaland, much to Graham’s own surprise, since at that time, due to instability, foreigners were not getting permission to visit the Indian state. World Vision openly ran its conversion activities to harvest thousands of Hindu souls for Christianity under Indira Gandhi’s watch. 

In 2024, the Modi government revoked its FCRA license, denting its conversion activity in India. OpIndia earlier reported how US-based Christian outfits like the World Council of Churches, the World Evangelical Alliance and World Vision rallied against anti-conversion laws. And now, foreign and local Christian missionaries are outraged over the FCRA Amendment Bill since it will cut the uninterrupted flow of funds for entities aiming to alter the religious demographics of India and undermine national security. 

Besides, several NGOs and leftist ideological networks have long faced scrutiny for roles in inciting protests, anti-development agitations, and dissemination of propaganda undermining Indian interests. 

In fact, government lists of FCRA cancellation reasons included anti-development acts, inciting protests, and forced religious conversions. 

Kudankulam Nuclear Project and how foreign-funded NGOs stalled the project for years 

It is important to recall how the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant Project was stalled for years by leftist political parties and foreign-funded NGOs.  

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP), located in the Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu, was envisioned as India’s largest nuclear power station, with a total capacity of 6,000 megawatts. The construction of the facility began in 2002, but continuing demonstrations and political resistance hampered it. 

This protest reached its peak in 2011 when people feared a Fukushima-style disaster would strike the nuclear plant. SP Udayakumar, leader of the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), was a significant figure in the anti-Kudankulam movement. 

Back in 2012, many international Christian propaganda outlets had boasted how Churches and Catholics were playing a central role in leading the protests. The Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church in Idinthakarai and two Catholic priests were on the Coordinating Committee for PMANE.  

Most of the anti-nuclear activists, including PMANE’s convenor S P Udayakumar and activist G Sundarajan, joined the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Sundarajan was also AAP’s Lok Sabha candidate in the 2014 elections. It is an interesting fact that the founder of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which led the recently concluded ‘students protests’ in Delhi, Abhijit Dipke, has also been an AAP functionary in the past.  

Notably, the court petitions, protests and continued fearmongering about the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant Project came despite the former President and noted scientist APJ Abdul Kalam assuring that there was no need to panic as the KNPP had state-of-the-art safety features.   

In fact, then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh had publicly called out the NGOs involved in activism for stalling the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant project.  

Singh had said that these NGOs received foreign funding, particularly from the US, and were deliberately stalling the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and leading protests against the KNPP.  

“There are NGOs, often funded from the United States and the Scandinavian countries, which are not fully appreciative of the development challenges that our country faces. The atomic energy programme has got into difficulties because these NGOs, mostly I think based in the United States, don’t appreciate the need for our country to increase the energy supply,” PM Singh told the journal Science in an interview in February 2012. 

Behind the veneer of human rights advocacy, promotion of democracy and education, foreign-funded NGOs under India’s development 

Exploiting human rights, democratic freedom, economic fairness, government accountability, promotion of education and other such high-sounding purposes, several non-governmental organisations in India receive foreign funding. However, their real agenda has been to stall Indian development projects, stir anarchy, and fracture the economy.  

 A 2014 leaked Intelligence Bureau (IB) report revealed the modus operandi of several foreign NGOs making concerted efforts to stall various development projects. 

The report said that a significant number of Indian NGOs receiving funding from the UK, US, Germany, Netherlands, etc, were picking up people-centric issues to create an environment which lends itself to stalling development projects. 

“These include agitations against nuclear power plants, uranium mines, Coal-Fired Power Plants (CFPPs), Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), mega industrial projects (POSCO and Vedanta), hydel projects (at Narmada Sagar; and in Arunachal Pradesh) and extractive industries (oil, limestone) in the North East. The negative impact on GDP growth is assessed to be 2-3% p.a,” the report said. 

Explaining the modus operandi of these foreign-funded NGOs, the IB report said, “Identified foreign donors cleverly disguise their donations as funding for protection of human rights; ‘just deal for project-affected displaced persons: protection of livelihood of indigenous people; protecting religious freedom, etc.” 

“These foreign donors lead local NGOs to provide field reports, which are used to build a record against India and serve as tools for the strategic foreign policy interests of Western Governments. Some donors like Greenpeace International and CORDAID focus their efforts entirely on such activities, while others such as Action Aid, Amnesty International, etc. dedicate a small portion of their annual donations to such projects. under varied veils such as ‘democratic and accountable Government’, economic fairness’, etc,” it added. 

The IB had cited examples of anti-nuclear activism against the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Anti-coal activism against 455 proposed CFPPs, and anti-Genetically Modified Organism activism targeting mega industrial projects, like POSCO and Vedanta. The report found that foreign entities were funding and using NGOs in India as proxies to stall India’s development projects and to undermine the country’s economy. 

Not to forget how the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was funding dubious NGOs in India and was involved in attempts to execute regime change operations in India and Bangladesh. OpIndia has earlier highlighted how the US was actively backing anti-Sheikh Hasina elements in Bangladesh, and how Hasina herself had warned about the US’s efforts to carve out a Christian nation out of some regions of Bangladesh, Myanmar and India’s Northeast.

Christian victimhood is a facade; the real chagrin is FCRA targeting funding networks behind proselytisation and anti-India groups 

The broader “attack on Christians” bogey peddled by Indian Christian entities and leftists, as well as their foreign sympathisers, however, is only a facade. The real outrage is over the tighter scrutiny of foreign funds that have historically flowed into India for proselytisation and anti-India activities.  

The Modi government has not only hammered the menace of proselytisation but, through the FCRA Amendment Bill, is also ensuring that cancelled licenses would have actual, immediate, and permanent consequences. 

At present, when an organisation loses its license, its owned assets, land, buildings, hospitals, schools, and equipment built over the years with foreign funds often fall into a legal vacuum. The gap in question would be completely closed by the Bill. The Consolidated Fund of India would receive the proceeds from the Designated Authority’s oversight, management, and, if needed, disposal of those assets. This completely changes enforcement instead of causing lengthy court proceedings during which assets remain intact, and operations essentially continue; a cancelled license would have actual, immediate, and permanent consequences. 

There is no doubt that the Modi government’s in-process overhaul of the FCRA hits organisations dependent on overseas evangelical pipelines for religious conversion activities.  

It is apparently for these reasons that several Christian bodies in India, and the US have vehemently opposed the FCRA Amendment Bill, framing them as ‘existential threats’ or ‘attacks on minorities’. 

Be it the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI), All India Christian Council, or Archbishop Joseph D’Souza, who called the FCRA-related amendments a “loot” of properties linked to Christian organisations, to US Christian groups like National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, all are collectively seeking the withdrawal of the FCRA Amendment Bill. 

Similarly, Christian publications like Christianity Today, International Christian Concern, among others have been publishing propaganda pieces against the FCRA Amendment Bill to magnify “Christians under attack in India by the Hindu nationalist government” victimhood lies.  

In fact, the recent Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests in New Delhi, several Catholic priests were seen marching alongside CJP supporters to oppose the FCRA Bill. The Delhi Police have also said that the role of several NGOs and linked individuals is also under scanner now. 

It is apparent that because the new FCRA rules, and the FCRA Amendment Bill impose a tighter check on opaque foreign funding flows into entities linked to religious proselytisation and an anti-India agenda, they and their foreign backers are riled up and aggressively campaigning against the FCRA Amendment Bill.  

There is also a political angle to the ongoing campaign against the FCRA Amendment Bill. The intensity of the outrage against the FCRA Bill, and the bill’s politicisation hint at the threat it poses to foreign funding pipelines that have long supported religious conversion work and left-leaning advocacy NGOs. 

Congress, the main opposition party, is leading the political agitation against the FCRA Amendment Bill. The party, however, has its own history with foreign-funded entities. The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, chaired by Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, with Rahul Gandhi as its trustee, previously received funds from China and even faced FCRA license cancellation after a probe uncovered irregularities. 

OpIndia has reported earlier about how Rahul Gandhi has on numerous occasions sought foreign intervention in India’s domestic political affairs by falsely claiming a collapse of democracy under the Modi government. And now, much to Rahul Gandhi’s joy perhaps, US politicians have started threatening damage to India-US bilateral relations over the Indian government’s policy decisions.

The FCRA Amendment Bill aims to disrupt and destroy the financial network of foreign anti-India entities funding their puppets in India.  The bill is fundamentally about sovereignty over foreign funding flows that are directed to fuel religious conversions, demographic alterations, protests, anarchy or parallel power structures. Apparently, for this reason, foreign elements like Riley Moore are amplifying alarmist narratives to incite religious sentiments by framing a mere asset-management and foreign funding regulatory law as a weapon for the seizure of churches and persecution of Christians. 

From ‘too sick’ to Sambhaji Nagar visit: How the Jharkhand protests exposed the hypocrisy of Abhijeet Dipke and CJP

Jinit Jain
-
0
From ‘too sick’ to Sambhaji Nagar visit: How the Jharkhand protests exposed the hypocrisy of Abhijeet Dipke and CJP

For nearly two weeks, thousands of Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) aspirants have been protesting in Ranchi over alleged irregularities in the recruitment process. Students allege paper leaks, manipulation in recruitment and a complete lack of basic facilities at the protest site, including drinking water, food and toilets. The agitation has snowballed into one of the biggest youth movements in the state in recent years, with critics accusing the Hemant Soren-led Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) government of displaying remarkable indifference towards the protesters.

Conspicuous by its absence, however, was the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a group that built its entire public identity around championing students’ causes.

Only after facing days of criticism on social media and being repeatedly accused of hypocrisy did CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke finally announce that he and his colleagues would visit Jharkhand in solidarity with the protesting students.

The timing is difficult to ignore.

An excuse that collapsed under its own weight

As questions mounted over why CJP had stayed away from Ranchi despite projecting itself as a national student movement, Dipke attempted to explain the absence.

In a now-viral interaction with journalist Sanket Upadhyay, Dipke claimed that he and other CJP leaders were unable to travel because they were exhausted and unwell following the prolonged Jantar Mantar protests.

Had events ended there, the explanation may have appeared plausible.

Instead, reality punctured the narrative.

Soon afterwards, CJP leaders travelled to Dipke’s hometown of Sambhaji Nagar. Videos showed Dipke comfortably interacting with supporters outside his residence in the company of senior CJP leaders. Ironically, it was during this very interaction that Dipke finally announced the long-awaited Jharkhand visit.

The contradiction was obvious.

If the leadership was genuinely too ill to travel to Ranchi to support students protesting for nearly two weeks, how was it healthy enough to undertake a political visit to Sambhaji Nagar and participate in public interactions?

The sequence strongly suggests that the Jharkhand visit was announced not because CJP suddenly discovered the students’ plight, but because remaining absent had become politically untenable.

A protest that became inconvenient

The political backdrop makes the episode even more revealing.

Jharkhand is not governed by the BJP.

It is ruled by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha under Chief Minister Hemant Soren, with the Congress as a principal alliance partner.

For months, Dipke has faced allegations from critics that CJP functions less as an independent citizens’ movement and more as a pressure group whose activism disproportionately targets the BJP-led governments while remaining noticeably restrained when Opposition governments are under scrutiny. Dipke’s pictures with Kejriwal and Sisodia and his past links with AAP only adds weight to the allegation that CJP is yet another political movement under the guise of “championing students’ rights.”

Whether one agrees with that criticism or not, the Jharkhand protests have certainly strengthened that perception.

Had Dipke rushed to Ranchi from day one, he would have been compelled to question a JMM-Congress government over allegations of examination irregularities and administrative apathy. Instead came silence, followed by excuses, followed by mounting criticism, followed by an announcement only after social media users began openly questioning CJP’s credibility.

That is not how principled activism operates.

The movement that made CJP

The irony is difficult to miss because CJP owes much of its public visibility to student protests.

The organisation rose to prominence during the NEET paper leak controversy by aligning itself with activist Sonam Wangchuk’s fast and positioning itself as the face of student anger over alleged examination irregularities. CJP leaders projected themselves as uncompromising defenders of students and repeatedly claimed they would stand with young aspirants irrespective of political considerations.

Yet Jharkhand appears to have exposed the limits of that claim.

If student welfare is indeed the guiding principle, then the political identity of the government should be irrelevant.

A student protesting against alleged irregularities in Ranchi deserves no less solidarity than a student protesting over NEET in Delhi.

Celebrating a resignation while protesters struggled

Questions over CJP’s priorities did not begin with Jharkhand.

After sustained protests over the NEET controversy, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned. Almost immediately, Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka, Saurav Das and other CJP leaders projected the resignation as a historic victory for their movement.

However, Pradhan himself presented an entirely different explanation.

In his resignation letter, he stated that he was stepping down so that vested interests would not mislead students into abandoning their studies and taking to the streets. According to him, his resignation was intended to remove himself as a political flashpoint and allow students to focus on preparing for their examinations and securing their future.

Whether one accepts that reasoning or not, it was certainly different from the triumphalist narrative promoted by CJP.

The optics became even more uncomfortable soon afterwards.

Videos of an “after-resignation party”, particularly featuring CJP leader Saurav Das, began circulating on social media. The celebrations triggered criticism not merely from political opponents but from individuals who had once associated themselves with the movement.

Among them was former Newslaundry journalist Meghnad S, who had briefly been associated with CJP during its formative phase. He publicly expressed disappointment, pointing out that while CJP leaders were celebrating, many volunteers and protesters were occupied arranging food, water and other necessities for fasting students at Jantar Mantar.

The criticism carried weight precisely because it came from someone who had once worked alongside the organisation.

It reinforced the growing perception that sections of the leadership were increasingly invested in optics and political theatre, while ordinary volunteers continued to perform the difficult work that sustains protest movements.

Jharkhand reinforces an old prejudice

Viewed against that backdrop, CJP’s delayed response to the Jharkhand protests appears less like an isolated lapse and more like a continuation of a familiar pattern.

When protests can be used to corner the BJP-led Centre, CJP displays extraordinary urgency.

When the allegations concern Opposition governments, hesitation suddenly sets in.

If CJP truly claims to represent students rather than political interests, its response should not vary depending on who occupies the treasury benches.

Selective activism inevitably invites accusations of political opportunism.

Public credibility is built on consistency. It cannot survive double standards.

Abhijeet Dipke’s eventual announcement of a Jharkhand visit may help contain immediate criticism, but it cannot erase the sequence that preceded it: prolonged silence, implausible explanations, contradictory public appearances and a sudden expression of solidarity only after accusations of hypocrisy began threatening CJP’s credibility.

For a movement that rose to prominence by claiming to speak for students across India, Jharkhand has become an uncomfortable test. Unless CJP demonstrates that it is willing to hold Opposition governments to exactly the same standards it demands of the Centre, the charge that its activism is guided more by political convenience than by principle will continue to shadow every future campaign.

Taslima Nasreen’s return to Kolkata: How The Indian Express found a way to sanitise Islamist violence and still cast Hindus as villains

Jinit Jain
-
0
Taslima Nasreen’s return to Kolkata: How The Indian Express found a way to sanitise Islamist violence and still cast Hindus as villains

The left-liberal media ecosystem in India has perfected a singular art form over the decades: the mental gymnastics required to sanitise Islamic fundamentalism while finding a way to blame Hindus for the resulting chaos. No matter how egregious the display of radicalism, no matter how clear the identity of the perpetrators, the habitual apologists at publications like The Indian Express will unfailingly bend over backwards to spin the narrative. Their latest attempt to obfuscate reality comes wrapped in an analysis of exiled Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen’s return to West Bengal.

Titled ‘In Taslima Nasrin’s return to West Bengal, two stories of religious majoritarianism’, the piece is a masterclass in pseudo-intellectual dishonesty. It reveals the sheer desperation of a media apparatus that cannot bring itself to name Islamic bigotry without immediately inventing a false equivalence to vilify Hindus.

Source: Indian Express

The reality of 2007: Islamic violence forced Nasreen out

To understand the absurdity of the Indian Express piece, one must first revisit why Taslima Nasreen had to flee Kolkata in 2007. She was not driven out by abstract concepts or nameless phantoms. She was forced out because radical Islamic mobs took to the streets of Kolkata, rioting, damaging property, and baying for her blood over her writings, particularly her novel Lajja and Dwikhandito, books which documented the persecution of minority Hindus in Bangladesh by the Muslim majority.

Faced with violent street power from Islamist groups like the All India Minority Forum, the Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee-led Left Front government chose cowardice. Rather than upholding law and order and defending free speech, the state capitulated completely, effectively hounding Nasreen out of Bengal to appease a fundamentalist vote bank. Subsequent years under the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress saw no change in stance; appeasement remained the ruling ideology, and Nasreen remained persona non grata in the city she called home.

The twisted logic: Welcome an exiled author, get accused of a ‘sinister plot’

Fast forward to her return. When an exiled feminist writer, who faced death threats from Islamic extremists for decades, finally gets to return to Kolkata under an administration willing to guarantee her security, one would expect commentators concerned with human rights and free expression to welcome the move. Instead, The Indian Express views the welcome extended to her not as a victory for free speech, but as a sinister plot by “Hindu nationalists.”

The article laments that billboards were put up, conch shells were blown, and her arrival was hailed as a “ghar wapsi” or a return of confidence. To the left-liberal mind, welcoming a persecuted dissident with traditional Indian customs is apparently an act of provocation. The piece goes on to claim that providing security to Nasreen is a “double-edged sword” because it allows the BJP to essentialise and vilify Muslim culture and politics as anti-women and regressive.

Consider the sheer inversion of cause and effect in this logic. First, radical Islamists issue death threats and violently drive a female writer out of a state. Then, political parties capitulate to these extremists for decades to secure vote banks. Finally, when a government provides her safety and calls out the radicalism that drove her away, that government is accused of “vilifying” Muslims.

According to this convoluted worldview, pointing out the documented actions of Islamic fundamentalists is worse than the fundamentalism itself. The perpetrators of violence are shielded from criticism, while those providing refuge to the victim are painted as the true villains.

The dog-whistle of “majoritarianism”

The centrepiece of the article’s intellectual sleight of hand is the deployment of the word “majoritarianism.” By titling the piece “two stories of religious majoritarianism,” the author attempts to draw a moral symmetry between two vastly different phenomena. On one hand, you have Islamic fundamentalism driving mobs to riot on the streets, issue fatwas, and demand the expulsion or death of a writer for expressing her views. On the other hand, you have what the author frames as “Hindu majoritarianism,” consisting of citizens blowing conch shells, putting up welcome banners, and guaranteeing the physical safety of that same writer.

To equate the violent intolerance that exiled Taslima Nasreen with the cultural welcome that facilitated her return is not just bad analysis, it is deliberate propaganda.

The term “majoritarianism” has become a favourite dog-whistle for the Left media and its ideologues. It is deployed specifically to defame the Hindu majority whenever they assert their cultural identity or challenge the entrenched system of selective secularism. In the vocabulary of the left-liberal establishment, any policy or action that protects victims of Islamist aggression is reflexively branded as “majoritarian,” thereby turning the concept of justice upside down.

Secular humanism as a shield for appeasement

The article concludes by invoking Nasreen’s call for “secular humanism” and her criticism of all organised religions, attempting to weaponise her philosophical stance against the very people offering her refuge. It lectures the reader that her visit is not a story of party politics, but the tale of the return of the writer-activist who stands against religious fundamentalism and majoritarian politics.

This is the ultimate irony. For decades, self-proclaimed “secularists” in India ignored Nasreen’s plight, turned a blind eye to the fatwas against her, and allowed fundamentalists to dictate state policy. They discarded “secular humanism” the moment it conflicted with electoral arithmetic. Now that her return highlights the utter failure of their favoured political models, these same commentators retreat into high-minded abstractions about “humanism” to avoid confronting the specific, real-world source of her persecution.

The Left’s primary objective: Fiction over facts, propaganda over reality

The Indian Express article is a textbook illustration of why mainstream media commentary has lost credibility among observant readers. It demonstrates an ideological framework where Muslims must always be framed as potential victims, even when the context is the return of a woman fleeing Islamist death threats, and Hindus must always be cast as aggressors, even when blowing conch shells to welcome a persecuted author.

Taslima Nasreen’s return to Kolkata should have been a straightforward story about the triumph of free expression over violent intolerance. By converting it into a narrative about the dangers of “Hindu majoritarianism,” the left-liberal media once again proves that its primary commitment is not to truth, justice, or free speech, but to the defence of a broken, one-sided narrative at all costs.

Former JNU Professor who once said ‘Muslim men are attractive’ now calls India ‘cursed’: Here are 5 horrible things Nivedita Menon said in her latest interview

सौम्या सिंह
-
0
Former JNU Professor who once said ‘Muslim men are attractive’ now calls India ‘cursed’: Here are 5 horrible things Nivedita Menon said in her latest interview

Recently, an interview of Nivedita Menon, a former professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), was uploaded on journalist Mandeep Punia’s YouTube channel. In this interview, Nivedita used student movements and education issues as a shield to directly attack the nation of India, the country’s sovereignty, democratic institutions, and constitutional setup, calling India a “cursed” country.

For a professor who was associated with teaching and learning for a long time at a prestigious university like JNU to make such statements from public platforms is not merely expressing dissent, but a well-thought-out strategic attack on the country’s sovereignty and social fabric.

Her words spoken throughout the interview clearly reveal the extent to which the leftist-radical ecosystem is filled with malice and hatred towards India.

Disrespecting the country by calling India ‘cursed’, along with filthy remarks on Hindus

In her interview, while discussing the protests of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) in the country, various student movements, and the condition of minorities, Nivedita Menon made her inherent hatred towards the nation of India public. She used the derogatory word ‘cursed’ for a great, tolerant, and democratic country like India.

Speaking on the CJP’s protests, she said, “When a child like Junaid is killed and thrown off a train, and the entire country remains silent, I feel that over the last 12 years they are being repeatedly made to feel that you don’t belong here. We will bulldoze you, we will do anything to you, and you cannot utter a word. The CJP protest provided a little breathing room, and Muslims perhaps started feeling that maybe in this cursed country, there is a place for us too.”

Portraying a great nation like India, where millions of citizens take pride in their cultural heritage and sovereignty, as a ‘cursed’ structure proves that so-called leftist intellectuals have nothing left in the name of constructive criticism except spewing anti-national poison.

By using such misleading language, she also attempts to project India’s image internationally as an oppressive nation.

Glorification of CJP and chaotic movements: A conspiracy to put institutions in the dock

Nivedita’s entire focus remained on justifying and glorifying the protests of the Cockroach Janata Party. An attempt was made to present left-leaning and radical organisations, as well as rioters who attacked police and conspired to enter Parliament under the guise of students at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, as victims.

Menon termed these movements a ‘democratic victory.’ She said, “This word ‘accountability’ that CJP’s protest made so common, everyone is talking about accountability. You might remember a student reading the description of democracy from an NCERT textbook and saying that accountability is a feature of democracy. So, the biggest victory of this movement is that the word accountability has entered our dictionary and our everyday language.”

Speaking on the leadership and nature of the movement, she further added, “The kind of people who came out on CJP’s call, I am hearing the word ‘organic’ a lot, that it became organic. Now, it did become organic, but organic does not emerge on its own. Somewhere there has to be a centre giving the call, and in this, the name of Abhijit Dipke and his role cannot be forgotten. We cannot reduce him.”

She also claimed that such movements broke the silence of the last 12 years and brought various leftist groups onto a single platform. She said, “The dense silence that had prevailed for 12 years- whatever happened in these 12 years- that is why left groups could join him. That is why so many people across the country, and actually across the world, supported it.”

Attacks on RSS, Central Government, and the education system

During the interview, Nivedita Menon’s political malice towards the Central Government and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was clearly visible. She made sharp and indecent remarks about the country’s new Education Minister, the newly formed task force, and the National Education Policy (NEP).

She also alleged that their mindset regarding women is very cheap. Questioning the government’s intent, she said, “Dharmendra Pradhan left, but the person who came as Education Minister is an even more radical Sanghi and an even more radical RSS preacher. He spoke very supportively about the rapists of Bilkis Bano. So, a person like that has been made Education Minister. We thought no one could be worse than Dharmendra Pradhan, but they brought out another one from their bag.”

Menon made several other vile allegations against the new Education Minister and made vulgar comments about Hindu society. Mocking the formation and members of the task force created by the government for educational reforms, she said, “Look at the kind of people in the so-called high-powered task force they formed. It has IAS bureaucrats, the chief of Infosys, and what will Infosys tell us about education? Then there is another person who praised cow urine (Gomutra), saying many diseases are cured through it. So, they have formed a task force of this kind from which we have no hope.”

Completely rejecting the country’s political structure and democratic setup, she alleged, “It has been a Hindu Rashtra here for 12 years; attempts were made to make it a Hindu Rashtra, and in a way, it has become a Hindu Rashtra. We are all living under the shadow of a Hindu Rashtra.”

Support for anti-CAA protests, Umar Khalid, and separatist continuity

In the interview, Nivedita Menon openly defended anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and suspects of the Delhi riots. She glorified the narratives spread by jailed accused like Umar Khalid and presented them as a grand revolutionary journey.

She said, “The seeds that were sown in anti-CAA and farmers’ protests, which were suppressed in a way, the seeds sown by youths like Umar Khalid emerged as plants. And now it is a continuity, a continuity from anti-CAA to here.”

Furthermore, expressing complete distrust in the country’s electoral process, judiciary, and the fairness of democratic institutions, she said, “This kind of behaviour by any government shows us that they have no intention of winning an election. It means they are not afraid of elections because at every level, with EVM, ECI, SIR, Delimitation, they feel they don’t even need to win elections anymore.”

Abuses hurled at PM Modi termed as ‘resistance’, ‘anti-patriarchal’, and a ‘bourgeois’

To justify the vulgar and indecent abuses directed at the Prime Minister and constitutional figures during student movements, Nivedita Menon and Mandeep Punia took the support of feminist and ‘queer’ theory. Terming it as the youth’s ‘revolutionary resistance’, she said, “When an abuse is hurled repeatedly at any group, picking up that abuse and making it a bouquet and a badge of honour is also a historical process.”

Further defending the abuses, she said, “Most of the abuses are actually anti-patriarchal. Listening to the abuses, I felt that this too is a poke of resistance; this is a kind of resistance which our generation… so listening to abuses, I felt this is also part of resistance.”

A former university professor encouraging youth rudeness, indecent language, and abuses towards persons sitting in constitutional positions by calling them a ‘badge of honour’ and a ‘bouquet’ represents the peak of moral decay among the leftist intellectual class.

Misuse of JNU platform and attempts to poison the minds of youth

Towards the end of the interview, Nivedita Menon openly admitted that she is learning from the chaotic working style of these youths and wants to promote it.

She said, “When the RSS and BJP do propaganda, I will learn from them. I will learn how, when mud is thrown at you, instead of throwing mud back at them, you turn it into a balloon or a bouquet and toss it back.”

A professor’s responsibility is to make students aware of studies, disciplined debate, nation-building, and constitutional dignity. But on the contrary, leftist thinkers like Nivedita Menon remain engaged in stoking feelings of anger and separatism in the minds of youth against the Indian state system, police, and judiciary.

Nivedita Menon’s record: Complete list of controversial statements

Calling India a ‘cursed country’ or attacking the Indian Army and constitutional setup is not the result of any new line of thinking by Nivedita Menon. If her past career and record are reviewed, it becomes clear that her entire history is filled with anti-India statements, insults to the army, support for separatists, and an anti-Hindu agenda.

India is illegally occupying Kashmir: Nivedita’s controversial statement

In March 2016, during the controversy over ‘Azadi’ slogans on the JNU campus, Nivedita Menon gave a public lecture on ‘What Nationhood Means to Me’. In this speech, she openly stated, “We all know that India’s occupation of Kashmir is illegal. It is accepted world over that India is illegally occupying Kashmir.”

Referring to controversial maps in international magazines like Time and Newsweek, she argued that if the entire world considers India an aggressive power in Kashmir, then slogans of ‘Azadi’ in the valley are completely justified and natural. Her statement sparked massive outrage across the country.

Insulting Indian soldiers and alleging they work only for ‘Roji-Roti’

In February 2017, Nivedita Menon was the keynote speaker at a national seminar organised at Jai Narain Vyas University (JNVU), Jodhpur. There, she not only displayed a controversial map of India but also severely insulted the Indian Army soldiers protecting the country’s borders.

She had said, “Soldiers do not stand on the borders for the country’s defence or patriotism; rather, they work in the army only for their livelihood (employment) and to earn their Livelihood.” She had further added that India should withdraw its army from regions like Siachen and give up its claim over it.

Following this anti-national statement, protests broke out from the university campus to the streets in Jodhpur, an FIR was registered against Menon, and the professor who organised the seminar was suspended.

Questioning India’s official map and integrity

In several of her lectures and articles, Nivedita Menon has rejected the validity of India’s geographical map. Citing controversial maps from ‘Himalayan Magazine’ and foreign publications, she has repeatedly argued that India is an ‘artificial nation-state’.

She presents the merger of North-East India and Kashmir into India as ‘military coercion’, which is a stance directly challenging India’s sovereignty and integrity.

Leftist-Islamic nexus on ‘Love Jihad’: Arfa Khanum and Nivedita Menon mocking Hindu victims

An analysis of an old conversation between Nivedita Menon and ‘The Wire’ propagandist Arfa Khanum Sherwani clearly reveals how leftists and Islamists join hands to mock serious issues related to the safety of Hindu society.

In one of their podcasts, Arfa Khanum and Nivedita Menon not only completely dismissed an organised social crime like ‘Love Jihad’ with leftist trickery, but also made extremely shameful comments about victimised Hindu families and Hindu men.

When Arfa Khanum pushed her agenda by asking why ‘Hindu girls like Muslim boys’, Nivedita Menon laughed out loud and gave a highly irresponsible reply, saying, “Muslim men must be so attractive, and they probably don’t get that in their own religion.”

This duo of Arfa and Nivedita tried to hide the deep, bitter truth behind Love Jihad, where Muslim youths conceal their religious identity, tie sacred threads (Kalawa) on their wrists, adopt fake Hindu names to trap Hindu girls, and later indulge in sexual exploitation and pressure for religious conversion.

Nivedita bursting into laughter at this malicious question asked by Arfa Khanum proves that these women wearing the garb of so-called liberal-feminists leave no opportunity to demean Hindu society to provide intellectual protection to radicals.

Absurd comments on the Indian Constitution, Hinduism, and Hindutva

Professor Menon has continuously launched sharp attacks on the cultural traditions and customs of Hindu society, and the concept of Hindutva in her speeches. She portrays Hindutva as a fierce, violent, and anti-women ideology, while remaining completely silent on rigid radicalism and evils present in other religions.

Targeting Hindu beliefs to spread discontent against the majority population has been a core part of her strategic rhetoric.

Attacks on the credibility of the country’s judiciary, police, and administrative setup

Menon has a track record of trusting no constitutional institution in India. In cases of separatists or terror supporters convicted by courts, she always questions judicial verdicts. She calls court-ordered inquiries ‘state suppression’ and legal action taken by police ‘political persecution’. In this manner, she works to create complete distrust towards the Indian state setup in the minds of the youth.

Real mirror of ideological anarchy and anti-national narrative

This recent interview of Nivedita Menon and her past controversial history clearly reveal that her entire narrative is not just opposition to a political party or government, but a deep strike against the nation-state of India, its sovereignty, and its constitutional setup.

Calling a diverse and tolerant country like India ‘cursed’, terming the valour of the Indian Army protecting the country as merely a ‘means of earning bread and butter’, calling India’s sovereign rights over Kashmir illegal, and describing accused involved in anti-national activities as ‘seeds of revolution’, all of this is part of a planned leftist-separatist mindset.

If platforms of prestigious educational institutions like JNU, which run on the money of ordinary taxpayers, are used to fill the minds of youth with hatred towards the nation, borders, police, and judiciary, it will weaken the roots of the country.

Dissent and ideological criticism are always welcome in a democracy, but when the very existence of the nation is denied in the name of dissent, abuses are presented as a ‘badge of honor’, and anarchy is promoted, it cannot be called freedom of expression, but ‘ideological terrorism’.

This complete record of Nivedita Menon is a clear message to conscious society and the youth of the country that it is extremely necessary to recognise and rationally refute this anti-national agenda hidden behind an intellectual cover.

1...505152...7,678Page 51 of 7,678