Home Blog

Far-left anarchist Neha Bora’s Bangladesh-style regime-change pitch for India: What does her dangerous desire mean for the country

Rukma Rathore
-
0
Far-left anarchist Neha Bora’s Bangladesh-style regime-change pitch for India: What does her dangerous desire mean for the country

The implicit has been made explicit by far-left anarchist Neha Bora. She has credited the “Gen-Z movement” of Bangladesh, which resulted in the forceful removal of a democratically elected government in August 2024, as a source of inspiration for the ongoing protests in India, intending to replicate similar scenes in the nation.

She is the national president of the All India Students Association (AISA), the student wing of the Communist Party of India Marxist–Leninist Liberation (CPI-ML).

Bora shared her sinister desires after Nahid Islam, a staunch Hinduphobic and anti-India voice, extended his support to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and its agitation. He also praised the Shaheen Bagh demonstration, which paralysed the national capital for over 100 days and spread disinformation about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Islam was among the names associated with spearheading the unrest that destabilised Bangladesh under the guise of anti-government resistance, only for the upheaval to descend into persecution of minorities, particularly Hindus. Bora, however, described the bloodshed as a “revolution,” hoping for the same to unfold in India.

Further highlighting her apparent admiration for such destructive turmoil, she was recently seen wearing a red T-shirt emblazoned with the Jolly Roger symbol of the Straw Hat Pirates from the popular “One Piece” manga, which has been prominently linked to deadly uprisings across Asia and the world, including Nepal, Indonesia and the Philippines.

A free hand for jihadis and Islamists to target Hindus: Neha Bora’s idea of “revolution” in India

The anti-Hindu onslaught unleashed by radical entities in Bangladesh became a defining feature of the widespread protests that had initially been presented as a student-led revolt against the government. On 5th August 2024, the very day Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was forced to leave the country, the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council released a list documenting attacks on Hindu temples, homes and establishments.

It included 54 incidents, a figure that soon rose to more than 200, with the actual scale of the violence vastly exceeding the disclosed cases as numerous such occurrences remained unreported. The gravity of the situation compelled External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar to address the issue in Parliament, drawing attention to the precarious position of Hindus in Bangladesh.

However, this was only the beginning of a prolonged plight for a vulnerable community left increasingly exposed to extremists. Hindus, both commoners and notable personalities alike, found themselves at the receiving end of a campaign marked by intimidation, arson, vandalism and unprecedented brutality.

Hate preachers and fanatic foot soldiers mobilised to incite hostility against Hindus, target women, torch properties, desecrate temples, damage idols and assault religious institutions and their members. Lynching and mob violence became recurring horrors for the community, with Islamist mobs celebrating over the bodies of their victims. Jamaat-e-Islami even prepared a list of their targets and blocked roads to prevent them from escaping.

On the other hand, Muhammad Yunus, who assumed charge as chief adviser of Bangladesh’s interim government, blamed the Indian government and the media for spreading “propaganda” about the dire condition of Hindus rather than offering any protection or bringing the culprits to account.

His government repeatedly either denied or painted the communal violence as political retaliation, fake news or isolated conflicts, as relations with India hit a new low with each remark. The Indian High Commission was targeted as the strident anti-India rhetoric amplified, which also involved provocative statements over the “Seven Sisters” of the Northeast.

Hindus continued to be lynched while those entrusted with maintaining law and order appeared unwilling to address the grave situation. The ground reality pushed the minority groups to suspend their religious events due to the intensifying fear. Similarly, Durga Puja came under attack from the Islamists, who started to demand jaziya from Hindus in order to live in the country.

Meanwhile, the Islamo-leftist ecosystem, including their supporters in India, downplayed, sanitised or dismissed the massacre, reducing the future of Bangladeshi Hindus to a chilling ultimatum: convert or die. Their pain has shown little sign of easing, as those who speak out against the atrocities, including monk Chinmoy Krishna Das, have to endure the wrath of both Muslim hardliners and the government.

The frightening future Neha Bora envisions for India

This is not even a fraction of the immense tragedy borne by the Hindu community due to protests that began under the banner of popular rebellion, which Bora and many like her want to mirror on the streets of India. More importantly, Bangladesh’s slide since Sheikh Hasina’s resignation has extended far beyond human and minority rights, affecting its economy, soaring inflation and other critical sectors.

The promise of a better tomorrow has proved to be an illusion. People have raised concerns over political suppression and unchecked surveillance, while bans on Islamist parties have been lifted. Bangladesh, where even walking alone has become a challenge, has to persistently grapple with deep-rooted lawlessness. The demonstrations only succeeded in toppling the government and causing attacks on Hindus, but failed miserably to translate into any meaningful improvement in the overall state of affairs. If anything, conditions have deteriorated further.

The Indian opposition has been obsessed with the fantasy of somehow imposing a similar model in India to oust the democratically elected Modi government. These people champion the Constitution and constitutional institutions, such as the Election Commission and the judiciary, only when it suits their political interests and have no qualms about driving the country into permanent disarray and reducing it to a theatre of mass violence.

It goes without saying that such a volatile scenario would leave lasting scars and carry irreversible, dangerous consequences not only for the nation but also for countless people whose lives could be devastated in the process. Furthermore, the very symbols of a nation’s sovereignty, dignity and integrity, history as well as heritage are brought to ruin during such episodes, as starkly illustrated in Bangladesh.

Thus, this might offer an appealing prospect to leftists like Bora, who romanticise the carnage for political gain, but the implications would be catastrophic, in light of the size and population of India.

A fraction of such a breakdown could result in pervasive riots that spiral out of control, with repercussions spreading rapidly across the nation. It would also open a door for India’s adversaries, both within and outside its borders, allowing them to exacerbate the mayhem and add to the already daunting predicament.

The world’s largest democracy could find its foundations shaken, its Constitution stripped of meaning and mob violence replacing the ballot box. All this will happen without any certainty that the installed government would yield even marginal advantage for the nation in any regard.

However, the dismal ramifications are both evident and far-reaching. A regime change might appeal to Neha Bora in India or George Soros in the United States, but for the country itself, it would only usher in a mountainous set of crises, undermining its democratic values, eroding constitutional principles and crippling its institutions.

Cherry-picking “revolution”: The quintessential hypocrisy of the Left

The decision by Bangladesh’s High Court to reinstate the quota system, which reserved 30% of government posts for descendants of 1971 Liberation War veterans and raised the overall quotas to 56%, sparked outrage in Bangladesh. The students considered it discriminatory and unjust to merit-based recruitment.

However, in a classic example of the hypocrisy that has become synonymous with the Islamo-leftist ecosystem, Bora conveniently ignored the reasons behind the protests in Bangladesh, which she desperately wants to emulate in India. The Bangladeshi students took to the streets because they believed that quotas were introduced at the expense of merit, but Bora would never dare to make an argument remotely along these lines.

On the contrary, she has been among the loudest voices supporting reservations. She did not stand with students opposing the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations or those fighting for merit-based opportunities, even though the similar premise was central to the agitation in Bangladesh.

Bora wants to cherry-pick even the prime motivation of a movement she claims to idolise. Her selectivity exposes the shallowness of her “activism” and unmasks the pretence of “concern” for the nation.

The fundamental truth is that the opposition has consistently failed to defeat Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the elections. Hence, they are looking for alternative means of achieving their political objectives due to their inability to dislodge the saffron party.

They remain indifferent to what turning India into another Bangladesh or Nepal would mean for its people, democratic institutions and future. Their overriding aim is to capture political power and fulfil their own ambitions, by one means or another. As a result, they are eager to sacrifice India and its people, who will suffer the fallout of such a forsaken situation, in pursuit of these goals.

Conclusion

The irony is that those who assert to stand for India, its people and the Constitution happily overlook all three when it comes to achieving their political objectives. Bora’s calculated endorsement of the Bangladesh protests only reinforces this contradiction. Her complete disregard for democracy, the rule of law and constitutional ideals is revealed by her ominous vision for regime change.

However, the nation’s destiny cannot be relegated to the status of a political trophy for those who cannot secure power through elections. A country of more than a billion people is not a playground for political experiments, and its citizens should not have to pay the price for anyone’s political prospects.

There is no place or takers for such a perilous gamble that could permanently jeopardise both India’s present and tomorrow. Bora and the opposition are unable to grasp this reality, but the people of India understand what is at stake.

Who is Pramila Jayapal, the US politician who extended support to protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over 130 million ‘voter purge’? Know about the Neville Roy Singham funding link and her anti-India attacks 

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Who is Pramila Jayapal, the US politician who extended support to protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over 130 million ‘voter purge’? Know about the Neville Roy Singham funding link and her anti-India attacks 

After the leftist foreign media and human rights groups with mastery in selective outrage, US politicians have also begun expressing their unsolicited ‘concerns’ about the deletion of 130 million or 13 crore voter names from draft electoral rolls after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Amid the Cockroach Janta Party and Opposition’s protest theatrics against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Indian-origin US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal extended support to the ongoing protests in Delhi. 

In an X post published on 14th October 2026, Pramila Jayapal wrote, “I am deeply concerned about the actions of the Indian government to purge 130 million people from the voting rolls. This appears to be a similar playbook to what the Trump Administration is doing here at home to undermine voting rights in a democracy.” 

In continuation, the US Congresswoman representing Washington’s 7th congressional district wrote, ” Protecting democracies everywhere is essential work, and the Indian people — like the American people — deserve free and fair elections. Non-violent resistance movements are essential in these moments and I stand with the Indian people who are engaging in non-violent protests to counter anti-democratic efforts in India.” 

Have 130 million people been ‘removed’ from voting rolls as Pramila Jayapal claims? 

Contrary to the insinuation that somehow 130 million or 12 crore voter names have been arbitrarily struck down from voter rolls, in a politically motivated mass disenfranchisement manoeuvre by the Election Commission of India, these are exclusions from the draft electoral rolls, not permanent final deletions. 

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across the country in recent months was conducted after a monumental gap of nearly 24 years.  The SIR was not an illegal mass disenfranchisement action but a constitutionally aligned house-to-house enumeration exercise to update and clean electoral rolls. 

The latest SIR was conducted across 30 states and Union Territories, scrutinising about 95.4 crore voters. Nearly 13.39 crore voter names were left out of the draft electoral rolls. These voter names were not singled out based on their religion, caste, gender or political leanings. These voter name deletions fall mainly under the ASDD, which means Absent, Shifted, Dead, and Duplicate voters. 

Of the 13 crore names removed from the draft electoral rolls, 6.30 crore were Permanently Shifted, 3 crore Absent or not traceable, 2.80 crore Dead, 1.02 crore Duplicate and 0.26 crore under other categories. 

As per the stated rules, there is a claims-and-objections window after the draft is published. After processing claims, objections, and any related appeals, the final rolls are published; only then are the voter’s name exclusions for that revision finalised. 

Though there was an attempt by the Opposition to allege malice over the Supreme Court’s remark that it has not approved any fresh changes to Form 6, the apex court recently clarified that it has not disapproved of it either.  

Pertinently, the ECI has maintained that Form 6 has not been altered or replaced. It pointed out that a new declaration mapping the parents of a prospective voter in the previous SIR was introduced as a separate eligibility verification requirement, and it wasn’t a modification of Form 6. 

Previously, the ECI had pointed out that the decision to introduce this new declaration was taken unanimously by the Chief Election Commissioner and both Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu. It has maintained that prescribing additional information for eligibility verification falls within its residual powers. 

This interpretation was backed by the Supreme Court’s order dated 27th May 2026 in the Bihar SIR. The top court had recognised the ECI’s authority to prescribe documentation for verifying voter eligibility. 

However, for the likes of Pramila Jayapal who are driven by their political-ideological agenda do not necessarily care about facts but are focused on making their contribution to stoking anarchy in India against the Modi government. 

It is interesting that despite being an active politician in American electoral politics, Jayapal is more concerned about Indian electoral processes than about her own country’s flawed electoral system. 

The US has a highly decentralised electoral system, with each state setting its own rules on voter registration, identification requirements, voting methods, and ballot access. Most of these remain contested. Jayapal should advocate modifications to the Electoral College in the US, which allows candidates to win the presidency despite their failure to secure the national popular vote. From voter suppression, non-citizen voting, gerrymandering, and controversies relating to mail-in and early voting, Jayapal will do better if she devotes her energy to domestic American matters, including structural issues in the electoral system, than be concerned about Indian electoral issues. 

Nevertheless, as the US politician jumps on the bandwagon of foreign meddling in India’s internal electoral-political affairs, it is pertinent to know about her anti-India activities and her financial links with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) stooge Neville Roy Singham, who leads the transnational pro-CCP information laundering network, House of Singham. 

Pramila Jayapal: A rabid Hinduphobe and anti-India Democrat leader 

Pramila Jayapal is a notorious anti-India and anti-Hindu Democrat leader active in American politics.  

In December 2019, she brought a Congressional resolution urging India to end restrictions on communications in Jammu and Kashmir. Her stand against the Indian Government’s decision to abrogate Article 370 in the state made the Indian American community feel betrayed, cheated and saddened. 

Following her resolution, MEA Jaishankar famously cancelled his meeting with a group of United States lawmakers following their refusal to exclude anti-India Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal from the delegation that was scheduled to meet him. “Don’t think her report has a fair understanding of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir or a fair characterisation of what the Government of India is doing. I have no interest in meeting her,” the External Affairs Minister revealed after speculations of cancellation of the meeting came forth. 

In January 2026, Pramila Jayapal joined 7 other US lawmakers in signing an open letter to the Indian government demanding bail and a free trial for 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots accused mastermind Umar Khalid. Even as Khalid’s case remained sub judice, the US lawmakers declared him downright innocent. Jayapal and other signatories demanded that Umar Khalid be released from jail, claiming that the anti-CAA protests were ‘peaceful’ and even painted Muslims as the victims of the anti-Hindu riots in 2020. 

More recently, Pramila Jayapal was one of the 100 US politicians who signed a pledge prepared by Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR) Action and SACRED Acts, which urged them to stop accepting funds from   Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-linked entities or its supporters. 

In a press release issued on 31st August, Hindus for Human Rights Action and SACRED Acts said, “– Hindus for Human Rights Action and SACRED Acts announce an historic commitment against hate with nearly 100 American political leaders from across the United States pledging to reject political contributions from the anti-democratic movement behind the assassination of Mohandas K. Gandhi, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (R.S.S.).” 

This move came when RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat was on a visit to the US. OpIndia has consistently reported about the anti-Hindu track record of Hindus for Human Rights and its Islamist parent bodies, the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and the Organisation for Minorities of India (OFMI).   

Pramila Jayapal received over $40,000 in funds from Neville Roy Singham and his wife, Jodie Evans 

Pramila Jayapal has a documented record of having received more than $40,000 in donations from 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, and his wife Jodie Evans, the Code Pink co-founder. 

Jodie Evans (Source: CBS)

Jayapal began receiving funds from Roy Singham since 2016. 

It was only after the media exposed Neville Roy Singham’s pro-China information laundering networks that Pramila Jayapal returned the funds in 2023 to evade backlash. 

The House of Singham pro-China/Communism propaganda network 

The pro-China information laundering network House of Singham is led by Neville Roy Singham, the US-born tech tycoon who sold his IT consulting firm Thoughtworks for about $785 million in 2017 before permanently moving to Shanghai.   

This network is a sophisticated “information laundering” or “narrative laundering” machinery that modifies raw activism into polished propaganda, which is then amplified by the Roy-Singham-funded network to sow discord in the US, France and other democracies while burnishing China’s image as a ‘benevolent’ counterweight to ‘imperialism’, particularly American imperialism. The left-wing activism in Cuba and violent protests in France perfectly exemplify this.    

Roy Singham is reported to have s 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 generating and propagating pro-China and anti-America messaging at the behest of the CCP.   

The CCP-aligned propaganda launderer first established a system to funnel tax-exempt dollars via two shell entities and a donor-advised fund with links to Goldman Sachs, “GS Donor Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc.” Goldman Sachs philanthropy arm “terminated” Singham’s donor-advised fund in February 2024.   

Source: Fox News Digital

The House of Singham pro-China propaganda and activism network traces its origins to Neville Roy Singham’s wedding to Jodie Evans, the co-founder of CodePink Women for Peace, in Jamaica in 2017. The wedding event was attended by more than 80 core leaders, including Vijay Prashad of “TriContinental: Institute for Social Research”. Vijay Prashad, a Marxist journalist, later populated other boards within the network across shell-like entities, including Mutod LLC and Likewise Conceptions LLC. Fox News investigation finds that many of these organisations are registered at generic locations like hotels or UPS stores, apparently to obscure flows.  

Eleven US non-profits are serving as a hub, redistributing funds, coordinating protests, generating media content, political education, and “Liberation Centres” that are similar to the infamous 20th-century Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s “united front” strategy of embedding ‘revolutionary’ actors in superficially independent social, media, labour, cultural, and educational groups to erode the targeted country’s state legitimacy from within.  

From three organisations, GS Donors Advised Philanthropy Fund for Wealth Management Inc., and the two apparent shell companies, Roy Singham pumped $278 million into six nonprofits.  

These nonprofit organisations include People’s Forum, which received $22.4 million; People’s Support Foundation, which received $167.5 million from Singham-linked sources; and the Justice and Education Fund, which received $68.7 million. BreakThrough BT Media, CodePink, co-founded by Singham’s wife Jodie Evans, and Tricontinental Ltd, which has Marxist ‘journalist’ Vijay Prashad as its Director.  

Experts like Adam Sohn of the Network Contagion Research Institute and co-founder of Narravance opine that this structure enables an information laundering operation and a narrative laundering operation that is selling China’s propaganda to the world while sowing discord in America. A Fox News investigative report cites that the grassroots-looking protests, be it against ICE enforcement, the US offensive against Iran, the abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro, or in support of the Communist regime in Cuba, are all filmed, packaged into videos and commentary by House of Singham-linked media outlets like BreakThrough News, and recirculated to form a chimaera of organic global ‘resistance’. 

Roy Singham-backed BreakThrough Media has been actively peddling an anarchist narrative in France, where student protests have been co-opted by pro-Palestine Islamist and Communist adult-led groups. 

Notably, the Roy Singham-led pro-China information laundering network in the US also has a presence in India.  

There are many Roy Singham network-backed pro-China propaganda factories actively peddling anti-India and anti-government narratives. OpIndia has reported on such entities, including People’s Dispatch, TriContinental, People’s Forum, among others.  

From Kashmiri separatism, anti-Hindu tropes, glorification of Kerala’s ‘communist’ model, to Muslim victimhood, and propaganda maligning India’s global image, the core agenda of these CCP asset Roy Singham-backed entities is to weaponise relevant socio-political issues, nonprofit laws, digital media, and every other resource at hand to undermine rival states, influence policy decisions, weaken India, and deliver a geopolitical edge to China. 

Roy Singham’s Justice and Education Fund donated $10.5 million to Delhi-based pro-China propaganda outlet, NewsClick.  

One of the most prominent members of Roy Singham’s evil empire is Vijay Prashad. He has contributed several propaganda anti-India articles to NewsClick. Prashad is the nephew of Brinda Karat, a CPI(M) leader and wife of Prakash Karat, also a senior CPI(M) leader, whose email exchanges with Neville Roy Singham earlier revealed their close ties in the NewsClick Chinese funding scandal.  

Vijay Prashad has also been a council member of the Progressive International, an international organisation that mobilises leftist activists and groups globally. OpIndia earlier highlighted how this outfit persistently publishes propaganda articles and statements peddling the insidious Muslim victimhood narrative to slander the Modi government. It regularly platforms notorious anti-Hindu and Islamist apologists like Harsh Mander and has Islamo-leftist cheerleaders like Jayati Ghosh and former Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn as its council members.  

Roy Singham’s propaganda network has a connection with the pro-Hamas Tides Foundation. Tides Foundation is notorious for funding several anti-Hindu, anti-India organisations and elements. The Foundation gave grants to Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), which has links to Islamists and Khalistanis, and was formed in 2019 by two Islamist advocacy groups, the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) athe nd Organisation for Minorities of India (OFMI).  

Tides also funded AMAN Public Charitable Trust (AMAN). This trust is connected to the NewsClick-China funding scandal, where it is alleged that Chinese entities funded NewsClick to disrupt Indian sovereignty.  

Among Indians introduced by Neville Roy Singham to his larger team, who worked with Tricontinental, one of the nonprofits that the New York Times said was involved in pushing Chinese talking points, were Prabir Purkayastha, Srujana, Prasanth, and Vijay Prashad.   

Prashad also has close ties with Urban Naxal P Sainath, whose propaganda portal PARI recently removed references to Singham after his connection with the Chinese propaganda arm had come to light. 

The pro-China propaganda portal NewsClick first made headlines when it came under the radar of the Enforcement Directorate in 2021. The portal was reportedly accused of fraudulently receiving foreign funds amounting to around Rs. 38 crores.   

In 2023, the Delhi Police Special Cell filed an FIR and later an extensive chargesheet under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha, HR head Amit Chakraborty, among others. 

Interestingly, akin to the pattern seen in French protests, the ongoing anti-CEC Gyanesh Kumar protests in India also have Communist/leftist outfits and leaders at the forefront.  

Although the political Opposition and the Cockroach Janta Party, an Opposition-aligned ‘pressure group’ with most of its leadership tracing political roots in the Aam Aadmi Party, are actively involved, the anti-CEC protests are mainly led by the communist-leftist student groups like the Student Federation of India (SFI), All-India Students’ Association (AISA), and their leaders like Neha Bora. The leftist goons were found to be involved in clashing with the police and vandalising barricades, etc. 

Pramila Jayapal’s unsolicited concerns about India’s electoral process and support for anti-CEC protestors suggest that she may have returned Roy Singham’s funds to avoid the allegations of being a CCP stooge; her ideological alignment with Singham and the broader anarchist Communist coterie remains intact. 

Desperate Congress reaches out to CJP through Prashant Bhushan after calling it an ‘AAP proxy’; gets snubbed

Jinit Jain
-
0
Desperate Congress reaches out to CJP through Prashant Bhushan after calling it an ‘AAP proxy’; gets snubbed

The Opposition’s campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has exposed an interesting spectacle of political opportunism, competing egos and selective solidarity. The Congress, which viewed the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) as an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) proxy, has now reached out to the same outfit through lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan. CJP leader Dipke, however, was reportedly not particularly enthusiastic about the overture.

There is a lesson here for all three parties to this little political drama: Congress, CJP and Prashant Bhushan. None emerges from this episode looking particularly principled.

Let us begin with the Congress.

The grand old party reportedly kept a close watch on CJP’s October 10 protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar in Delhi. Its assessment was that CJP had failed to mobilise a sufficiently large crowd, unlike the protests at Jantar Mantar in June and July. A section of the Congress leadership also reportedly viewed CJP as an offshoot or front of AAP, with concerns that it could occupy political space that the Congress would rather control itself.

Yet, within days, the Congress was attempting to establish contact with CJP through Bhushan.

What changed? Did the Congress suddenly develop confidence in CJP’s political credentials? Did it discover some extraordinary ideological affinity with the outfit? Or did it simply conclude that every additional organisation protesting against the CEC could help its campaign?

The last explanation appears the most plausible.

Rahul Gandhi declared on Monday that all protests against the CEC were part of one movement and that the Congress would support anyone defending the Constitution, regardless of the political formation they belonged to. On paper, this sounds like a reasonable appeal for Opposition unity. In practice, however, the reported outreach to CJP raises questions about the Congress’s earlier assessment of the organisation.

If CJP was merely an AAP proxy, as sections of the Congress leadership reportedly believed, why was its participation suddenly desirable? And if CJP was a legitimate political formation capable of contributing to a common cause, why was the party so concerned about the political space it might occupy?

The Congress cannot have it both ways. It cannot dismiss a rival formation when it fears competition and then seek its cooperation when doing so becomes politically convenient.

The party’s problem is not merely that its overture reportedly received a lukewarm response. It is that its conduct reinforces the impression that its appeals for Opposition unity are often subordinate to calculations about who gets to lead, who gets visibility and who gets credit.

CJP wants political relevance but cannot escape questions about its own motives

CJP, meanwhile, should not mistake the Congress’s reported outreach for a political victory.

The outfit has emerged as a recent phenomenon in the Opposition ecosystem and has sought to establish its identity through protests against everything under the sun. From resignation of the Education Minister to the resignation of the CEC, it appears that resignation is the currency on which CJP operates. And this currency is fuelled by the ‘blackmailing’ and holding the nation hostage through disruptive protests.

CJP has every right to organise demonstrations, criticise the government and demand accountability, but it must also accept that its political positioning and methods will attract scrutiny.

According to the report, Congress believed that CJP had failed to mobilise the numbers it had hoped for during its October 10 protest. The protest was disrupted by a substantial security deployment and police action, with an estimated 7,000 people detained across Delhi. The circumstances make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about CJP’s mobilisation capacity from that episode alone.

Nevertheless, the organisation faces a basic question: does it want to function as an independent political force, or does it want to become part of a larger Opposition campaign whenever doing so offers greater visibility?

Its decision to stay away from the INDIA bloc’s march to the Supreme Court on Monday suggests that it was not prepared to participate in that particular programme. That is its prerogative. But if CJP insists on maintaining an independent political identity, it must be prepared to build its own support base rather than depend on the recognition or endorsement of established Opposition parties.

There is also an uncomfortable irony in the organisation’s position. If CJP resents being viewed as an AAP proxy, it must demonstrate that its political decisions are driven by its own priorities rather than by the calculations of another party. Independence cannot be established merely by refusing an invitation from the Congress. It must be demonstrated through consistent political positions, transparent objectives and an ability to mobilise supporters on its own terms.

At the same time, CJP should not be expected to join every Opposition programme simply because Congress or Rahul Gandhi calls for unity. A common cause does not require every organisation to surrender its identity. The point is that CJP cannot simultaneously seek recognition as an independent political force and treat every question about its political positioning as illegitimate.

Why is Prashant Bhushan being used as the intermediary?

Then there is Prashant Bhushan, whose reported role as an intermediary adds another layer to this political spectacle.

According to The Indian Express, the Congress approached Bhushan and asked him to reach out to Dipke. Sources close to Bhushan confirmed that a request came in, though the circumstances made direct coordination difficult: Dipke was in Maharashtra, while senior CJP leaders Ashutosh Ranka, Saurav Das and Ajinkya Shinde were in police custody.

Bhushan is a “lawyer-activist” who has frequently been associated with political and civil society campaigns. He has long been a fervent critic of the Modi government, often amplifying fake news and blatant lies before quietly deleting them after being called out. His name also came up as the facilitator of the meeting of the characters currently charged with orchestrating the bloody anti-Hindu riots in Delhi in 2020.

But the episode raises a legitimate question about the political networks and individuals who project themselves as intermediaries that emerge around such campaigns. When a party that reportedly suspects a new organisation of being a rival’s proxy seeks to approach it through an “activist” who operates in overlapping Opposition circles, it becomes difficult to separate the language of a common cause from the practical business of political networking.

If the objective was simply to convey an invitation, there is little to criticise about the act of mediation itself. The larger question is whether the participants are interested in building a coherent campaign around clearly defined demands or merely coordinating whenever their immediate interests overlap.

An intermediary can bring people to the same table. He cannot manufacture ideological consistency where none exists.

Kejriwal’s snub avenged?

There is also a delicious irony here, given how Congress treated Arvind Kejriwal in 2019. Ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, Kejriwal had desperately sought an alliance with the grand old party, arguing that the anti-BJP vote should not be divided. “Humare mann mein desh ko lekar bahut zyada chinta hai… Usi wajah se hum lalayit hain. Unhone lagbhag mana kar diya hai,” he said on February 14, 2019, effectively admitting that Congress had almost rejected his overtures.

The remark became a political meme, immortalising the humiliation of a party chief seeking an alliance with a Congress that was not particularly interested. Nearly seven years later, the tables appear to have turned. Congress, which reportedly viewed CJP as an AAP proxy, is now reaching out through Prashant Bhushan, only to encounter a lukewarm response from Abhijit Dipke. Did CJP just deliver Congress its own “unhone lagbhag mana kar diya” moment?

Opposition unity or a convenient political arrangement?

Rahul Gandhi’s subsequent condemnation of the arrests of CJP leaders further demonstrated the Congress’s willingness to extend public solidarity to the organisation. On Wednesday, he declared that waving the Tricolour at Jantar Mantar during a peaceful protest was not a crime and described the jailing of young protesters as an act of cowardice.

Dipke thanked Gandhi for speaking out against the arrests and later called for Tiranga marches, including one at Central Park in Delhi’s Connaught Place on Friday, October 16.

These exchanges may help the two sides find common ground. But public messages of solidarity do not resolve the underlying tensions between competing Opposition formations. Nor do such exchanges whitewash the fact that CJP leaders were arrested not for unfurling the Tiranga but because they intended to protest at a site that was denotified as a protest site. However, truth hardly matters when the goal is to build opportunistic alliances and wrest power from the democratically elected entity.

The INDI bloc is supposed to bring together parties that disagree on numerous political questions but cooperate against a common opponent. It is obvious that removing the Modi government from power is the glue that is keeping these disparate elements together. Otherwise, there is no vision or ‘concern for democracy’ that has brought them together.

The problem arises when the language of constitutional principles becomes inseparable from calculations about political ownership. If every protest is one movement, as Gandhi argues, then the Congress must be willing to recognise the autonomy of other organisations even when they do not participate in its programmes. Equally, CJP must accept that independence brings responsibility and that it cannot demand recognition without demonstrating sustained political credibility.

And Bhushan, like other activists who facilitate these interactions, should be judged by the substance of the causes he supports rather than by his proximity to political figures. He should also be judged for subsequent violence and disruptions such associations and alliances may cause.

There is a distinction between cooperating on a specific demand and pretending that all participants share the same political objectives. The former is practical politics; the latter is often little more than messaging.

The Congress wants to lead the Opposition. CJP wants to establish itself as a political force in its own right. Activists such as Bhushan operate in the space where these ambitions intersect. Their interests may occasionally align, but that does not automatically make them a coherent movement.

Ultimately, the reported outreach and the lukewarm response tell us less about a sudden political realignment than about the transactional nature of Opposition politics. The Congress appears willing to approach a formation it reportedly viewed with suspicion. CJP appears unwilling to be drawn into a programme on the Congress’s terms. And Bhushan has reportedly been asked to help bridge the divide.

Everyone is entitled to pursue their political objectives. But none should be allowed to disguise political calculations as unquestionable moral virtue.

If the campaign against the CEC is genuinely about constitutional principles, its participants should be able to explain their demands, defend their methods and cooperate without pretending that their competing ambitions have magically disappeared. If the CEC is compromised, which all three actors — CJP, Prashant Bhushan, and Congress—believe, then why can’t they explain how the same CEC presided over Opposition victories in Punjab, Karnataka, Kerala, and Telangana?

Until then, the spectacle of the Congress courting CJP, CJP maintaining its distance and Bhushan being asked to facilitate contact looks less like a united political movement and more like a negotiation over who gets to occupy the Opposition’s increasingly crowded stage.

Supreme Court verdict on ‘Backward Class’ certificate for Muslim converts should lead to national review of non-Hindus getting reservations

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Supreme Court verdict on ‘Backward Class’ certificate for Muslim converts should lead to national review of non-Hindus getting reservations

A landmark ruling against automatic reservation entitlement after conversion exposes the dangers of executive shortcuts, competitive-pool switching and vote-bank-driven classification — and invites a wider audit of OBC entries across states.

On 15 October 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court’s decision, striking down Tamil Nadu’s G.O. (Ms) No. 31 of 9 March 2024. The decision transforms the Sameer Ahmed dispute from a pending constitutional question into an important judicial affirmation: changing religion does not, by itself, make a person a member of a notified backward community in the adopted religion. Nor can an executive order or a private religious body manufacture the legal foundation for that entitlement.

The judgment does not restrict religious conversion. Instead, it prevents governments from making conversion an automatic route to reservation benefits. It also raises a serious political question: why are governments creating such pathways instead of ensuring that reservation is granted only on the basis of objectively established social and educational backwardness?

The case and the Supreme Court ruling

Sameer Ahmed, formerly Paramasivam, converted from Hinduism to Islam in 2015 and sought a Muslim Lebbai certificate to claim Backward Class Muslim (BCM) reservation. After his application was rejected, Tamil Nadu’s G.O. No. 31 came under challenge. The order allowed converts from BC, MBC, Denotified Communities and Scheduled Castes to be classified within one of seven notified Muslim backward communities. The Madras High Court quashed it on 25 June 2026.

Tamil Nadu argued that a person’s earlier disadvantage should not disappear after conversion. But the Supreme Court, through Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar, upheld the central finding: conversion alone cannot establish membership of a particular Muslim backward community. A community certificate records an existing status; it cannot create that status. Nor can a private religious body conclusively decide a statutory reservation entitlement.

The Court also addressed the separate Scheduled Caste rule under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, which limits SC status to persons professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism. Claims following reconversion require examination of their own facts, not automatic restoration.

Why this judgment matters

The distinction is straightforward. Article 25 protects the freedom to choose one’s religion; Articles 15 and 16 govern affirmative-action classifications. Exercising the first right does not, by itself, establish eligibility under the second. A government cannot simply transfer a person from an earlier caste or community category into a new reservation-bearing group through an executive order.

This is a significant check on arbitrary reservation policy. It requires the State to establish the legal and social basis of membership, rather than treat a change of religious label as sufficient proof. Comparable rules elsewhere may now face challenges, although this judgment does not automatically cancel them.

Reservation arbitrage and the risk of double benefits

Tamil Nadu has a separate 3.5% BCM quota. This makes the possibility of “reservation arbitrage” worth examining: a convert could, under an automatic certification rule, enter a different competitive reservation pool without independently proving membership of the notified group. The Court has rejected that shortcut.

There is also a legitimate need to examine whether benefits claimed before and after conversion overlap, or whether incompatible concessions are being obtained through different certificates. But the ruling does not establish that converts generally receive double benefits or that an organised conversion racket exists. Such allegations require evidence. The policy concern remains serious even without assuming that every conversion is motivated by reservation.

The political question: Social justice or vote-bank policy?

G.O. No. 31 attempted to create a broad administrative route into seven Muslim backward communities. Its rejection raises a question for political parties: are reservation policies based on verifiable disadvantage, or are governments using convenient identity rules to expand electoral support? Social justice cannot become a justification for bypassing eligibility tests. The Court’s legal finding concerns the order’s validity; vote-bank motivation is a political criticism, not a judicial finding.

Mandal Commission and the basis of non-Hindu OBC classification

The Mandal Commission considered backward groups among Muslims and Christians, including occupational communities and parallels with groups among Hindus. But neither religious identity nor occupation alone should replace evidence of an identifiable socially and educationally backward group. Equally, the egalitarian teachings of a religion do not prove that social disadvantage cannot exist among its followers.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning makes the distinction between religion and community membership especially important. A convert does not automatically acquire the history, characteristics or recognised membership of a particular backward group merely by adopting its religion.

A question mark over Muslim OBC lists in other states

The wider significance now goes beyond Tamil Nadu’s certificate policy. If conversion cannot automatically confer membership of a notified Muslim backward community, what is the basis on which Muslim groups have been included in OBC lists in other states? Were individual communities identified through evidence of social and educational backwardness, or did any entry or certification process rely mainly on religious identity? Are those original grounds still valid?

These are questions that can now be brought before Backward Classes Commissions and courts. State-specific OBC entries, particularly those based on broad religious labels or automatic post-conversion classification, may face closer judicial scrutiny. The same test should apply to Christian entries and, indeed, every other listed community.

The judgment does not strike down Muslim OBC reservation as a whole, nor does it declare Muslims ineligible for OBC status. Its significance is that it strengthens the case for examining each classification on objective evidence rather than accepting religion or conversion as a substitute for community membership. Where that evidence is missing, inclusion should be open to challenge.

Conclusion: A wider test for reservation policy

The Sameer Ahmed judgment is a landmark against automatic reservation entitlement through religious reclassification. Faith remains a matter of individual freedom; a reservation certificate must reflect a legally established social status.

It also puts political shortcuts under the spotlight. Governments should examine possible reservation arbitrage, overlapping benefits and weak certification rules instead of using conversion as an administrative gateway to a new quota. Most importantly, the ruling opens the door to wider scrutiny of Muslim and Christian OBC entries across states: every group should meet the same transparent constitutional test. Reservation must rest on demonstrated backwardness, not merely on a change of faith or an executive decision.

Supreme Court upholds Madras HC verdict quashing Tamil Nadu govt order granting reservation to new converts to Islam: Read about the judgment and the background of the case

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Supreme Court upholds Madras HC verdict quashing Tamil Nadu govt order granting reservation to new converts to Islam: Read about the judgment and the background of the case

In a major development, the Supreme Court has upheld the Madras High Court judgment that struck down Tamil Nadu government order allowing people belonging to SCs, backward classes, most backward classes and denotified communities to avail backward class (BC) Muslim certificate after conversion to Islam.

The verdict comes months after the Tamil Nadu government filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the apex court. A 2-judge bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar decided the matter.

The court held that the caste/ community status prior to conversion cannot be transposed upon conversion to a new religion. It pointed out that a government order like the one issued by the Tamil Nadu creates an artificial route for availing reservation.

The Judges held, “We therefore affirm the central conclusion of the High Court, though our reasoning proceeds on the constitutional foundation set out above. A person who converts to Islam does not by that act alone become a member of any one of the seven notified backward class Muslim communities in the state. His former caste or community status cannot automatically be transposed into the Muslim backward class category, nor can a private religious body conclusively determine such statutory entitlement.”

They further added, “Tested on that standard, we are of the view that the impugned GO cannot be sustained and has been rightly quashed by the High Court. It creates an artificial route by which a person moves from a pre-conversion social or backward social order into a notified Muslim backward class without establishing the necessary social and legal link. Therefore, the declaration made by the High Court that the impugned GO itself (is) unsustainable in law calls for no interference“, the apex court stated.

The Supreme Court pointed out, “A person who converts from a Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order cannot claim affirmative action under Article 16(4) of the Constitution merely on the basis of the social backwardness associated with his pre-conversion status. The backwardness suffered in the antecedent social order cannot by itself be carried forwards so as to confer upon him the status of a backward class in the religion to which he has converted.“

“By virtue of paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, a person who professes a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism cannot be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste. Consequently, upon conversion to a religion not specified therein, such person ceases to possess the Scheduled Caste status attached to his antecedent caste and cannot claim any affirmative action benefit of a backward class under Article 16(4) of the Constitution which is predicated upon membership of a Scheduled Caste,” it emphasised.

The Background of the Case

The original petition was filed by a Muslim convert named Sameer Ahamed (formerly Paramasivam) in 2022. The man was born into a Hindu family in the Thoothukudi district in April 1993 and had converted to Islam in September 2015. He was issued a certificate of conversion by Sunnath Jamath, Kayathar.

Subsequently, he filed an application before the Tahsildar, Kayathar, seeking to be certified as ‘Muslim Lebbai’, a community of Muslims eligible for reservation benefits in the state. However, his application was rejected, prompting him to file a writ petition before the High Court.

The petitioner relied on a Tamil Nadu government order dated March 3, 2024, which allowed a convert to Islam from Backward Classes (BCs), Most Backward Classes (MBCs), Denotified Communities (DNCs), or Scheduled Castes (SCs) to be treated as BC (Muslim) for availing the benefit of reservation.

As per the order, such a convert could avail the reservation benefits meant after obtaining a community certificate certifying that he belongs to either of the notified communities. In other words, the government order provided that converts who enjoyed reservation benefits before conversion to Islam can continue to avail reservation benefits after conversion.

The petitioner’s counsel admitted that the petition filed in 2022 became legally arguable only after the 2024 government order. The High Court, therefore, examined the constitutional validity of the government order.

The Madras High Court concluded that the Tamil Nadu government order was unconstitutional. Citing judicial precedents, the court said that if a person converts to Islam, he becomes a Muslim, and his place in Muslim society is not determined by the caste to which he belonged before his conversion.

The High Court explained that the seven Muslim categories recognised for reservation are historically identified communities and membership in those communities is ordinarily determined by birth, not conversion.

“As a corollary, we hold that a convert to Islam cannot claim the status of Backward Class Muslim. He is only a Muslim, and that’s all there is to it,” the High Court held.

Regarding the Tamil Nadu government order, the Division Bench observed that the Tamil Nadu government came up with the order just to override the judicial precedents prohibiting reservation benefits for converts to Islam, as they disincentivised conversion to Islam.

This would not have sat right with the Muslim community, as Islam is a proselytising religion, and thus the government passed the order to extend reservation benefits for converts to Islam.

The Madras High Court also pointed out that the order was passed merely for the purpose of extending reservation benefits for converts to Islam.

Striking at the validity of the government order, the High Court said that the legislature cannot declare a binding judicial precedent void or ineffective. The court further reasoned that the executive does not have the privilege to pass an order overriding a final judicial decision.

“While the legislature has the power and competence to make a validating law, the executive has no such privilege. It can never go against the final judgment of a court,” it added.

The Division Bench further noted that the government order was not only unconstitutional and arbitrary but also opposed to the ideology of Islam.

The court noted that preachers of Islam have long effected conversions by claiming that their religion is free from hierarchies and is egalitarian, unlike Hinduism. Considering this, the government order goes against the values and principles of Islam.

“We have no option but to conclude that, only to undo the judgments of this Court, has the Government come out with an innovation that is not only unconstitutional but also un-Islamic,” the High Court said, striking down the government order on 25th June 2026.

Manifesto of Aurora Hindu temple Neo-Nazi shooter described Indians as ‘subhumans’: How hate speech by White supremacists and Indian leftists is putting Hindus and their temples under target in the US

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Manifesto of Aurora Hindu temple Neo-Nazi shooter described Indians as ‘subhumans’: How hate speech by White supremacists and Indian leftists is putting Hindus and their temples under target in the US

Alexandros Paporakis, a 19-year-old white supremacist man from Palatine, Illinois, in the US, was arrested on 11th October for plotting a mass shooting of Indian origin Hindus temple in Aurora at the start of Navratri. The police recovered an AR-style rifle, 300 rounds of ammunition, tactical gear, Nazi symbols, and a manifesto in which he described himself as a “sociopathic white supremacist Neo Nazi.” 

The white supremacist wanted to carry out mass killings of Indian Hindus; a rifle jam averted the terror attack 

The Palatine Police, Mount Prospect Police and prosecutors have stated that the accused, Alexandros Paporakis, who worked as a Taco Bell cashier, drove to the area where the largest Hindu temple in Aurora, the Sri Venkateswara Swami Temple, is situated, with the intention of carrying out a mass shooting of Indians. 

As the Navaratri festival was underway, the temple was busy with people. Paporakis’s rifle jammed; he fled the spot, searched online how to unjam it, and contacted a co-worker about his murderous plan. The co-worker, however, alerted the police. 

Thereafter, the local police arrested the accused, Alexandros Paporakis, outside his house before any further attempt at a mass shooting. 

During a search at his home, the police recovered an AR-style rifle, multiple magazines, nearly 300 rounds of ammunition, a tactical vest with body armour and a white supremacist patch, along with Nazi imagery including the Hakenkreuz symbol, which the Western media continues to wrongly report as ‘Swastika’, and a gas can. 

The Aurora Hindu temple shooter’s manifesto dehumanising Indians, Jews and African Americans 

Pertinently, the police have also found an eight-page document, the Aurora Hindu temple shooter’s manifesto titled: Why I Fought: A.K.A.  

The manifesto contains racial slurs, declaring Indians/Hindus, Jews, and African Americans “subhumans” and expressing fantasies about mass murder nearly every day. Paporakis repeatedly emphasised his desire to kill as many people belonging to the races and nationalities he hated as he could before he dies. 

According to the prosecutors, accused Alexandros Paporakis, has openly identified as a white supremacist at work, made racist comments against Indians, discussed Nazis and their armed struggle. He also said that he could not wait to kill Indian people.  

Reports say that the accused shooter told his co-worker that 11th October would be a “special day” and planned a mass shooting at the largest Hindu temple in Aurora.  

The Palatine Police said that the accused was planning for a mass shooting attack for about two years, and he researched the specific target, the Hindu temple, recently. 

The police have booked him on charges of making a terrorist threat and unlawful possession of a weapon, specifically a rifle with a barrel under 16 inches.  

A Cook County judge ordered him held without bond. As per court records, the accused was being treated for ADHD, depression, and anxiety, and received hormone injections related to gender transition. 

Meanwhile, the top US Hindu temples body, the Hindu Mandir Empowerment Council (HMEC), issued an urgent security alert for temples in the US after the thwarted Aurora temple shooting plot. 

White supremacism, Christian extremism, and MAGA rhetoric are collectively fueling hatred against Indians, mainly Hindus 

From the orientalist caricatures in the 19th-20th century, fears of ‘eastern/Asian mysticism’ eroding Protestant ‘purity’ to anti-Hindu violence, racism is deeply entrenched in American socio-political structure. However, ever since Donald Trump assumed office as the President of the United States in January 2025, the agitprop against Indians, particularly Hindus, has increased manifold.  

OpIndia has reported earlier on how the debate around H1-B visas and highly skilled Indians using the same to explore career opportunities in the US in recent months snowballed into a full-fledged anti-India and anti-Hindu campaign.  

There has been an alarming mainstreaming of Hinduphobia in the US in recent years. Incidents of temple vandalism, online slurs, racist attacks on American Hindus, and Christian extremists openly mocking and vilifying Hinduism online or on podcasts have become an opprobrious ‘normal’ in the country.  

The anti-Indian and anti-Hindu hate and its online expression is so scathing that white supremacists, Christian extremists and a significant section of MAGA racists have not spared even the top Indian/Hindu Trump administration officials. 

From vilifying FBI Director Kash Patel and US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard for wishing everyone a happy Diwali, mocking the Trump administration for celebrating Diwali in the White House, attacking JD Vance’s Hindu wife Usha Chilukuri, and questioning Vivek Ramaswamy’s Hindu faith, to making absurd ‘Indians poaching wildlife in Canada and America’ claims, Indians and Hindus, who are a peaceful, law-abiding community making significant contributions to American economy, have been constantly targeted for their faith. 

Besides, White racists and Christian supremacists have been villainising Indian Americans to lend credence to their ‘White Replacement Theory’. In fact, ‘Nuke India’ calls by these Christian extremists have also become a new ‘cool’ among American racists and Hinduphobes. 

The unchecked expression of Hinduphobia by the many Joel Webbons, Alex Steins, Alexander Duncans, Nick Fuentas, Elijah Schaffer and others is now becoming the precursor of race- and religion-based violence against American Hindus of Indian origin. 

In fact, even mainstream political leaders have publicly or in private expressed their pro-Nazi and anti-India views. 

Last year, an exposé revealed that the leaders of a Republican Party-affiliated group, Young Republicans, exchanged racist, anti-India, anti-Black, pro-Nazi, and homophobic messages in a Telegram group chat. From furthering hygiene stereotypes against Indians to suggesting that Indians are not trustworthy, the Republican leaders of the now-disbanded group demonstrated how India-hate has been normalised in the American political circle. 

It was reported earlier that US Vice President JD Vance’s wife, Usha Chilukuri Vance, a Hindu by religion and a daughter of Indian immigrants, was subjected to racist and Hinduphobic attacks from White Christian supremacists who are mostly Republican Party supporters. Vance was also called names for marrying an Indian Hindu ‘heathen’. 

Earlier, American commentator and author Ann Coulter told Vivek Ramaswamy on his podcast that she wouldn’t have voted for him because he is an Indian. On numerous occasions, during his stint for the Presidential nomination bid from the Republican Party, he had to face questions on Hinduism. Even a patriot like Tulsi Gabbard has been attacked for her Hindu faith and Indic roots. Kash Patel was condemned by the same racist lot for taking his oath to office as FBI director on the sacred Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita. 

Ron DeSantis, the Florida Governor and Republican leader, earlier dismissed Indian tech workers as a “cottage industry” scam. His remarks added fuel to the MAGA narrative, which portrays Indians as ‘job-stealing invaders’. His anti-H1-B rhetoric has added to online racist attacks on Indian-Americans, Indians and Hinduism. OpIndia reported earlier on how the debate around H1-B visas and highly skilled Indians using the same to explore career opportunities in the US snowballed into a full-fledged anti-India and anti-Hindu campaign. 

In September last year, Alexander Duncan, a Texas GOP official, demanded the removal of an idol of Lord Hanuman from public space, calling the Hindu deity a “false God.” In an X post published on 20th September 2025, Duncan shared a video showcasing the 90-foot-tall statue of Lord Hanuman installed in the Sri Ashtalakshmi Temple in the town of Sugar Land, Texas, and wrote, “Why are we allowing a false statue of a false Hindu God to be here in Texas? We are a CHRISTIAN nation!” 

Donald Trump’s Trade Adviser, Peter Navarro, whom Trump had unleashed as his attack dog to vilify India over its Russian oil purchases, slandered the Brahmin community. In an interview with Fox News, Navarro invoked caste and accused the Brahmins of India of “profiteering at the expense of the Indian people.” 

From using fake caste-discrimination narratives to villainise Hindus in American universities, bringing up SB-403-like outrageous caste bills, relying on fake litigation like the 2019 CISCO caste discrimination case, running anti-Brahmin DEI programs, to targeting Hindu gods and temples, directing hate towards Hindu officials in the Trump administration, anti-Hindu and anti-India forces, be it Islamo-leftists or white racists and Christian extremists, all are essentially spreading, normalising, and celebrating Hinduphobia and anti-India racism. 

In 2022,  the Teaneck Democratic Municipal Committee, a section of the New Jersey Democratic Party, approved a resolution labelling certain Hindu organisations as ‘dangerous hate groups’ and offshoots of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The motion urged that the government classify several American Hindu organisations, including the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (VHPA), and SEWA International, as “domestic branches” of “foreign hate groups.”    

In recent years, hate crimes against Indian Americans have also been on the rise. According to the FBI’s 2020 data, hate crimes against Indian Americans are up by 500 per cent. 

In addition to politics and social media, even the American media and academia perpetuate anti-Hindu bias through selective outrage and erasure. OpIndia has on numerous occasions reported how newspapers like the New York Times, among others, have also been complicit in spinning and amplifying anti-Hindu narratives. 

OpIndia previously reported how DEI programs have been normalising hatred against Hindu Brahmins in the US. In their attempts to foment the same hate Nazis had for Jews, several DEI programs were creating prejudices against Hindus, particularly the so-called “upper-caste” Hindus like Brahmins, who are already at the receiving end of hate campaigns by anti-Hindu elements. 

White supremacists and Christian extremists have normalised slandering and mocking Hindu deities, labelling them ‘demonic’ and ‘false gods’. This anti-Hindu and anti-India hate has triggered real harm against the American Indians, particularly Hindus. 

In July 2025, a video of a White American berating an Indian man with “Why are you in my country? I don’t like you guys here. There are too many of you guys here. Indians! You guys are flooding all the white countries. I am tired of it. Americans are sick of this sh**. I want you to go back to India…” 

In Irving, Texas, three masked men carrying “Don’t India My Texas” signs showed up in a suburb where thousands of Indian tech professionals reside in October 2025. 

The concerted campaign of dehumanising Indians, especially Hindus, is further aided by Indian Islamo-leftists, who share nothing in common with American Christian and white supremacists but their hate for Hindus.  

Indian Islamo-leftists have consistently indulged in the demonisation of Hindus, and egged on criticism of Indians abroad by design to blame everything on the Modi government in India.  

Any US leader makes an anti-India statement, or a US government-funded entity like the USCIRF churns out a propaganda report against India, vilifies Hindutva, or slanders Hindus, the Indian left is quick to portray it as a matter of national shame and a ‘Hindutva is the new Nazism’ narrative is pushed, all to score political points against the Modi government and for the ideological pursuit of demeaning Hindus. 

In fact, there is a documented pattern of many leftist and pro-Congress online trolls supporting MAGA to attack Gujaratis, who are largely pro-BJP and Modi, as a proxy to attack the Modi government.  

In November 2023,  after India lost the ICC World Cup Final at Gujarat’s Narendra Modi Stadium, Indian leftists somehow found it an occasion to blame Gujaratis and berate Gujarati culture. Even as cricket fans were discussing what went wrong on the field, liberal eyes were fixed on one thing – identity, the Gujarati identity. 

The left-liberals targeted Gujaratis for lacking sportsmanship and lacking a ‘sporting culture’ because the crowd apparently failed to cheer the home side properly.   

This, however, was not really about the sport, but a manifestation of hate against Gujaratis as well as against anyone supposedly ‘jingoist’ that has been on the rise since Narendra Modi won the general elections in 2014. 

This hate against Gujaratis was first mainstreamed by Congress MP Rahul Gandhi in 2021, who said that if Congress came to power in the state, he would increase the wage rate of tea workers, emphasising that he would take money from Gujarati tea traders to fund that extra wage rate.   

In September 2021, when authorities were busy busting drug rackets, which are often used for terror funding, Rahul Gandhi again attacked Gujaratis and cast aspersions that we are drug addicts.   

In January 2022, former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and MP Akhilesh Yadav spewed hatred on Gujaratis and accused them of ‘taking away everything’. Before that, Mamata Banerjee had led a hate campaign against Gujaratis and vowed not to let ‘Bengal turn into Gujarat’. In a blatant display of hatred against Gujaratis, she alleged, “Gujaratis are trying to capture Bengal by bringing goons from UP and Bihar.” The West Bengal CM had emphasised, “We will not allow Bengal to become like Gujarat.” 

This hatred of Indian left-liberals is shared by Khalistani terrorists in the US, UK and other foreign nations. In May 2023, a video surfaced from the UK wherein a pro-Khalistani goon could be seen threatening a man of Gujarat origins. The viral video showed a Gujarati Hindu man trying to have a conversation with the protesting pro-Khalistanis when one of them got agitated and started shouting at him. 

Earlier, Sujata Anandan, the editor of the fraud-accused Congress mouthpiece National Herald, who equated vegetarianism of Gujaratis and Jains living in Mumbai to “food terrorism”, had asked Gujaratis to leave Maharashtra is they don’t like the smell of fish. 

While these anti-India and anti-Hindu online attacks by foreign and Indian Hinduphobes may not always be coordinated, there is a broader pattern of fueling hatred and even inciting violence against Indians, particularly Hindus, in countries like the US, UK, and Canada, further exacerbated by the surging fascination for Neo-Nazism, as seen in the case of Alexandros Paporakis. 

Woman journalist who accused ACP Vivek Bhagat of sexual harassment during CJP’s Jantar Mantar protest slapped with SC/ST Act for casteist remarks and defamation

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Woman journalist who accused ACP Vivek Bhagat of sexual harassment during CJP’s Jantar Mantar protest slapped with SC/ST Act for casteist remarks and defamation

Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat, who was accused of sexual harassment by a woman journalist during protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, has filed a police complaint alleging casteist remarks, obstruction of official duties and a campaign to damage his reputation.

In his complaint, Bhagat alleged that the woman journalist and others made derogatory remarks about his Meghwal caste and subsequently portrayed him as a “sexual predator” through public protests and social media posts. He claimed that the allegations and online content caused him mental distress and damaged his professional reputation.

The First Information Report (FIR), registered at Parliament Street police station on October 13, 2026, names Rosy, Gajendra Singh and an unidentified person in its list of accused. The complaint narrative also refers to CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and members Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka and Ratna Singh in connection with social media posts allegedly circulated against the ACP. Their mention in the complaint narrative should be distinguished from the individuals formally listed as accused in the FIR.

The development comes amid an ongoing investigation into the sexual harassment allegations against Bhagat. Earlier this month, Delhi Police had also fact-checked viral visuals circulated as purported evidence of the alleged assault, stating that the CCTV image in question was fake and that the material contained AI-generated or manipulated visuals.

What does ACP Vivek Bhagat allege in his FIR?

According to the FIR, Bhagat was deployed at Jantar Mantar on October 3 to maintain law and order during protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The complaint states that demonstrators had gathered near the Buta Singh Roundabout before proceeding towards Jantar Mantar. Police personnel reportedly asked them to disperse, but some protesters allegedly refused to comply, following which the police began detaining them.

Bhagat claimed that he was performing his official duties when he overheard Rosy making derogatory remarks about his Meghwal caste and questioning his appointment as an ACP.

The complaint quotes the alleged remark as: “Ye Bhagat hai, Meghwal hote hain, ye choti jaati ke hote hai, silai bunai ka kaam karte hai ya sala kahin se ACP ban gaya.”

Bhagat described the alleged statement as a caste-based insult intended to humiliate him in public. He claimed that he ignored the remarks and continued performing his duties.

The complaint further alleges that around 3 pm, Rosy confronted him and accused him of sexual assault in connection with the handling and detention of protesters. Bhagat stated that she and her colleagues, including Gajendra Singh, repeatedly questioned him about how he had touched her inappropriately. He alleged that the confrontations obstructed him from discharging his official responsibilities.

Later that evening, according to the complaint, Rosy, Gajendra Singh and other colleagues staged a protest outside Parliament Street police station, raising slogans against him and allegedly labelling him a sexual predator and a potential rapist.

Bhagat further alleged that similar accusations continued to circulate online through posts and reels on X and Instagram.

CJP members named in complaint over alleged social media campaign

Bhagat’s complaint alleges that several social media posts portrayed him as a sexual predator and damaged his reputation. The complaint narrative mentions Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka and Ratna Singh of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in connection with the alleged online campaign.

The ACP claimed that the caste-related remarks, public accusations and online content caused him considerable mental distress and harmed his standing as a police officer.

The FIR invokes Section 3(1)(p) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with Sections 221 and 356(2)/(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. These provisions relate to offences including obstruction of a public servant and defamation.

The allegations recorded in the FIR are yet to be established through investigation or judicial proceedings.

Delhi Police had flagged viral visuals as AI-generated or manipulated

Earlier in October, Delhi Police issued a fact-check after videos, images and purported CCTV visuals linked to the allegations against Bhagat circulated widely on social media.

The controversy began after Rosy, an Instagram influencer and CJP supporter who has described herself as an independent journalist, accused the ACP of sexually harassing her while she was covering the detention of AISA activist Neha Bora on October 3. Rosy alleged that Bhagat groped her, struck her on the chest and pushed her. These allegations have not been independently established and were referred for investigation.

As the claims gained traction online, visuals purportedly showing Bhagat molesting Rosy began circulating on social media.

Delhi Police subsequently warned users against sharing the material, stating: “FACT CHECK: The post contains AI-generated/manipulated visuals. The CCTV footage image is fake. Citizens are advised not to circulate such malicious content. Sharing such posts may attract legal action against the profile owners.”

The fact-check concerned the authenticity of the viral visuals. It did not, by itself, determine whether the alleged assault occurred.

An earlier report also stated that Delhi Police had received complaints from three female journalists and transferred them to the Crime Branch for a “fair and impartial enquiry”. At that stage, no FIR against Bhagat had been registered, with the CJP alleging that the police had cited the ongoing inquiry while declining to register one.

The first misleading videos and thumbnails were reportedly circulated by an Instagram account called Ground Truth Media, which the earlier report identified as being operated by Rohit Kumar.

How the controversy began

The dispute erupted during protests at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the SIR exercise.

On October 3, Rosy alleged that Bhagat assaulted her while she was recording the detention of Neha Bora. She subsequently said that she spent several hours at Parliament Street police station while seeking the registration of an FIR.

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke amplified the allegations on X and demanded Bhagat’s immediate arrest. He also accused the police of protecting the officer, posting that a female independent journalist had told him Bhagat had misbehaved with her and touched her inappropriately.

The Press Club of India subsequently expressed concern over the allegations and called for action on complaints made by women journalists.

Delhi Police transferred the complaints to the Crime Branch for investigation. Separately, videos of the confrontation between protesters and police personnel circulated online, prompting competing interpretations of the events.

The absence of authenticated footage establishing the alleged assault in the viral clips does not, on its own, resolve the underlying complaint. The allegations against Bhagat and the counter-allegations in his FIR must be assessed through the respective investigations.

Promotion withheld amid allegations

The controversy had also affected Bhagat’s career prospects. Days after the sexual harassment allegations surfaced, he was among 12 officers from the DANIPS cadre who were temporarily promoted to the rank of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP).

The Delhi government clarified that the promotion proposal had been initiated before the allegations emerged. However, Bhagat’s promotion was subsequently withheld amid the controversy.

In a statement, the government said Bhagat had voluntarily requested not to avail himself of the current duty-charge assignment until a full inquiry into the allegations of harassment of women journalists had been completed satisfactorily.

ACP was assaulted during an earlier CJP protest

Bhagat had previously come into the spotlight in June following a confrontation with a crowd during a CJP protest in the Jantar Mantar and Connaught Place areas.

He was allegedly assaulted by members of the crowd, sustained serious injuries and was rescued by a senior police officer.

The latest FIR adds another dimension to the controversy. Bhagat has alleged caste-based humiliation, obstruction of official duties and reputational damage, while the separate sexual harassment allegations against him remain under inquiry.

The Delhi Police fact-check establishes that the specific viral CCTV image was fake and that the circulated visuals were AI-generated or manipulated. It does not, however, amount to a finding on the merits of the sexual harassment complaint itself. The competing allegations will have to be examined by the authorities before conclusions can be drawn.

The curious case of Human Online: Here’s all you need to know about this dubious ‘global news’ platform, its anti-CEC Gyanesh Kumar protest coverage, anti-India propaganda and the Pakistan connection 

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
The curious case of Human Online: Here’s all you need to know about this dubious ‘global news’ platform, its anti-CEC Gyanesh Kumar protest coverage, anti-India propaganda and the Pakistan connection 

Ever since the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) started its protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, demanding his resignation, numerous ‘independent journalists’ and social media pages and portals have popped up online. While it is widely known that a significant number of CJP supporters have been masquerading as ‘independent journalists’, a digital news platform, Human Online, and one of its ground reporters have been called out on social media, not for their propaganda but for their Pakistan connection. 

Human Online, its CJP protest coverage and an apparent PR campaign for its reporter Garima Singh 

Although Human Online is a digital news platform launched in November 2023 by one Mohammed Jahangir, who is reportedly an Indian national, it has gained attention on social media due to its Opposition- and CJP-aligned coverage of the ongoing protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls. 

On 10th October, Human Online deployed its reporter Garima Singh, who, as per her Instagram bio, is a “part-time journalist”, to cover the CJP protests.  

Several videos of her reporting went viral online. A young ‘journalist’ with clear ideological bias, exploiting her press card for pro-CJP activism, is not surprising; the ongoing protests have normalised it somehow. What stands out is the PR campaign-style online praise she received, not only from Indian Islamo-leftists but also from Pakistani media personalities like Rauf Klasra, who hailed her as a ‘fearless Gen Z journalist’. 

Pakistani journalist and political analyst Rauf Klasra published two back-to-back posts praising the Human Online reporter. 

Human Online describes itself as a ‘borderless global diaspora’ digital platform, downplays Pakistani operational ties  

As per Human Online’s “About Us” page on its website, it is an ‘independent global news platform’ covering news with special focus on diaspora of ‘native countries’ like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc. 

“Human Online” is an independent global news platform dedicated to the Global Diaspora, delivering responsible news, stories, and developments with special focus on communities considered to be diaspora of native countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, Sudan, South Africa, and other countries living across the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa, and America as entrepreneurs, investors, corporates, and workers far away from their own countries,” it states. 

Human Online’s daily operations and editorial support are handled by ePage Global under an agreement.  

Interestingly, the CEO of ePage Global is Iman Khan, who is also the Grievance Officer at Human Online for the Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, Human Online’s founder and owner, who is reported to be an Indian national Mohammed Jahangir is the General Manager of ePage Global. 

According to Human Online reporter Aliza Iram, Jahangir has also worked with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). OpIndia has on many occasions reported about OIC’s anti-India activities. 

Meanwhile, its Grievance Officer (Global), Namrata Surjooram, is based in South Africa. 

Human Online’s Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) and online publishing at ePage Global are managed by Pakistani national Muhammad Asim Pervez, based in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. 

Human Online also has a dedicated Pakistan Desk, with news writers and editors from Multan, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and other areas in Pakistan. 

Human Online’s social media pages operated from Pakistan; the location changed after backlash from Indian netizens 

Amidst criticism over Pakistan links, Human Online issued a statement on X, in which it said that it is a borderless digital news platform owned by an Indian citizen. It claimed that the allegations that several of its reporters are Pakistani are “baseless”. 

“We request everyone to stop spreading false information and making defamatory claims that Human Online or its reporters are Pakistani or affiliated with a Pakistani publication. Such claims are baseless and misleading. Human Online covers developments and events concerning the global diaspora, including Indian, South Asian, and Middle Eastern communities, with a focus on responsible reporting and content that serves humanity,” the ‘public notice’ reads. 

Although nobody on social media claimed that Human Online’s reporters covering the Delhi protests, be it the self-described ‘part-time journalist’ Garima Singh or the other reporter Aliza Iram, who was seen raising “Manuwad pe halla bol” and other inflammatory slogans, are Pakistanis, Human Online has not one or two but several Pakistanis employed. 

Most of its Pakistani writers or editors are from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar, Multan or Islamabad. 

In fact, Human Online employed a Pakistani national residing in Islamabad and holding a journalism degree from Peshawar, as its Global Editor.  

Amusingly, Shiraz Khan has deactivated his LinkedIn page, while Human Online has labelled Khan a “former employee” on his author page as the Indian backlash mounted. 

Before Human Online fully covered up its deep Pakistan connection, it could easily be found that its social media pages, including the Facebook and X profiles, were based in and were being operated from Pakistan.  

While, in response to OpIndia Senior Sub-Editor’s X post, Human Online argued that “We never claimed we are an indian media platform. We are a global media platform”, it was only after Indian netizens pointed this out that the location on X was changed to South Asia, while the Facebook location was updated to South Africa, where its Global Grievance Officer, Namrata Surjooram, is based. 

However, in response to one X user, Human Online claimed that it is an Indian account, even though its previous location and old posts indicate that it is based in Pakistan. 

In fact, before the Indian social media outrage, Human Online’s Facebook Page was operated from Pakistan, and even ad campaigns were run using Pakistani Rupees (PKR). 

It is operated by two administrators in Pakistan and one in Saudi Arabia.  

Human Online has a track record of peddling anti-India and pro-Pakistan propaganda 

It is impossible that a dubious Pakistan-linked propaganda machinery doesn’t have a track record of anti-India activities. 

A closer look at the online commentaries by Human Online owner Mohammed Jahangir reveals his biases. 

In response to the pinned 2024 X post by CJP leader Saurav Das about former CJI DY Chandrachud, Mohammed Jahangir wrote on 13th October 2026, ” One of the culprit forcing bhgwan ran lalla to sit at a place not proven to be his birth place based on evidences…” 

Even the limited online presence of Mohammed Jahangir reveals his anti-BJP/Modi biases, while claims that his news channel, Human Online News, is not driven by any political or ideological biases. 

During the India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025, Human Online News was peddling Pakistani military’s false propaganda of having shot down Indian MQ-9 Reaper Drone. 

While Operation Sindoor targeted Pakistani Islamic terror and later military establishments, Human Online News amplified DG-ISPR’s blatant propaganda that the majority of casualties resulting from Indian attacks were civilians.  

Despite the fact that India’s Operation Sindoor targeted terror infrastructure and not civilian areas, Human Online News, behaving like true ISPR propaganda machinery, parroted the Pakistani military’s ‘India killed innocent civilians and destroyed mosques’ bogey. 

Human Online also amplified Pakistan’s blatant lies that it had shot down 5 Indian fighter jets during the May 2025 conflict. Not then, not now, Pakistan’s armed forces have failed to present even a scintilla of credible evidence to back up their claims. 

In January 2025, Human Online published an article with the headline, “Kumbh: From a Universal Gathering to a Hindu Centric Festival”. For reasons unknown, the article was taken down. 

So much for Human Online’s ‘unbiasedness’ that it openly propagates that Islam is a better religion which refrains Muslims from killing women, children, and the elderly during wartime, while the US and Israel, basically Christians and Jews, are somehow the ‘real threat’. 

Amusingly, besides anti-India propaganda, Human Online also promotes Islam. 

What is particularly surprising is that Human Online has Sam Pitroda, the Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress, as one of its authors. 

From Mufti Shamail, self-declared Hinduphobe Ambedkarite Lakhshya Lakey to Marxist historian Ram Punyani: Human Online platforms notorious anti-Hindu elements to push Islamo-leftist narratives 

Human Online also has a problematic track record of platforming individuals who have earned notoriety for having an anti-Hindu agenda. 

In December 2025, a Human Online podcast featured Lakhshya Lakey, a self-proclaimed Ambedkarite anti-caste activist, as a host. In February this year, a cyber complaint was filed by a lawyer, Tulip Sharma, who is also an Instagram content creator, against Lakhshya Lakey, accusing him of harassment, caste-based abuse towards Brahmins, and sending derogatory messages. Sharma had accused him of throwing anti-Brahmin casteist abuse at her after she posted comments criticising his video on Bharatanatyam and Devadasis. 

OpIndia reported earlier how Lakey regularly peddles anti-Brahmin propaganda. In one of his X posts, Lakshya incited Yadavs to abandon Hinduism because somehow Brahmins and Thakurs are not establishing marital relations with them. “And Yadavs, despite their political power and claims of Kshatriyata, are still not accepted as equals by Thakurs or Brahmins. No intermarriage. No respect. Only graded inequality. To my Yadav brothers and sisters – don’t aspire to be part of this caste pyramid,” he wrote. 

In addition, platforming Hinduphobic self-proclaimed Ambedkarites,  Human Online has also invited Islamist supremacist cleric Mufti Shamail Nadwi to its podcast earlier this year. 

The podcast was hosted by Umar Sofi, a notorious Islamist, who runs a YouTube channel pushing his ideological agenda. Amid the ongoing social media outrage against Human Online, Umar Sofi has deactivated his Instagram and X profiles.  

Interestingly, Mufti Shamail is the same person who last year sparked national controversy after a high-profile public debate with veteran poet and lyricist Javed Akhtar on the topic, “Does God exist?”   

One of the most criticised episodes linked to Nadwi is his promotion of the “Bhagwa Love Trap” conspiracy theory, a narrative that is outright sinister as it puts the lives of Hindu men in love with Muslim women in danger. 

In a video shared on his X account, Nadwi addressed Muslim women and warned them against marrying non-Muslims, particularly Hindus. 

In the video, he said, “Don’t give your Muslim daughters to Hindus. Surely, a Muslim slave is better than these Hindus… I am talking to my sisters who are trapped in the love trap of these polytheists and have deviated from Islam.” 

He framed interfaith relationships as a choice between “temporary worldly love” and “the fire of hell” versus “the paradise of Allah,” urging women to return to Islam and abandon such relationships. He claimed that Allah invites believers to heaven, while non-believers invite them to destruction. 

Nadwi has previously drawn criticism for openly declaring the superiority of Islam over all other religions, an archetype of a Maulvi intoxicated on the supremacism of Islam. In one of his statements, he said, “Islam is the only true religion. All other religions and theories are false. No person can be successful until he enters Islam.” 

In December 2025, Human Online interviewed leftist historian Ram Puniyani in a podcast titled, “Hindutva vs History: The Battle For India’s Past”.  

OpIndia has reported earlier about how Ram Puniyani has played a significant role in whitewashing Islamic tyrants of the medieval era.  

In fact, Puniyani continues to whitewash contemporary Islamist crimes against Hindus. 

In an op-ed by Ram Puniyani published in The Wire on 15th August 2024, the author severely downplayed the attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh by portraying them as politically motivated rather than religiously targeted. Though he acknowledged that there were attacks on Hindus, the author emphasised narratives of pluralism and democratic progress in Bangladesh 

Conclusion 

Overall, Human Online claims that its purpose is ‘serving humans, humanity, and global peace’; this Pakistan-linked ‘news’ outlet’s real agenda is serving Islamo-leftists, amplifying anti-Hindu and anti-India forces, and fueling anarchy. Contrary to the claim by Human Online that they are independent media platform, it is neither independent nor a media outlet; rather, Human Online is an Islamo-leftist propaganda factory with deep Pakistan links that is hiring ideologically aligned young foot soldiers in India to push divisive and anarchist narratives. 

Evolution of the Election Commission of India and street protests demanding removal of CEC

Divyansh Tiwari
-
0
Evolution of the Election Commission of India and street protests demanding removal of CEC

The Election Commission of India has developed from a constitutionally incomplete institution into a body that regularly manages the world’s largest franchise while operating under defined legal constraints and judicial oversight.

Its history has included political interventions, judicial rulings, legislative action, and internal disagreements. These contests have been resolved through constitutional provisions, parliamentary processes, and court decisions, leaving the Commission with clearer rules and greater operational capacity each time.

In September 2026, The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded formal objections on multiple occasions over a ten-month period, primarily concerning aspects of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The Commission responded with a press note that clarified the status of those decisions as unanimous on core matters and introduced procedural changes: advance circulation of meeting agendas and issuance of minutes. The episode illustrated the ordinary functioning of a multi-member body in which differing views are recorded and processes are adjusted.

The Election Commission’s design originates in Article 324, debated in the Constituent Assembly in 1949. BR Ambedkar proposed a permanent Chief Election Commissioner with additional members appointed as needed and protected against arbitrary removal. Parliament was left to legislate the appointment procedure; no such law was enacted for more than seven decades. Appointments therefore occurred by executive order.

In 1989 two additional commissioners were appointed shortly before the general election; those posts were abolished in 1990 after a change of government. Both actions showed how the absence of a statute allowed institutional arrangements to be altered amid political competition. TN Seshan, appointed in 1990, strengthened enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and other administrative controls. The three-member structure restored in 1993 was challenged by Seshan and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995, which confirmed that decisions would be taken by a majority among equals.

Later confrontations, including the 2002 Gujarat assembly-election timing dispute, resulted in further Supreme Court affirmation of the Commission’s authority to determine when free and fair elections could be held. Judicial decisions have both expanded the Commission’s capacity to fill statutory gaps and limited it where Parliament has spoken. In March 2023, a Constitution Bench directed that appointments be made by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India, while stating that the arrangement would continue only until Parliament enacted a law. 

Parliament responded within the year. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 created a Search Committee headed by the Law Minister to prepare a shortlist and a Selection Committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Commissioners serve a non-renewable term of six years, receive the salary of a Supreme Court judge, and take decisions by consensus or majority. 

Removal of the Chief Election Commissioner requires the same parliamentary process as the removal of a Supreme Court judge; other commissioners may be removed only on the Chief’s recommendation. The Supreme Court has declined to stay the Act or appointments made under it, including that of the present Chief Election Commissioner. A split bench in September 2026 referred the question of a larger-bench hearing to the Chief Justice without suspending the law.

In recent months, the Opposition’s frustration after their attempts to prevent the Special Intensive Revision exercises has been directed at CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Peaceful protest remains a democratic right, but removing a constitutional authority requires established legal grounds and parliamentary procedure. Political allegations warrant examination; they do not independently establish misconduct. The procedure to ‘remove’ the CEC has been laid down in the bedrock of the Indian democratic process; it cannot be exercised by whims and emotions of street protests.

The Election Commission has managed successive large-scale elections while absorbing procedural adjustments and operating within the legal framework established by the Constitution, Parliament, and the courts. The institutions that keep the wheels of democracy turning have to operate on the same principles of democracy themselves, and the ECI does pass those tests.

Read the full articles 3 vs 1: The battle for Election Commissioners in democratic India, and Hiring and firing the CEC: Street noise can’t replace the bedrock of law and parliamentary procedure on Chapter One Magazine.

‘Being a North Indian is not a ground for arrest’: Madras HC pulls up Tamil Nadu police for illegal arrest

Aditi
-
0
‘Being a North Indian is not a ground for arrest’: Madras HC pulls up Tamil Nadu police for illegal arrest

The Madras High Court recently pulled up the Tamil Nadu Police for arresting a man named Ankur Kumar Jain without furnishing written grounds of arrest. The court held that the arrest was vitiated and violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS. “I hold that the petitioner was not furnished the grounds of his arrest as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Sanhita, and that his arrest and the remand that followed are vitiated,” the court said, granting bail to the petitioner.

Screenshot from the judgment

Being “North Indian” not a ground for arrest

A Single Bench of Justice N. Ramesh also came down heavily on the police for opposing his regular bail petition, citing that he was a “North Indian” and therefore was likely to abscond. The Court reprimanded the police, stating that a person’s place of origin is not a ground for arrest, pointing out that the petitioner had lived and worked in the state for over two decades. “The petitioner has lived and worked in Chennai for more than two decades. Such an averment ought not to appear in an affidavit sworn by a police officer,” the High Court asserted in its order dated October 7, 2026.

Screenshot from the judgment

Legal lapse by arresting officer will attract departmental proceedings

The arrest memo served by the police on the petitioner only stated the offence committed under Section 420 IPC but did not explain the acts alleged against him and the grounds of his arrest. The police only read out the contents of the memo to him in English. “An oral explanation of a memo that itself contains no grounds is not a communication of grounds in writing in a language the arrested person understands. This was not an arrest in flagrante delicto,” the court observed.

Screenshot from the judgment

Expressing concern over the lack of legal compliance by the police, the High Court said that such lapses by the police lead to the accused getting released even in serious offences. The court emphasised that police officers need to be sensitised, trained and educated. “Either way, the police need to be sensitised, trained and educated on this point, and the officer who commits the lapse must answer for it,” the court said.

The High Court ruled that such failure to furnish written grounds of arrest by the arresting officer will be treated as a dereliction of duty, and he will be liable to departmental proceedings.

Background of the case

The case relates to an arrangement made between FIITJEE Limited and Suguna PIP School, Coimbatore, to conduct integrated coaching for students preparing for the JEE and NEET entrance examinations. Parents of students willing to enrol in the classes were required to pay a refundable caution deposit of ₹1 lakh. The amount was to be refunded within 60 days of the course’s completion.

However, the failure to refund the said amount led to the filing of a complaint against FIITJEE Limited and Suguna PIP School. An FIR was subsequently registered based on the complaint against concerned officials of FIITJEE Limited and Suguna PIP School. Notably, the petitioner, who was a salaried employee of FIITJEE Limited, was neither named in the complaint nor in the FIR. He was implicated on the basis of an agreement dated Feb 26, 2011, which he is said to have signed on behalf of FIITJEE with the school.

The petitioner’s counsel pointed out before the High Court that he had been a salaried employee of FIITJEE since 2000, and not a director or shareholder. He said that the money taken from the parents had been deposited into the company’s account and not paid to him personally.

The petitioner was arrested on July 15, 2026, in a separate case registered by the Economic Offences Wing in Chennai and lodged in Puzhal Central Prison. While he was in prison, he was formally arrested by the police in the present case on August 11, 2026. He was later produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore, and remanded to judicial custody and one day of police custody. The final report had not been filed when the High Court considered his bail application.

The High Court allowed Jain’s petition and ordered his release on regular bail, subject to certain conditions, including executing a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, each for the same amount.

123...7,668Page 1 of 7,668