Home Blog

From abandonment, online trend to revival: Kaveri engine gets a new life

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
From abandonment, online trend to revival: Kaveri engine gets a new life

The indigenous Kaveri engine is set for its ultimate revival for India’s fighter jets. Under a Kaveri 2.0 push, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), through its Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) laboratory, has reportedly restarted the development of the Kaveri afterburning turbofan engine.

Reports suggest that the DRDO is reviving the long-dormant Kaveri engine programme to produce a viable indigenous fighter jet engine, curbing reliance on foreign suppliers. What appears to have been the immediate trigger is the ongoing delays and sharp price rises in American GE F404/F414 engine supplies for Tejas Mk1A, and other ambitious programmes, including the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) and the unmanned Ghatak UCAV.

What is believed to have shifted the Indian government’s focus back to indigenous Kaveri is America’s GE Aerospace quoting a three times higher price for each F414 engine, which was initially quoted to be around ₹70-80 crore.

The GTRE is reported to be planning to flight-test an afterburning Kaveri variant, which is likely to generate around 73 kN thrust using the existing afterburner, on an older Limited Series Production Tejas Mk1 airframe. This would act as a flying testbed, with trials expected to take place around 2030, serving as a technology demonstrator. After this, the DRDO is expected to pivot to testing a more powerful under-development 84-85 kN-class version of Kaveri with an upgraded afterburner.

Kaveri engine: Conceived in the 1980s, abandoned in 2008 and revived in 2026

The Kaveri engine project began in the mid-1980s with its full-scale development authorised in 1989. Kaveri was to be developed to power the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft, LCA Tejas. Kaveri project was aimed at achieving a lightweight, high-performance afterburning turbofan with a target of around or over 85 kN thrust to meet the Tejas requirement, with a strict weight limit of 1,100 kg.

However, the engine struggled to consistently achieve the required thrust and could reach 72 kN wet in later configurations; in addition, weight issues further caused complications.

There were also turbine blade failures, performance decay at high altitude, combustion instability, and compression system gaps.

What further placed hurdles were the post-1998 Pokhran nuclear tests sanctions. These sanctions restricted access to critical technologies and materials. Since India lacked high-altitude test facilities at that time, it had to depend on Russia at high testing costs.

Cost overruns and delays also placed the Kaveri engine on the back burner. While the original target was 1996-2000, it got pushed to 2009, and by 2009, only 2 of the 6 milestones were achieved. Meanwhile, the spending exceeded Rs 1,892 crore, while the original estimate was around Rs 382 crore.

By September 2009, the Kaveri project was officially delinked from the Tejas programme. Tejas proceeded with imported GE Aerospace’s F404 engines, since Kaveri, in its early configuration, could only produce 70–75 kN of thrust, well below the 90–100 kN required for frontline fighter aircraft.

In 2013, DRDO’s negotiations with France’s Snecma collapsed in 2013 as the French engine manufacturer offered only a partial solution by replacing Kaveri’s core with their existing Eco Core, rather than transferring the latest engine technologies in full.

The Kaveri engine, however, was not scrapped entirely as the DRDO continued work on derivatives and material science, and a dry variant for the Ghatak UCAV, although the full afterburning fighter version was put on the back burner for years until now.

All hopes for a full-fledged indigenous Kaveri engine for Indian fighter jets had been dashed. However, a rather unusual turn of events unfolded in late May 2025, when a bunch of patriotic citizens, defence experts and defence enthusiasts rallied behind India’s long-standing but underfunded indigenous jet engine project through an online trend “Fund Kaveri Engine”.

The “#FundKaveriEngine” trend reflected public sentiment urging the Modi government to prioritise and accelerate the development of the Kaveri engine that symbolised India’s aspiration for self-reliance in military aviation technology.

OpIndia reported back then how several netizens urged the government to even impose additional taxes but fund the Kaveri engine. People spammed PM Modi’s and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh with their creative requests to revive the Kaveri engine project.

The online trend soon gained mainstream media attention and ultimately the Defence Ministry. Although it is obvious that the online campaign was not the sole cause, it created momentum and conveyed public sentiment to the policymakers that India’s own technology deserves renewed investment instead of relying largely on imports.

By February 2026, a major milestone was achieved when Defence Minister Rajnath Singh witnessed a successful full afterburner test of the Kaveri using a newly designed afterburner module developed with BrahMos Aerospace backing.

And now, the DRDO has restarted the development of the Kaveri afterburning turbofan engine. While it will not be an overnight revolution, as jet engine development is among the hardest engineering challenges, prioritising development of indigenous defence technologies, especially in an era of increasing geopolitical volatility, is paramount. Even though the 2030 flight-test target seems ambitious, if it succeeds, Kaveri 2.0 would transform India’s aerospace autonomy.

Why Meghalaya says no to Uranium mining

Raju Das
-
0
Why Meghalaya says no to Uranium mining

In the mist-laden green hills of Meghalaya, where the Khasi and Jaintia communities have long safeguarded their ancestral lands with fierce pride, the question of uranium mining has once again stirred deep emotions and firm political resolve. Recent statements from the state’s top leadership have made it abundantly clear that uranium extraction, particularly in the rich deposits of Domiasiat in the West Khasi Hills, will not take place unless locals agree to it. This stance is not a sudden development but the latest chapter in a decades-long saga of resistance rooted in environmental caution, tribal rights and political sensitivity.

As India continues its push for energy security and nuclear self-reliance, the story of Meghalaya’s uranium reserves offers a compelling illustration of why sometimes national ambitions must yield to local realities.

The latest developments unfolded in the last couple of weeks. On 5 July, the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) raised a strong alarm over the issue, alleging that certain MLAs and outsiders were pressuring residents of Domiasiat and adjoining villages to sell their land at throwaway prices while trying to sway them towards accepting uranium mining. KSU president Raymond Kharjana met Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma on 1 July and urged the government to pass a formal resolution opposing any revival of the project.

On 7 July, Deputy Chief Minister Sniawbhalang Dhar reiterated that the state government will not move forward with uranium mining unless it has the support of the people. “We are very clear. We are with the people of the state. Uranium mining cannot be allowed unless the whole state is on board,” he declared, adding that public interest would always remain the top priority and that allegations of cheap land purchases would be thoroughly verified.⁠

Uranium Ore

The following day, Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma himself reinforced this position. Responding to reports that officials of the Atomic Minerals Directorate (AMD) had visited Domiasiat, Sangma said he was unaware of any such movement but promised a full probe. He reiterated that the Meghalaya government is firmly opposed to uranium mining and that his word on the matter stands as the state’s final stand. “We are not in favour of uranium mining and we have made it very clear to the Government of India too,” he stated, emphasising that the government would never take a decision that went against the interests or concerns of its people. The CM added that the govt will work in line with the best interest of our people

“It is not only about uranium mining. Whether it is railways or any other issue, the state government will move forward only after all stakeholders are on board,” Sangma said. These statements have effectively closed the chapter for the foreseeable future, even as the state continues to hold one of India’s largest discovered uranium reserves, estimated at around 9,500 to over 20,000 tonnes of uranium oxide in the Domiasiat-Wahkaji belt, ranking third after Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh.

Both locals and govt oppose Uranium mining

The position of the state government has been consistent and unambiguous. The govt has repeatedly affirmed that the administration stands with the people and will not proceed without their full consent. Development, they insist, must be balanced and equitable; it cannot be imposed only in uranium-bearing areas. This echoes earlier commitments, including a 2016 decision to keep mining activities in abeyance, and aligns with the long-standing stance of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC), which has refused to issue any No Objection Certificate for commercial mining.

The Hill Councils, which govern vast tracts of privately owned tribal land under the Sixth Schedule, remain a formidable institutional barrier. Even though atomic minerals fall under the Atomic Energy Act, giving the Centre the technical power to override state and local authorities, no government has chosen to exercise that power forcibly in Meghalaya.

Local communities and civil society groups have been even more opposed to uranium mining in the state. The Khasi Students’ Union, traditional heads, youth organisations and ordinary landowners view the deposits not as a resource to be exploited, but as a threat to their way of life. Domiasiat and the surrounding villages lie on land that is almost entirely privately owned by tribal families, protected under customary laws and the Hill Councils. For generations, these communities have drawn their livelihood from the forests, streams and fertile soil of the West Khasi Hills.

The state that observes Anti-Uranium Day

The memory of exploratory drilling in the 1990s and early 2000s, when thousands of boreholes were sunk, still remains fresh, accompanied by health concerns among villagers. Meghalaya is perhaps the only region where an Anti-Uranium Day is observed. Matriarch late Spillity Lyngdoh Langrin, who famously rejected lucrative offers with the words “Money cannot buy me freedom,” has become an enduring symbol of resistance. Her death anniversary on October 28 is observed every year by the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) as the Anti-Uranium Day, keeping the collective memory alive.

The Union remains firm in its stand that under no circumstance will it permit uranium mining or any pre-mining activities in Domiasiat and Mawthabah, whether undertaken by the state government or any central agency. The Anti-Uranium Day, which began in 2021, serves both as a tribute to Spility Langrin and as a reaffirmation of the people’s commitment to protect their land from uranium exploration.

Concerns around Uranium mining

The concerns driving this opposition are both scientific and cultural. The uranium ore in Domiasiat is a low-depth sandstone deposit, typically lying between eight and 47 metres below the surface. Mining would almost certainly involve open-cast methods, which raises fears that it would scar the landscape, destroy forests and contaminate the intricate network of waterways that criss-cross the hills. Radiation risks, groundwater pollution from tailings, and long-term health effects, ranging from cancers and respiratory illnesses to reproductive problems, have been cited repeatedly, drawing parallels with experiences in Jaduguda, Jharkhand.

Apart from environmental hazards, there is a deeper anxiety about cultural erasure. For the Khasi people, land is not merely an economic asset; it is the foundation of identity, community and spiritual life. Any large-scale industrial intrusion risks alienating communities and sparking social unrest in a state that already navigates complex ethnic and interstate border sensitivities.

Spillity Lyngdoh Langrin

Many locals, particularly in the Khasi Hills, remain wary of initiatives that could trigger a significant inflow of outsiders, fearing it would alter the state’s demographic balance, strain limited resources, increase competition for land and jobs, and dilute indigenous culture and identity. This sentiment has long stalled the extension of the railway network into the state. Groups like the Khasi Students’ Union have historically opposed rail projects, arguing that easier connectivity with Assam and beyond would accelerate migration without adequate safeguards. Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma has acknowledged these public concerns, noting that the government avoids “bulldozing” such projects and insists on building consensus first, highlighting how even beneficial infrastructure faces resistance when perceived as a threat to the state’s fragile tribal fabric.

It is precisely this sensitivity that explains why there is no progress in mining uranium in Meghalaya, as the Central government is unlikely to push hard for the same. Although the Atomic Energy Act theoretically empowers New Delhi to take control of atomic minerals, overriding the state government’s decision, successive governments have recognised that forcing the issue would carry high political costs.

Forced mining may reignite anti-Delhi sentiments

Meghalaya is a sensitive border state with a strong tradition of tribal autonomy. Enforcing mining of the nuclear fuel against the will of the people, the Hill Councils and the state government could trigger prolonged legal battles, law-and-order problems and massive protests that no administration wants to risk. The tribal communities in the north-east have been historically suspicious of the centres, thanks to successive Congress governments ignoring the region for decades. The region saw so many separatist movements for such reasons.

Now, after the relentless efforts of the BJP government, tribes in the northeast have started trusting Delhi. They have seen the benefits of various development and infrastructure initiatives of the government. In this scenario, any attempt to forcefully mine uranium against the will of the locals will reignite the anti-Delhi sentiment. Anti-government and anti-national elements keep waiting for such instances to provoke vulnerable youths into joining militancy against the government. Therefore, it is unlikely that the centre will override the sentiments of the locals in this matter.

Uranium in Meghalaya

The Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD), a unit of the Department of Atomic Energy, first identified potential uranium mineralisation in the region through surveys in the early 1970s, with its northeastern circle office established in Shillong in 1976. Aerial surveys around 1975 and detailed work in the early 1980s confirmed high-quality sandstone-type deposits in the Domiasiat area of the West Khasi Hills in 1984. Extensive exploratory drilling and geological studies were largely completed by 1992.

According to AMD assessments, Domiasiat alone holds approximately 9,500 tonnes of uranium ore (U₃O₈), making it the largest and richest near-surface sandstone-type deposit discovered in the country so far, with an average grade of about 0.1 per cent and depths ranging from 8 to 47 metres, suitable for open-cast mining. Broader estimates for Meghalaya place the total established reserves at nearly 16,000 tonnes of U₃O₈ across four main locations: Domiasiat, Wahkyn, Tyrnai and Lostoin. Domiasiat is the country’s largest sandstone-type uranium deposit.

Some later figures have put the state’s overall identified resources higher, around 13,000 to over 20,000 tonnes, accounting for roughly 16 per cent of India’s uranium reserves and ranking Meghalaya third after Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh. Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. (UCIL) under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) had already made a plan to develop the mineral resources at Domiasiat under the name of “Kylleng Phendengsohiong Mawthabah (KPM) Uranium Mining Project”

The Detailed Project Report of the KPM Uranium Mining Project was approved by the Atomic Energy Commission. Environmental clearance for this project was obtained from the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEFCC) in December 2007. An agreement was also signed between UCIL and the land owners of the project site in May 2007 for the acquisition of land on an annual lease rent basis. Approval to execute land lease with land owners, grant of mining lease and Consent for Establishment were taken up with the Meghalaya State Government.

Uranium ore remains buried in Meghalaya for now                                 

However, these near-surface, low-depth deposits in the Upper Cretaceous Lower Mahadek Formation remain largely unexploited due to sustained local opposition. The Uranium deposits sit on privately owned tribal land under the Hill Council, and while the national act can override these layers in theory, no government wishes to alienate the tribals or open a political wound that would be difficult to heal. Instead, the Centre has chosen the path of least resistance: sourcing uranium from functional mines in Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan, where new projects such as Jajawal and Rohil are progressing, and importing the rest from friendly countries under civil nuclear agreements.

India already meets a significant portion of its nuclear fuel needs through imports from Kazakhstan, Canada and Russia, and domestic production elsewhere continues to expand. During the recent visit of PM Modi, Australia also agreed to supply uranium to India.

Given this backdrop, there is simply no compelling strategic necessity that would justify the headache of imposing uranium mining on an unwilling Meghalaya.

In the end, the refusal of uranium mining in Meghalaya is more than a local environmental victory, it is a quiet assertion of democratic and federal principles. The state government has chosen to listen to its people, the Hill Councils have stood by their traditional authority, and the Centre has wisely refrained from testing the limits of its legal powers. While India’s nuclear ambitions remain important for energy security and strategic autonomy, the Meghalaya story shows that development cannot come at the cost of trust, ecology and community consent. For now, the yellowcake beneath Domiasiat will stay buried, and there will be no fresh protests against the government, which often turn violent.

Antique idols taken from Tamil Nadu temples to return home from Australia

Rukma Rathore
-
0
Antique idols taken from Tamil Nadu temples to return home from Australia

Australia is scheduled to transfer antiquities of great cultural importance to India, including a ceremonial bronze trident with Goddess Bhadrakali, a granite idol of Nandi and a basalt carving of the six-headed Lord Kartikeya. The artefacts were initially removed from ancient temples in Tamil Nadu. The Ministry of External Affairs shared that these are from the 11th and 12th centuries.

The development happened in the wake of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s latest trip to the country for attending India-Australia Annual Summit. “In a profound testament to the civilisational resonance anchoring modern diplomacy, Australia is set to repatriate three culturally significant ancient antiquities to India,” Minister of Culture wrote on social media, remarking that the decision “further emphasised the strong cultural alignment between the two nations.”

The three magnificent antiques of ancient Hindu temples

Metal trident with Goddess Bhadrakali: In Shaiva-Shakti traditions, a ceremonial trishula with a figure of Goddess Bhadrakali (fierce from of Shakti) atop it represents protection, divine strength and the annihilation of evil. The deity’s idol is created in accordance with the South Indian temple ritual metalwork tradition.

Stone idol of Nandi: The revered bull and mount (vahana) of Lord Shiva is intricately carved in the Tamil Shaiva temple tradition, showcasing compact dimensions and elaborate ornamentation. It is customarily positioned facing the sanctum (garbhagriha) as an embodiment of devotion, strength and dharma. It is illustrated in a reclining position, adorned with decorative bells and garlands.

The two pieces originated from the Sri Kasiviswanathaswamy Temple in Kollumangudi of Thiruvarur district which was built under the late Chola to Vijayanagar/Nayak dynasties in the 13th and 16th centuries CE.

Stone idol of six-headed Kartikeya (Shanmukha): The six-headed statue shows Kartikeya also known as Murugan or Shanmukha, which stands for bravery, intelligence and divine protection. He is seen with twelve arms, armed with weapons like the vel (spear) and frequently accompanied by a peacock.

The artwork is carved using the Chola-period sculpture style which is renowned for its elaborate decoration and elegant proportions. It belonged to the Naganathsamy Temple in the Thanjavur district’s Manambadi village. The sacred structure was constructed during Rajendra Chola I in the early 11th century CE.

PM Modi thanked Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for the gesture, which is going to take place under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). The three objects are presently kept in the National Gallery of Australia.

The dubious provenance history which exposed the truth

According to inquiries conducted by the Tamil Nadu Idol Wing CID (Crime Investigation Department), they had been taken from the state’s temples and trafficked abroad. The relics are coming back home after their provenance was confirmed following probes at the request of the agency.

S Vijaya Kumar, cultural enthusiast and co-founder of India Pride mentioned that former high court Justice Susan Crennan AC’s independent assessment of the National Gallery of Australia revealed serious flaws in their provenance over a decade ago, reported The Hindu. The examination came to the conclusion that the ownership histories of two idols did not prove that they were legally exported from India.

The Bhadrakali trident idol was purchased from Temple Gallery in New York and was reported to be the possession of Dr. PS Rao in Chennai. It was brought into the gallery in 1993, but it was not identified that the export was legal. Afterwards, the aforementioned temple was established as its source. The six-headed Kartikeya’s ownership was also linked to Dr PS Rao and Temple Gallery.

The Nandi monument was asserted to be acquired from Carlton Rochell Asian Art. It was alleged to be assembled by Mexican diplomat Mario Calderon in Goa and then inherited by Pedro Silva Villasenor in Mexico. According to the Crennan Review, there was insufficient substantiation of this chain and further research demonstrated that the sculpture hailed from a Tamil Nadu temple.

Notably, the Modi government has already effectively retrieved 650 stolen historical items from various countries since 2014.

India to return remains of First Nations ancestor

India has earlier committed to voluntarily and unconditionally hand over remains of an Australian First Nations ancestor (a member of Indigenous Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities) that are currently housed at the Government Museum of Chennai and were received in exchange of the skull of a 30-year-old male Telugu in around 1935.

PM Albanese welcomed the move and reciprocated declaring, “In the spirit of friendship, Australia will voluntarily return several items of cultural significance to India, previously held in the collections of the National Gallery of Australia and the Art Gallery of New South Wales.”

“Australia and India share a deep history, and we are building strong people-to-people links between our two countries. The repatriation of a First Nations ancestor to their Traditional Custodians promotes healing, justice, and reconciliation. I commend PM Modi for the decision,” he expressed.

Six years into the India-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, PM Modi and PM Albanese described the act as a symbol of the strengthening mutual respect and cultural ties.

PM Modi in Australia

PM Modi landed in Australia on the evening of 8th July (Wednesday), marking the second leg of his three-nation diplomatic tour including Indonesia and New Zealand. He and PM Albanese even spoke at a packed community event titled “Melbourne Meets Modi” at Marvel Stadium.

However, the visit yielded vital outcomes that went beyond appearances. PM Modi held one-on-one discussions and delegation-level talks with his Australian counterpart and secured major investments. The two addressed the high-profile Australia-India CEO Forum. PM Modi narrated India’s growth story there and urged businesses to invest in its expanding economy and extend cooperation across different sectors involving critical minerals, rare earths, lithium, artificial intelligence, resilient supply chains and others.

18 landmark agreements pertaining to nuclear energy, defence, marine security, vital minerals, technology, cyber security, artificial intelligence, education and investment were inked between the two strategic allies. Canberra and New Delhi even signed a historic arrangement regarding Australian uranium exports to India for peaceful civilian purposes.

It signified the end of nearly 20 years of resistance from the western country stemming from Indian government’s unwillingness to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). PM Modi also engaged with multiple Australian leaders, including members of the opposition.

Tamil Nadu govt moves Supreme court against verdict that made reservation for new Muslim converts ‘unconstitutional’, Madras HC had earlier exposed Joseph Vijay’s appeasement politics: Read case details

Aditi
-
0
Tamil Nadu govt moves Supreme court against verdict that made reservation for new Muslim converts ‘unconstitutional’, Madras HC had earlier exposed Joseph Vijay’s appeasement politics: Read case details

The newly formed Joseph Vijay government in Tamil Nadu has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the Madras High Court order that held that converts to Islam cannot claim reservations meant for Backwards Class (BC) Muslims. The state government filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court on 6th July.

The matter relates to a Madras High Court order that declared a 2024 order of the Tamil Nadu government as unconstitutional and arbitrary. A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji passed a decision on June 25, 2026, criticising the government order allowing converts to Islam to claim BC status. The Honourable High Court reprimanded the Tamil Nadu government for passing the order with the intention of overriding the judicial precedents and, in effect, incentivising conversion to Islam.

What was the case before the Madras High Court?

The High Court passed the impugned decision in a case relating to a Hindu man who sought to be included within a Backward Muslim community after conversion to avail reservation benefits meant for the community. The man was born into a Hindu family in the Thoothukudi district in April 1993 and 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.

He relied on the 2024 Tamil Nadu government order, which provided that if a person belonging to Backward Classes (BCs), Most Backward Classes (MBCs), Denotified Communities (DNCs), or Scheduled Castes (SCs) converts to Islam, he should be treated as BC Muslim and should be given reservation benefits meant for the community. 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 High Court saw through the Tamil Nadu government’s appeasement tactics

The Madras High Court saw through the fraud being committed by the Tamil Nadu government on the established order by passing the order. The court pointed out that the judicial position was clear that a reservation cannot be granted merely based on religion because the Constitution permits affirmative action only for socially and educationally backward classes and specified constitutional categories.

The Court cited precedents and explained that after converting to Islam, a convert’s place in the Muslim community will not necessarily correspond to his status before conversion. His position within the Muslim community will not be determined by the caste to which he belonged before converting to Islam. He ceases to be a member of his pre-conversion caste. The High Court further explained that the seven Muslim categories recognised for reservation in Tamil Nadu are historically identified communities and membership in those communities is ordinarily determined by birth, not conversion.

The Division Bench called out the Tamil Nadu government for rewarding conversion to Islam through its flawed order. The court pointed out the latent appeasement of the Tamil Nadu government, which went to the extent of overriding judicial precedents prohibiting reservation benefits for converts to Islam, in order to please the Muslim community. The court emphasised that the legislature cannot declare a binding judicial precedent void or ineffective by passing a law. It also pointed out how the government order went against the principles of Islam, which claims to be an egalitarian religion, free from caste hierarchies, by introducing hierarchies in it.

The High Court clearly explained and emphasised in its decision by quoting judicial precedents that established law prohibits reservation benefits for converts to Islam, and the Tamil Nadu government order was flawed and unconstitutional. However, the Tamil Nadu government went ahead to challenge the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, utilising the opportunity to appease the Muslim community in the state, even if that amounts to disregarding the established law.

Instagram Influencer Mohsin Kazmi, lies against India: A propagandist and Islamist

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Instagram Influencer Mohsin Kazmi, lies against India: A propagandist and Islamist

‘China has encroached our territory, but Vishwaguru is silent’. After several opposition leaders, some Instagram influencers are peddling false and alarmist claims that the Chinese forces have advanced 60 km inside Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh and that the Modi government is too ‘weak’ to stop China. In this vein, a Muslim man named Mohsin Kazmi published an Instagram video peddling fake claims about a Chinese incursion into Indian territory.

On 7th July, Mohsin Kazmi from Jharkhand’s Jamshedpur, who claims to be working at Jindal Steel in Odisha’s Sambalpur, uploaded a video on his Instagram page with more than 3 lakh followers.

In the video, Mohsin Kazmi claimed that Chinese forces have not only infiltrated into Indian territory but also encroached on over 60 kilometres of land area in Arunachal Pradesh. He further claimed that India claims to be a Vishwaguru but remains silent on China’s audacious misadventures.

“Chinese Army has entered Arunachal Pradesh deep inside 60 kilometres and taken our military under control. The country [India] that calls itself Vishwaguru, why is it not opening its mouth in front of China? And, why is the Godi media not showing this reality? Our country may or may not become Vishwaguru, but it will soon become China’s slave,” Kazmi claimed.

Kazmi’s video features overlaid footage of a military column in green terrain with “Arunachal Pradesh” labels and text claiming a Chinese advance of 60 kilometres inside India.

Another video shows humiliating scenes of Indian soldiers in front of Chinese PLA troops.

In addition to Mohsin Kazmi, several X users have also shared the viral video with claims that Chinese troops had crossed approximately 60 kilometres into the Taksing sector of Upper Subansiri district in Arunachal Pradesh. According to the viral narrative, the PLA had established camps inside Indian territory, and India had either failed to respond or was suppressing information about the incident.

PIB debunked ‘China 60 km inside India’ lies

However, Mohzin Kazmi’s claim has already been debunked by the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check unit and categorically labelled the claim as fake.

The PIB Fact Check confirmed that the videos being circulated do not show any recent Chinese incursion into Arunachal Pradesh. Instead, the visuals are either unrelated military footage or videos that have previously circulated online under entirely different contexts. The fact-check noted that the videos had been misrepresented to create the impression of a fresh Chinese advance into Indian territory.

Prior to the PIB’s fact-check, the Indian Army had dismissed reports alleging Chinese encroachment and the construction of PLA camps inside Arunachal Pradesh.

In response to similar claims regarding the Taksing sector, the Army stated that reports of Chinese encroachment and establishment of military camps were “incorrect and without any basis.”

The video claimed to be showing Chinese troops ‘entering’ Indian territory is an old one showing Thai military and not Chinese troops in India. The video has nothing remotely to do with India. However, this clip is recycled time and again by Pakistani bots, pro-China propagandists, and ideological adversaries of the Modi government in India.

Amidst online backlash, Mohsin Kazmi quietly deleted his Instagram post peddling fake news against the Indian Army.

This time, the circulation of ‘China 60 km inside India’ claims came at a time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi was on a high-profile visit to Indonesia, where India and Indonesia are deepening their strategic partnership in the Indo-Pacific. The two countries, much to China’s dismay, agreed on the export of BrahMos cruise missiles, Astra air-to-air missiles, cooperation on critical minerals, and the joint development of Sabang Port, located near the strategically vital Strait of Malacca. 

Meanwhile, the other clip showing Indian troops humiliatingly doing sit-ups while holding their ears in front of Chinese soldiers is AI-generated.

Mohsin Kazmi: From peddling fake news against Indian Army to being an Islamist

As per one of Mohsin Kazmi’s videos, he works at or worked at Jindal Steel in Odisha’s Sambhalpur. Kazmi has published around 820 posts on Instagram. His online shenanigans reveal his Islamist and anti-BJP ideological moorings.

While Mohsin Kazmi peddles false and alarmist narratives about the Indian Army and India’s territorial integrity, he extends wholehearted support to Iran and mourned the slain Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

When Iran confirmed in late March that the Strait of Hormuz would be open for the friendly nation of India, Mohsin Kazmi discredited the Indian government’s role in securing unrestricted access to energy supplies via the Strait of Hormuz and claimed that this happened because of the donations made by Indians, mainly Muslims, to Iran.

Kazmi’s Instagram page is replete with pro-Iran posts coupled with narratives critical of the Modi government.

Unsurprisingly, Mohsin Kazmi is also a strong Palestine supporter and stands in solidarity with his co-religionists against Israel.

Mohsin Kazmi is a big supporter of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, and has earlier lauded the Congress government in Karnataka for allowing Hijab in schools.

Mohsin Kazmi has also glorified Haji Mastan, the infamous don, calling him “King of Ocean”.

Notably, Haji Mastan was a dreaded don in Mumbai who had a pact with Karim Lala and Varadarajan Mudaliar which divided Mumbai into three parts where each operated their ‘businesses’ in order to avoid conflict. Together, the trio was referred to as the “three dons of Mumbai”.

Mohsin Kazmi has also published multiple videos inciting hatred against activist Nazia Elahi Khan over her remarks about the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Why Ayodhya’s ‘compensatory mosque’ is struggling for funds: The ‘Babri Zinda Hai’ mindset behind the Muslim community’s disinterest

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Why Ayodhya’s ‘compensatory mosque’ is struggling for funds: The ‘Babri Zinda Hai’ mindset behind the Muslim community’s disinterest

For decades, Muslims fought tooth and nail to claim ownership of the Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. In 2019, the Supreme Court gave the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site to the Hindus and directed the state government to allot a distant site to Muslims for the construction of a mosque. It has been over half a decade; a grand Ram Mandir has been constructed and opened for devotees; however, the compensatory mosque is not in sight.

It has been reported that the alternate mosque project in Ayodhya has been drastically scaled back due to a severe funding crunch and lack of support from the Muslim community.

The Indo-Islamic Cultural Foundation (IICF), the trust set up by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, has confirmed that it has abandoned the original ambitious plans to construct a mosque on the allotted 5-acre plot in Dhannipur village. The original plan included a grand mosque, a 300-bed multi-speciality hospital, library, community kitchen, and other facilities.

Scaling back from the original plan, the IICF now intends to construct only a small mosque.

As per a Reuters report, the IICF Chairman Zufar Ahmad Faruqi has stated that there is “certainly a disinterest from the community and the donations received are not enough. We now plan to build a mosque much smaller than the one originally proposed.”

Faruqi said that the Foundation will need Rs 3 to 5 crores for the construction of a smaller mosque. However, only Rs 1.5 crores have been collected so far.

Denial of defeat: Why Muslims are not ‘interested’ in the compensatory mosque?

On the surface, a Muslim lack of interest in and support for the alternate mosque in Dhannipur is amusing, and has even attracted mockery that ‘Muslims cannot even raise decent funds for their mosque’; this disinterest, however, warrants serious reflection on the depth of their Islamic fanaticism.

This is not a story of mere insufficient donations. The Muslim community’s refusal to widely donate for the construction of the alternate mosque a unignorable illustration of a deeper, intransigent mindset that treats religious land claims essentially as non-negotiable zero-sum struggles.

A significant section of Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent considers the creation of Pakistan, a Muslim-exclusive land, as their biggest Islamic victory in centuries. Pakistan has fought around four conventional wars against India, a Hindu-majority nation, and lost all of them.

However, Pakistani Muslims do not recognise any of these clear defeats as defeats at all, including the 1971 war. Reason? The loss of land. In 1971, India, along with Bengali freedom fighters, liberated East Pakistan and created Bangladesh. Pakistanis, for long, tried to cover up the surrender of its 93,000 soldiers; however, losing control over the land claimed in the name of Islam has been a lingering wound. However, because Bangladesh remained Muslim-majority, Pakistani Islamic fanatics were content that at least the lost land did not lose Islamic dominance. Thus, it was not a defeat Islamically.

In 1965, Indian forces reached Lahore and practically took over, defeating Pakistani jihad-driven forces. However, in the Tashkent Agreement, India returned the conquered land; thus, Pakistanis declared it a victory.

Be Kargil war, the Balakot air strike, or the May 2025 conflict, India inflicted severe blows to Pakistan; however, since their land was not lost, Pakistan convinced its populace of a victory. For Muslims, loss of territory in possession is a bigger loss than loss of lives, since for Muslims this world is temporary, only a stoppage in the journey to the ultimate world, Akhirah or afterlife in Jannah (Jannat).

For Muslims, land is the ultimate signifier of victory or victory in process, since the Islamic concept of war has no space for defeat or acknowledgement of defeat.

Be it Pakistan, for which Jinnah said that “there is no power on earth that can undo Pakistan”, or Palestine, or Babri Masjid, Islamists believe in the Quranic concept that once a land, no matter as vast as a country, or a mosque, is claimed under Darul Islam or Islamic rule, it becomes the property of Allah on the day of judgment.

This belief also reflects in the saying “once a Waqf, always a Waqf”. According to Islam, the property marked as Waqf is now available only for (Islamic) religious or charitable purposes, with any other use or sale prohibited. According to Sharia law, once a Waqf is established and property is dedicated to Allah, it becomes Waqf property till Qayamat.

The Palestinian Islamic terror group Hamas declared Israel, the entire Jewish country, as ‘Waqf’ property in its 1988 ‘Hamas Charter’ and vowed to continue Jihad against the Jewish state until the ‘waqf of Israel’ is brought under the periphery of Darul Islam.

Apparently, for this reason, Israel directly holds control of the land from the Temple Mount to Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

Many Islamic scholars boast and encourage Muslims in ‘kufr’ countries to convert more and more non-Muslims to Islam as a replacement for every Muslim life lost in Palestine. Basically, land claimed under Islamic rule must not be lost, while loss of Muslim lives can be compensated with luring in more converts to Islam.

Take a look at Afghanistan: for over two decades, America bombed and killed thousands of Afghan Muslims, occupied their land, and established its military settlements there. However, as soon as America made a policy blunder of withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan, the Taliban took over and declared that they never lost; rather, they defeated ‘superpower’ America since they did not lose their land.

Muslims mourn the loss of Spain even today, which in the Islamic world is better remembered as Andalusia or al-Andalus. Islamists across the world still harbour the dream that one day, either through war and conquest or through the ongoing tactic of migrate, alter, demographics, and establish Islamic dominance, they will re-Islamise Spain.

Why does Indian Jammu and Kashmir remain the ‘jugular vein’ of Pakistan? Because it is a question of territory. A Muslim-majority territory that could have been a part of the 78-year-old Islamic Republic but is governed by Hindu Kafirs.

Babri Zinda Hai: As long as Muslims cling to the concept of ‘once a waqf, always a waqf’, they will never truly accept a compromise or forfeit their claim

Islam’s definition of defeat is essentially loss of land.

This mindset is that once a land, no matter how, is claimed of and for Islam and Allah, no way it can be handed back into the hands of kafirs, and the claim, even if illegitimate, is not relinquished for any reason.

To be absolutely honest, beyond the apparent attempt at placating Islamist intransigence, it makes no sense that the Supreme Court allotted even 5-acre land to the Muslim side for a mosque.

The Indian Muslims, including the Muslim petitioners, are not descendants of Mughal invader Babur; they are not the inheritors or custodians of Mughal ‘legacy’ or structures erected in that era by virtue of being Muslims. The majority of the Muslims residing in the Indian Subcontinent, regardless of current borders, essentially are converted descendants of Hindus.

Despite this, the broader Muslim refusal to rally behind and fund the alternate or compensatory mosque, even though it is a judicially granted right, is rooted in the prioritisation of perpetual grievance and symbolic reclamation.

Intransigent Muslims would rather donate for a fake Babri Masjid in West Bengal than have any part in the construction of the “mosque of compromise” in Dhannipur.

Why? Because a significant section of Muslims, be it ordinary people in India and Pakistan or politicians, view the original Babri structure built after demolishing the Hindu temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site as inalienably theirs regardless of what the court ruled.

Babri Zinda Hai is not a mere social media trend that pops up every year on 6th December or political rhetoric or means of mass mobilisation. It is a deep belief and hope that many Muslims harbour that one day, when the Nizam will change, the Ram Mandir will be demolished and Babri Masjid will be ‘reinstated’.

This belief is rooted in the Quranic idea that Islamic sanctity of certain sites transcends secular courts, democratic processes, or archaeological evidence.

In this framework, compromise is weakness and acceptance of an alternate mosque essentially means surrender. Thus, for Islamists, they did not lose the Shri Jamnbhoomi land dispute case to Hindus; rather, they treat it as only a setback that will one day be overturned by force.

Till then, the issue must remain ‘alive’ indefinitely, since finality would amount to conceding that Islamic claims over a territory are absolute or perpetual. This would open Pandora’s box, with Hindus reclaiming all their fully or partially destroyed or repurposed-as-mosques temples, be it Kashi Vishwanath, Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi, or Sambhal’s Harihar Mandir.

As Canada admits “no evidence” against India in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, read how Modi govt was attacked globally on the basis of lies and “credible allegations”

Rukma Rathore
-
0
As Canada admits “no evidence” against India in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, read how Modi govt was attacked globally on the basis of lies and “credible allegations”

The prolonged geopolitical witch hunt against India, which was unleashed in the wake of the assassination of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Burnaby, has recently been exposed after Canada accepted that “no evidence” was discovered to substantiate the claims pertaining to the Modi government’s role in the incident.

“There is no evidence to suggest that, through this organised crime syndicate investigation and the charges laid forward, that Indian government officials would be charged or involved in this. Nothing has come out to link the Indian government,” highlighted Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Deputy Commissioner, Lisa Moreland.

The admission took place after the officials in the United States released an indictment accusing imprisoned gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and his North American accomplice Goldy Brar of planning Nijjar’s murder. The case is part of a larger action on organised criminal networks in the United States, Canada and Europe. However, the charges made by the US personnel did not point to any involvement of New Delhi in the matter.

Operation Hardball: Indian agencies help the US

On the contrary, India even cooperated in the probe. US law enforcement officers met with many central agencies in the Asian nation prior to “Operation Hardball” exchanging and confirming intelligence about mobsters Bishnoi, Brar, Rohit Godara, Jaggu Bhagwanpuria and their allies, reported The Indian Express. The operation is a multinational offensive led by federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Los Angeles, in collaboration with the RCMP and European authorities.

Insiders revealed, “After the deportation of gangster Anmol Bishnoi from the US (in November last year), who is wanted as the main plotter in the murder of NCP (Nationalist Congress Party) leader Baba Siddique, coordination between India’s central agencies and US law enforcement agencies improved significantly.”

They are reported to have given US officials access to a list of aides of Bishnoi and Brar alongside information about potential hiding places, during their latest communications. The sources mentioned, “In the last five years, several of their associates have been arrested here, and, during questioning, many of them unveiled details about Lawrence Bishnoi, his partners and their activities abroad. On the basis of their disclosures and technical surveillance, evidence was gathered against them.”

US authorities even visited the National Investigation Agency (NIA) headquarters in Delhi last year. The former discussed about connections between Indian-origin mafia and US drug cartels. They also requested for help in taking action against these culprits and offered a compilation of names. According to a central agency officer, inquiries into many cases had shown that the majority of these gangsters in US were in contact with smugglers in Pakistan for both targeted killings and the transportation of massive amounts of drugs into India through sea and drones.

Sources stated, “They are currently using VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) to mask their locations and encrypt communication, making it difficult to trace them. They also use encrypted messaging apps for secure communication, and it is difficult to track their channels.” 

The United States had aligned itself with Canada in its debunked opposition of India. An indictment submitted by Damian Williams, the former counsel for the Southern District of New York asserted that Nikhil Gupta, who was apprehended in a so-called conspiracy to eliminate banned Sikhs for Justice supremo Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, reportedly recognised that he was also involved in Nijjar’s murder and there were multiple other targets.

Now, the current legal breakthroughs have turned the original political narrative on its head which was built on dubious confessions and ludicrous charges of “transnational repression” against New Delhi.

When the Canadian government used “credible allegations” to attack India

Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau undertook a deliberate effort to attack India shortly after 45-year-old Nijjar’s death in 2023. Interestingly, the accusations were founded on “credible allegations” rather than empirical proof, terming it as a breach of his nation’s sovereignty. RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme announced that evidence has been uncovered tying the “agents of the Modi government” to homicides and other violent acts in the country.

However, India firmly denied the outrageous allegations and maintained that Canada has failed to back the same with evidence. It retorted that human traffickers and murderers have been granted refuge in the country. David Cohen, the American ambassador to Canada, conveyed that “shared intelligence among Five Eyes partners,” including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, was the basis of the charges.

Afterwards, a series of tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions unfolded as Ottawa was forced to withdraw 41 diplomats and their families after New Delhi threatened to revoke their diplomatic immunity, as the row resulted in a fast deterioration of ties. Canada temporarily stopped conducting in-person operations at its consulates in Bengaluru, Chandigarh and Mumbai.

The entire Canadian government rallied together to consistently criticise the Modi government, even going so far as to directly accuse the Minister of Home Affairs, Amit Shah, of orchestrating plots against Sikh separatists on Canadian territory. Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister David Morrison took his name while talking to “The Washington Post” and verified it before a parliamentary panel.

He and National Security Adviser Nathalie Drouin had revealed sensitive intelligence in relation to India’s “criminal activities” on Canadian soil with the media outlet. Moreover, the then Indian High Commissioner, Sanjay Verma, was identified as a person of interest in the investigation.

He and five other diplomats and consular officials were expelled as well as labelled as “persona non grata.” Canada had formally requested India to waive their diplomatic immunity in order to interrogate them over their supposed participation in violent criminal activity.

However, the submission was rejected. Indian officials were reduced to the position of criminals by the Trudeau government for political interests and to cater to the Khalistani voting bloc in the country. The Modi government also emphasised that it was necessary to repatriate them as it had lost confidence in the Canadian government’s commitment to their security, citing its support for extremism, violence and separatism against India.

It told Canada to withdraw several diplomatic staff and suspend visa services. India directed six Canadian diplomats, including acting High Commissioner Stewart Ross Wheeler, to leave the country.

Duheme argued that there had been “over a dozen credible and imminent threats to life” which were “specifically” targeting individuals linked to Khalistan movement. Hence, RCMP’s public intervention was needed and they “reached a point where we felt it was imperative to confront the government of India.”

Canada even released a report blaming “pro-Modi media” and “social media handles” for attacking Trudeau, the country’s high commissioner and its Sikh community. It contended that “propaganda” and “disinformation” about Nijjar’s murder were propagated by these media outlets. However, India remained firm on its stand and repeatedly rubbished all these remarks as “absurd, motivated and baseless.”

India-Canada relations were essentially in a state of free fall due to the policies of the Trudeau government, and began to mend only after Mark Carney replaced him last year, including the appointment of new high commissioners. The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations, which were also halted during this period, have been resumed at the G20 Summit in November.

“In the files that we have that involve transnational repression, we’re not seeing any connection right now with any foreign entity, based on the criminal information, the investigations that we have presently,” Duheme underscored in a startling confession in March.

USCIRF invokes “transnational repression of religious minorities”

How could the global anti-India coalition miss any chance to portray the country negatively, and they certainly did not disappoint. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) was “alarmed by India’s increased transnational targeting of religious minorities and those advocating on their behalf.”

Its Commissioner Stephen Schneck stressed that India’s purported part “in the killing of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada and the plot to kill Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in the United States was deeply troubling” in 2023. He added, “We call on the Biden administration to acknowledge the Indian government’s perpetration of particularly severe religious freedom violations and designate it as a country of particular concern (CPC).”

USCIRF has already gained notoriety for its hostility towards India and has repeatedly wanted the latter to be regarded as a “country of particular concern.” It also demanded a ban on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW). Gunisha Kaur, a fan girl of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale has been appointed to the commission in May. Hence, it is not surprising that they do not bother themselves with minor details like evidence to endorse their propaganda against India which has been disproven time and again.

Liberal media’s campaign to demean India

The liberal media, an inseparable element of this nexus, capitalised on the prime opportunity to assail India and commenced to portray the country as culpable in their articles. Hannah Ellis-Petersen of The Guardian, infamous for her hit jobs on the Modi government, Aakash Hassan and Shah Meer Baloch, authored an “investigative piece” insisting that the Indian government had been orchestrating the eliminations of terrorists outside its borders.

However, the article itself was discovered to contain glaring inaccuracies, which appear to stem not only from gross negligence but also from a perverse desire to depict the nation as a violator of international norms and standards. Pannun was not only declared deceased similar to Nijjar, but the responsibility was attributed to a “rogue agent” of R&AW by the British daily.

“Both men had been major advocates of the Khalistan movement, which seeks to create an independent Sikh state and is illegal in India. India denied any involvement in the killing of Nijjar, while according to a recent report, India’s own investigation into Pannun’s death concluded that it had been carried out by a rogue agent who was no longer working for Raw,” the article read.

Bloomberg also projected Nijjar and Pannun as “campaigners for Khalistan” in a dramatic article as if they had committed their lives to a for higher purpose, rather than being associated with terror conspiracies that seek to create bloodshed and challenge India’s integrity. The article functioned as a means of image rehabilitation, striving to reframe those accused of terrorism into icons of dissent while depicting India as a repressive entity trying to stifle their voices.

The Atlantic categorised Nijjar and Pannun as “Sikh nationalists” who are just against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and suggested that India’s potential hand in neutralising terrorists in other countries might please his admirers, but he cannot afford to damage ties with Canada and US. The burden of fostering these diplomatic links apparently lies exclusively with India as other nations can open aggressive diplomatic front without any credible proof.

The New York Post described the demand for the balkanisation of a nation which was divided on religious lines as “freedom” while admonishing India for branding Khalistanis as terrorists. It stated that the movement has “largely fizzled out decades ago” but the government continues to consider it “as a threat to national security – for reasons more mundane but no easier to weed out.”

Nijjar was just presented as a Sikh leader involved in “extortion schemes and other gang-related activities” as his profound history of terror was conveniently masked. The column then quoted Gunisha Kaur who also serves as the medical director of the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights.

She claimed, “The threat of terrorism is used to exploit fear and justify the suppression and silencing of minorities,” remarking that the community has been targeted with “impunity” triggering the demand for an independent state. It even gave space to Pannun who also cried about “transnational terrorism.”

Pointing fingers at India and R&AW while providing cover for Khalistani terrorists

The Washington Post facilitated pro-Khalistan “journalists” such as Gerry Shih who utilised their pen as tool for their agenda in addition to whitewashing separatists. He was the New Delhi Bureau Chief for the media company before he was kicked out when over 300 staff members were laid off in February.

Shih and Greg Miller were behind the article on Canada’s allegations dragging Amit Shah and Verma following a tip-off from Drouin and Morrison. “We know they are involved in the Nijjar killing, in other murders and in ongoing violence – actual violence – in Canada,” it read, citing a senior Canadian official.

According to WaPo’s sources, India was running a coercive plot to press people of Indian origin to “act as informants” against “Sikh activists” and threatening them with deny visas as well as “physical threats to them and their families in India.” It added that “the information is being sent to India at almost the highest level.”

The article blamed “a senior official in India and a senior official in RAW,” for authorising attacks on Khalistanis. Canada used WaPo fundamentally as a shoulder to fire shots at India, but there was a complete dearth of proof from the two as their only goal was to spread propaganda much farther from the truth.

CNN host Fareed Zakaria, who advocated for US interference in India, downplayed Khalistani terrorism and criticised India for engaging in jingoism regarding the allegations from Canada. The son of former Congress Minister Rafiq Zakari insinuated that the subject of Khalistani terrorism was being overstated for political advantage by PM Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as the 2024 Lok Sabha elections approached.

These media organisations persistently tried to imply that government might be involved in Nijjar’s assassination and even implied that R&AW could be expanding its strategies for operations in Western countries and using criminal networks to carry out such assaults, all without any proof. India was unequivocally blamed while the Khalistanis were represented as activists, leaders and dissenters despite the substantial evidence to the contrary.

The brown sepoys of Indian media were equally active, as “The Quint” applied the charges made against Nikhil Gupta in the US as a mark of Canada’s vindication.

“How credible this is would eventually depend on the extent to which Gupta’s collusion with Indian officials gets established. The proof or the lack of it regarding India’s alleged involvement in Nijjar’s killing would be clear only when the evidence is presented when the case comes up in a court in Canada,” it conveyed since such claims have to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the misleading headline was intentionally placed to deceive the readers.

Islamo-leftist propaganda portal “The Wire” also referenced the same premises to attack the Modi government arguing that its “recklessness” was detrimental to the national interest. The article stated that the conversation between Gupta and Indian government official Vikash Yadav which were conducted through encrypted messages but were accessed by the US investigators could possibly represent the “credible allegations” referred by Trudeau, drawing such a preposterous link where none exists and would never have been even considered by him.

It mocked Indian intelligence agencies for failing to cover their tracks and asserted that Yadav provided incriminating evidence regarding the murder of Nijjar.

Conclusion

India has been consistently targeted by Canada and its allies, including the United States, who were resolutely over Nijjar’s demise. Media outlets, which already harbour significant bias against New Delhi and the Modi government, eagerly participated in the narrative, producing numerous articles insisting that India landed in diplomatic trouble owing to assassination attempts in other countries.

Trudeau severely compromised his country’s ties with India in his blind pursuit to appease Khalistanis for short-term political goals. He never supplied any convincing facts to corroborate his comments nor did those who backed the same. The entire foundation was constituted on dramatics, sensationalism and ambiguity.

The stark lack of evidence was conveniently brushed aside in favour of anti-India rhetoric as the nation was judged and convicted without proof while the terrorists were depicted as victims suffering because of the Modi government’s oppression. Canada and the US, known for its history of eliminating threats to its national security, saw detractors of India exercising their “freedom of speech” in separatists and extremists.

Their heinous actions were glossed over by this entire faction. Furthermore, this very cabal chooses to maintain a defensive silence when Khalistanis frequently attack not only Hindus and their places of worship but also Indian high commissions and diplomatic missions, which are just as vulnerable to their violent antics.

A bogus narrative was constructed on these falsehoods which has eventually collapsed under the weight of the truth. Of course, no one from Trudeau to the media houses or the US will be willing to acknowledge their grave errors and offer an apology. However, they might very well be devising another scheme against India as this specific effort has proven unsuccessful obviously with the unwavering support of Islamo-leftists and those whose resentment for PM Modi has morphed into a broader contempt for India.

India seals Uranium pact with Australia: How PM Modi achieved what eluded India for two decades

Jinit Jain
-
0
India seals Uranium pact with Australia: How PM Modi achieved what eluded India for two decades

In a major diplomatic breakthrough, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has secured an agreement for Australia to export uranium to India for civilian nuclear use, ending nearly two decades of Australian resistance rooted in New Delhi’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The agreement was signed after bilateral talks between PM Modi and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Melbourne. Announcing the deal, PM Modi said, “We have signed an important agreement today on nuclear energy. This will pave the way for uranium supplies from Australia to India and give our clean energy objectives fresh momentum.”

The two countries said the arrangement would facilitate long-term uranium exports for “exclusively peaceful purposes” under safeguards monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The agreement marks a remarkable shift in Australia’s policy, which for nearly 20 years had consistently refused to sell uranium to India solely because it was not a signatory to the NPT.

Australia’s first ‘No’ came in 2006

Australia’s opposition to uranium exports to India began in March 2006, immediately after the landmark India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement announced by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush.

Although Washington agreed to cooperate with India’s civilian nuclear programme after New Delhi accepted international inspections of its civilian reactors, Australia refused to follow the US lead.

Then Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer made it clear that Canberra would not alter its long-standing policy of selling uranium only to countries that had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“If we were to export uranium to India, that would constitute a significant shift in our policy,” Downer had said, arguing that doing so would also raise questions about exports to countries such as Pakistan and Israel.

He further asserted that Australia preferred to support the NPT and hoped India would eventually become a signatory before any uranium trade could take place.

Ironically, while refusing to sell uranium to India, Australia continued negotiations to export the mineral to China, citing Beijing’s status as an NPT signatory.

2008: Labour government formally shuts the door

Australia’s position hardened further after the Labour Party came to power in late 2007.

In January 2008, then Foreign Minister Stephen Smith informed India’s special envoy Shyam Saran that Australia would not authorise uranium exports to India unless it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The decision effectively reversed the previous John Howard government’s 2007 in-principle willingness to consider uranium exports to India, subject to stringent conditions, including IAEA safeguards, consensus within the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), completion of the India-US nuclear agreement and additional safeguards.

Smith reiterated that refusing uranium exports to non-NPT countries had always been the Australian Labour Party’s policy.

2010: ‘No prospect for a change’

Australia maintained the same position even after the India-US nuclear deal had become operational.

In April 2010, Canberra once again ruled out selling uranium to India, insisting there was “no prospect for a change” in its policy because India remained outside the NPT. Then Trade Minister Simon Crean reiterated that Australia could not supply uranium to countries that were not signatories to the treaty. 

For years, successive Indian governments argued that uranium imports were essential for expanding clean energy generation and that India’s nuclear record was responsible despite its non-NPT status. Canberra, however, remained unmoved.

Modi-era breakthrough

The agreement signed in 2026 marks the most significant reversal in Australia’s uranium policy towards India.

Despite India continuing to remain outside the NPT, Australia has now agreed to supply uranium under IAEA safeguards exclusively for peaceful civilian use, reflecting the strategic trust that has developed between the two countries.

Australia possesses around 28 per cent of the world’s known uranium reserves, making it one of the largest holders of the critical resource.

For India, the deal is expected to support its target of achieving 100 GW of nuclear power capacity by 2047, an important pillar of the country’s clean energy transition.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the arrangement would help increase India’s share of non-fossil-fuel electricity generation.

Beyond uranium

The uranium agreement formed part of a broader package of strategic initiatives announced during Modi’s visit.

The two leaders agreed to deepen defence cooperation, strengthen supply chains for critical minerals and establish a temporary Indian space tracking terminal on Australia’s Cocos (Keeling) Islands to support Indian space missions.

India is now Australia’s fifth-largest trading partner, with bilateral trade in goods and services reaching AUD 54.4 billion (USD 37.7 billion) during the 2024-25 financial year.

For India, the significance of the uranium agreement extends beyond energy security. It marks the culmination of a diplomatic journey that began with repeated Australian refusals in 2006, was reaffirmed in 2008 and 2010, and has finally ended in 2026 with Canberra agreeing to export uranium to India despite New Delhi continuing to remain outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Why Australia changed course after two decades

Australia’s decision to supply uranium to India is not merely an energy agreement;it reflects a profound transformation in Indo-Australian ties and the changing geopolitical landscape of the Indo-Pacific.

A key factor has been PM Narendra Modi’s sustained diplomatic outreach, which has elevated India-Australia relations from a transactional partnership to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Over the past decade, bilateral engagement has expanded significantly across defence, maritime security, critical minerals, technology, trade and intelligence sharing, fostering unprecedented strategic trust between Canberra and New Delhi.

The agreement also reflects the convergence of strategic interests between the two democracies. Both India and Australia increasingly view a stable, rules-based Indo-Pacific as vital to their national interests and have emerged as key partners in platforms such as the Quad.

The broader geopolitical environment has also altered Australia’s strategic calculations. China’s growing military assertiveness and economic coercion in the Indo-Pacific have prompted Canberra to diversify its strategic and economic partnerships. At the same time, uncertainty over the long-term reliability and consistency of the United States under Trump as a security guarantor has encouraged middle powers such as Australia to build stronger partnerships with like-minded countries, with India emerging as one of the most important.

These changing realities have diminished the relevance of Australia’s earlier objections based solely on India’s non-signatory status to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. While India continues to remain outside the NPT, it has built a strong international reputation as a responsible nuclear power with an impeccable non-proliferation record and civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.

For Australia, the uranium agreement also serves an economic purpose. Home to nearly 28 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves, the country is seeking to diversify export markets beyond its heavy dependence on China. India, meanwhile, aims to achieve 100 GW of nuclear power capacity by 2047 as part of its clean energy transition.

The uranium pact, therefore, represents more than the resolution of a long-standing policy dispute. It signals Australia’s recognition of India’s growing strategic weight and reflects how geopolitical realities have reshaped a policy that remained unchanged from 2006, through 2008 and 2010, before finally giving way in 2026.

Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra in govt schools? Chhattisgarh HC says yes for now, but leaves the door open for future challenges

Shriti Sagar
-
0
Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra in govt schools? Chhattisgarh HC says yes for now, but leaves the door open for future challenges

The Chhattisgarh High Court has given the green signal to the State Government’s order requiring government-run schools to include the recitation of the National Anthem, National Song, Deep Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, Guru Mantra, Shanti Mantra, and stories about the lives of great personalities at the start of the school day. The court has upheld the state government’s decision, saying that the order does not force students to act against their religious beliefs or conscience. 

The court dismissed a petition challenging the government’s 12th June 2026 circular, calling it “premature” because there was no evidence that any student’s fundamental rights had actually been violated or that anyone had suffered direct harm because of the policy.

Delivering the order, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that the circular, when read in its entirety, did not contain any compulsory or coercive direction requiring students to take part in activities that go against their faith.

“A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 12.6.2026 reveals that it does not contain any mandatory or coercive direction compelling students to act in a manner contrary to their respective religious beliefs, conscience or faith,” the court said.

An excerpt from the Judgement

What does the government order say?

The dispute relates to a circular issued on 12th June this year by the School Education Department of the Chhattisgarh government for the academic session 2026-27. Under the order, students in government-run schools are expected to begin the school day with the National Anthem, National Song, Deep Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, Guru Mantra, Shanti Mantra and short accounts of the lives of great personalities or “Mahapurushas”.

On top of that, at the end of the school day, students are expected to recite the Rajya Geet, Gayatri Mantra and Shanti Mantra. 

The state government has argued that the initiative is aimed at promoting discipline, cultural awareness, focus and values among students and should not be viewed as religious instruction.

Petitioners argued the circular violates constitutional rights

The petition was filed directly before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking cancellation of the circular and a declaration that compulsory recitation of the prayers would be unconstitutional.

The petitioners included a former chairman of the State Waqf Board, a former minister handling minority affairs in the state and the district president of a religious action trust.

Represented by advocate Dr Aamir Khan, the petitioners argued that the inclusion of Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra, Guru Mantra and Shanti Mantra amounted to religious instruction in state-funded schools, something that is prohibited under the Constitution.

They argued that the circular violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), 25 (Freedom of Religion), 28(1) (which prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds), 29 (protecting the cultural and educational interests of minorities and citizens) and 30 (empowering religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions) of the Constitution. They also alleged that it creates a situation where students from minority communities could feel pressured to participate in prayers and practices that do not belong to their faith.

According to the petitioners, India’s constitutional commitment to secularism means that no student can be directed to follow or practice the customs of a particular religion in a government educational institution.

Court says Article 28 does not prohibit moral instruction

One of the main questions before the court was whether the prayers and mantras mentioned in the circular amounted to “religious instruction” under Article 28(1) of the Constitution.

Article 28(1) states that no religious instruction can be provided in educational institutions that are fully funded by the State. However, the High Court said the phrase “religious instruction” has a limited and specific meaning.

“However, a plain reading of clause (1) of Article 28 makes it clear that the provision does not ban moral instruction, disassociated from any denominational doctrines, which remains an essential part of training in citizenship, maintenance of law and order in the State and growth of social cohesion. In light of the foregoing, this Court believes that the petition is entirely premature, based on mere apprehension rather than any actual grievance. Thus, at this stage, the reliefs sought by the petitioners cannot be granted”, the court observed.

An excerpt from the judgement

The bench noted that teachings related to values, discipline and social responsibility cannot automatically be treated as religious instruction simply because they have roots in ancient Indian traditions.

State says the policy promotes culture and values, not religion

The Chhattisgarh government, represented by Deputy Advocate General Anand Dadariya, argued that the challenge was based entirely on assumptions rather than actual incidents.

The state maintained that the policy was in line with the objectives of the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP), which encourages the inclusion of Indian Knowledge Systems in education to strengthen cultural understanding and awareness.

Government lawyers argued that verses such as the Shanti Mantra and other traditional invocations promote universal well-being, gratitude towards nature and ecological balance rather than any particular religious doctrine.

The state also informed the court that students who choose not to participate in the recitations would not face punishment, disciplinary action or any negative consequences.

Officials further stated that the policy had already been implemented and no complaint of coercion or discrimination had been received from any student or parent.

Court leaves the door open for future challenges

After considering the arguments from both sides, the High Court concluded that the challenge was based on apprehension rather than evidence of actual harm. The court said, “In light of the foregoing, this Court thinks that the petition is entirely premature, based on mere apprehension rather than any actual grievance. Thus, at this stage, the reliefs sought by the petitioners cannot be granted.”

An excerpt from the Judgement

At the same time, the court made it clear that the petitioners would be free to approach the judiciary again in the future if any instance of coercion or violation of rights emerges during implementation of the policy.

For now, the state’s school prayer policy will continue to remain in force across government schools in Chhattisgarh.

Why the Nashik Court invoked Lord Krishna while granting bail to ‘pregnant’ Nida Khan, accused of forceful religious conversion in TCS case

Aditi
-
0
Why the Nashik Court invoked Lord Krishna while granting bail to ‘pregnant’ Nida Khan, accused of forceful religious conversion in TCS case

A Nashik court recently invoked Lord Krishna while granting bail to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Nashik BPO sexual harassment and religious coercion case accused Nida Khan, citing her pregnancy as the reason for releasing her. Additional Sessions Judge KG Joshi granted Nida Khan bail, observing that social stigma will be attached to her child if it is born in prison. Nida Khan, who is five months pregnant, was arrested earlier in May.

The Additional Sessions Judge went on to compare the situation to the birth of the Hindu God Krishna, who was also born in a prison. The court described the birth of a child while the mother is in prison as a “painful situation”. “The trauma of taking birth in prison, like Lord Krishna or the social stigma attached to it, is not something that anyone can bear. To avoid such a painful situation and to welcome the newborn baby and the overall welfare, it would be just and proper to exercise judicial discretion in favour of the applicant accused,” ASJ Joshi noted in the bail order dated 6th July, as reported by Bar and Bench.  

The court further justified the bail, citing that the investigation in the case was complete and the chargesheet had been filed. Therefore, there was no reason to keep her in custody. “There is no pending seizure or discovery of any property. The prosecution has not sought her custody for further investigation. No purpose will be served by keeping the applicant in jail,” the court stated in the 10-page order. 

After securing bail, Nida Khan filed an application for the modification of the bail order, which required her to submit a surety of ₹75,000. Khan told the court that she was pregnant and poor and could not pay the said amount. She said that no one was available at her house to submit the security amount immediately and requested the court to reduce the amount of surety. The court partly allowed her application and allowed her to be released on executing a personal bond of ₹75,000 and depositing a provisional cash security of 50,000 immediately. The court granted her four weeks to furnish the original security amount of ₹75,000.

What is the case against Nida Khan?

Nida Khan was arrested on 7th May, almost one-and-a-half months after the FIRs were filed against seven accused for sexual harassment and religious persecution of Hindu female employees at a Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Nashik BPO in Nashik, Maharashtra. Her anticipatory bail plea was earlier rejected by the court.

Khan’s co-accused, Tausif Attar, was also granted bail, while the bail plea of another co-accused, Danish Shaikh, was rejected. According to the complaint filed against Nida Khan, she provided a burqa, shared religious material, installed Islamic applications on the complainant’s phone, and visited her home to impart religious practices.

The case emerged in March 2026 when a Dalit woman employee of a TCS BPO unit in Nashik filed a complaint against Danish Sheikh, accusing him of rape on the pretext of marriage, sexual exploitation, harassment and forcing her to convert to Islam. More women came forward soon, levelling serious allegations of workplace sexual harassment, molestation, abuse and insult to their Hindu faith by certain employees of the same BPO. Nine FIRs were filed in the matter, and it was mentioned by the victims that their attempts to raise complaints with the BPO’s management were ignored by the HR and the concerned authorities.

123...7,614Page 1 of 7,614