On 25th October, the daughter of a Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader PV Bhaskaran disclosed that her father had imprisoned her in their home and was torturing her severely. 35-year-old PV Sangeeta (Sangeetha) revealed that her turmoil commenced when she declared her intention to wed a Muslim man named Rasheed (Rashid). Her father PV Bhaskaran is the Uduma Area Committee member of the CPM in Kasaragod.
“You can practice communism outside the house. It has no place inside our family. If you won’t obey, then I will kill you. I know the ways to come out of jail unscathed,” she recounted how her father threatened her.
Sangeeta has been reportedly suffering at home, especially after she was disabled below the waist in an accident. According to her, she is under house arrest and has not been allowed to receive medical care. She added that her father tried to compel her to end her life and take over her portion of the family’s assets. She even charged that her father and brother seized her alimony amount.
A road accident in September 2023 left Sangeetha, a divorced mother of a teenage boy, without the ability to move her legs.
Sangeeta mentioned that she has been even denied access to quality medical treatment and her desire for an interfaith union only added to the torment. The woman further accused that she was urged to “go and die” and repeatedly hit on the head.
Sangeeta asserted that Bhaskaran even told her that he had the influence to avoid any legal repercussions and threatened to murder her if she disobeyed him. “You will never walk again in this life. You will perish in bed,” he warned.
Sangeeta had previously petitioned the court for habeas corpus with a friend’s assistance. She was living with her parents, according to the police report, therefore it was rejected. She charged that when the police realised her father’s political clout, they did not listen to her complaints, despite her attempts to explain that she was under house arrest.
She later approched District Collector and the District Superintendent of Police regarding her ordeal. According to Sangeeta’s complaint, her family had stolen her divorce settlement and gold and planned to “put her into a coma” in order to collect her insurance money. She earlier communicated her ordeal publicly through a secret phone.
However, Bhaskaran refuted the allegations and countered that Rasheed is already married and in only interested in her daughter’s properties which are valued at Rs 1.5 crore. He further insisted that the man affections for her were not sincere. Police records also stated that the latter was already married with two kids and his wife launched a complaint against him for neglecting them. Bhaskaran added that even she accused Rasheed of seeking Sangeeta’s money.
The blatant denial of a startling truth and the glaring hypocrisy
Notably, Bhaskaran earlier rejected the movie “The Kerala Story” as a propaganda from the “Sangh Parivar.” Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan also mocked the project as a disinformation. Furthermore, leaders of Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) and ruling CPM-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) have repeatedly claimed that “love jihad” is a Hindutva lie.
However, significant number of girls fell into this trap and even found themselves in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) controlled territories. The case of Nimisha alias Fathima along with her three friends is a shocking example of this ugly truth. The left party was likewise at the forefront of supporting Akhila Ashokan who became Hadita under the influence of her roommate and subsequently married a member of the outlawed Popular Front of India (PFI).
Now, despite Bhaskaran’s assertions in the media, his daughter has exposed that they do not follow what they preach to others. Leaders of the CPM are opposed to communism infiltrating their households, yet they endorse the same even as it continues to destroy the lives of multiple non-Muslim girls, especially from the Hindu community in Kerala.
Moreover, the perverse justification of secularism which disregards the legitimate concerns of the Hindu community to appease extremist elements, is also touted as a sign of the high literacy in the state which transcends the limitations of religion, caste or community. However, the stark reality is that Kerala has gradually turned into a hotbed of Islamism. From being the nucleus of radical PFI to contributing the maximum number of jihadists to ISIS from India, the state has been in the news for more negative reasons than positive.
The state has also gained infamy due to the brutal murders of leaders from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The left, in any case, possesses a violent history of targeting its opponents and those who do not conform to its ideology, particularly Hindus. The party recently attempted to attract Hindus for votes through the Ayyappa Summit, however, their contentious relationship with the community unveiled their intentions.
Their favorable disposition towards Muslims and Hindu hostility has been brought to light on numerous occasions in public. Nevertheless, it seems they are rather displeased as the chickens have finally come home to roost.
Now, already displaying the marks of its double standards, specifically regarding “love jihad,” a matter that has been regularly raised not only by Hindus but also by Christians including the Church in Kerala, this latest development has once again highlighted how the Left leaders religiously adhere to a different set of rules for themselves while presenting a different facade to the public.
Furthermore, the bolstering of his legal authority alongside the inaction of the authorities, further illustrated the communist administration’s supposed “commitment” to uphold justice as well as law and order.
Each similar case is derided, mocked and branded as bogus by these same leaders but start to sing a different tune when it pertains to their own. Bhaskaran who criticized “The Kerala Files,” wants his daughter to leave their liberal and leftist ideology, which they not only espouse but take pride in, at the threshold of their residence and not tie the knot with a Muslim man, serves as another example of their sinister duality.
The collapse of the Left’s moral grandstanding
The Left’s moral grandstanding, built on a façade of equality, secularism, and justice, is now crumbling under the weight of its own contradictions. For decades, Kerala’s Left elite positioned themselves as the moral arbiters of society, preaching tolerance, women’s rights, social justice, and emancipation, so on and so forth. Yet, when ideology meets reality, their so-called progressivism vanishes behind the iron doors of their own homes.
The same leaders who sermonize about women’s rights and religious harmony are now being exposed as patriarchs who control their daughters, manipulate institutions, and exploit their political power for personal ends. Their “secularism” has reduced itself to selective outrage, quick to demonize the majority community, but silent or dismissive when confronted with Islamist aggression or intra-party corruption.
This duplicity is not an isolated aberration but a pattern, a systemic rot within Kerala’s Left establishment that has long hidden behind intellectual posturing and media complicity. Sangeeta’s suffering has pierced through that veneer, revealing a movement that no longer represents the oppressed, but protects the powerful.
The collapse of the Left’s moral authority in Kerala is now complete not because its critics said so, but because its own leaders have lived out the very hypocrisy they once accused others of.
In a recent interview published by Politics Home on 27th October, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales warned of a “political showdown” with the UK government over the Online Safety Act. He criticised the legislation as “poorly thought-out” and claimed that it would threaten the openness of the internet by forcing platforms to identify users and age-gate access. He argued that Wikipedia did not “cave into” the Turkish or the Chinese governments’ similar demands.
Yet, in the same conversation, Wales unapologetically defended Wikipedia’s own internal censorship, that is the blacklisting of sources he has personally deemed unreliable in the past. He insisted that “the idea that we should take sites that routinely publish crazy conspiracy theories and nonsense just doesn’t make any sense.”
While he called the publications blacklisted by Wikipedia to have a history of “conspiracy theories and nonsense”, in reality, a majority of the Right-leaning publications have been banned or deprecated by Wikipedia, which means they cannot be used as sources for articles on the online, user-generated ‘encyclopaedia’.
The contradiction is obvious. While Wales rejected government regulation of speech, he fully endorsed Wikipedia’s ideological policing of information. The issue is not whether Wikipedia can have quality control, which every platform should have, but whether that control has been weaponised to promote one ideology worldwide while excluding another.
Wales went on to claim that the blacklist and deprecated sources system is merely about “quality”, not politics. He said, “That’s not about the political stance of the Daily Mail – it’s about the quality of the publication.” He defended the deprecation of mainstream publications such as The Sun and The Daily Mail while acknowledging that conservative outlets like Breitbart News and The Heritage Foundation are blacklisted altogether.
However, what it actually means in practice is that entire ideological ecosystems are erased. Wales admitted that removing the blacklist was out of the question. He brushed off criticism that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias and claimed he is a “centrist”. His dismissal was wrapped in the convenient label of “centrist moderation”, the same rhetorical fig leaf that big-tech companies often use to justify their bias while pretending neutrality.
By calling dissenting media “crazy conspiracy sites”, Wales implied that no conservative publication deserves equal footing in the knowledge ecosystem. That framing alone destroys Wikipedia’s long-claimed neutrality.
From Al Jazeera to OpIndia – how selective reliability shapes the narrative
In September 2024, OpIndia released a dossier on Wikipedia in which it had already been demonstrated that systemic bias was in place years before Wales’s recent comments. It showed that Wikipedia’s content is skewed not through overt editorial orders but through the classification of “reliable” and “unreliable” sources.
For example, left-leaning and globalist outlets such as Al Jazeera, BBC, The Guardian and The Wire are marked “reliable”, while right-of-centre or nationalist publications such as OpIndia, Swarajya and Republic are blacklisted or “deprecated”.
This classification becomes self-sustaining. Once a “reliable” source is approved, even its fake news is whitewashed as an honest mistake. Take The Wire, for example. The Wire published a series of fake news reports based on made-up information on a so-called app “Tek Fog” and, in another article, claimed that the BJP had some way to censor content on social media platforms under Meta. Both claims backfired when it accused Meta and experts stepped in.
The dossier cited multiple instances where The Wire’s provably false reports were protected from criticism because the counter-evidence came from blacklisted outlets.
In another example, when a retired naval officer publicly accused The Wire of misquoting him in an article that downplayed India’s naval achievements, his statement could not be added to The Wire’s Wikipedia page. The reason? His own clarification on Twitter was considered a “self-source”, and OpIndia, which reported his rebuttal, was blacklisted. As a result, The Wire’s misreport stood uncontested, a perfect illustration of how Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View collapses when neutrality itself is defined by ideology.
In yet another glaring example, the dossier noted that even when official police handles declared The Wire’s stories false, Wikipedia editors refused to cite them and argued that a “secondary reliable source” must verify the police’s statement. Since all those secondary sources, including OpIndia, Republic and Swarajya, were blacklisted, the truth was systematically buried.
The logic becomes even more absurd as Wikipedia excuses anti-India fake reporting by Al Jazeera as being reported under the “fog of war”, while, on the other hand, verified statements published by OpIndia are dismissed as unreliable by default.
The dossier evidence – how bias was institutionalised through blacklists
The OpIndia dossier on Wikipedia exposed in detail how the blacklisting process itself became a mechanism to institutionalise bias. It documented repeated attempts by Wikipedia editors to block additions that would expose fake news by Left-leaning media, particularly The Wire. When one editor tried to cite an FIR filed against The Wire for spreading false information that incited violence in the Northeast, another senior editor dismissed it, saying “FIRs are very normal.”
The dossier observed that while Wikipedia prominently listed FIRs against publications it disliked, it either omitted or softened those involving “reliable” Left-aligned sources. Such double standards ensured that conservative or nationalist platforms were branded permanently untrustworthy, while ideological allies were protected through procedural excuses.
This was not simply random editorial behaviour. It was a pattern designed to preserve the illusion of neutrality while filtering reality through a curated set of acceptable voices. Wales’s new defence of this system confirms that it was never rogue volunteerism but an approved doctrine.
Meet Newslinger – the paid administrator who built Wikipedia’s bias engine
One of the dossier’s most revealing sections identified an editor known as Newslinger, who is a Wikimedia administrator. He actively campaigned to deprecate non-Left sources and block factual corrections. According to the dossier, the Wikimedia Foundation itself funded Newslinger under its WikiCred programme, which offered grants of up to $10,000 to projects claiming to “strengthen reliability in the information ecosystem.”
Newslinger’s project, titled ‘Sourceror: The Wikipedia community’s platform against disinformation’, proposed building a browser extension and API that used Wikipedia’s perennial sources list, its blacklist, to label websites across the internet. His own description of the grant said the tool would display icons showing whether a website was considered “reliable” by Wikipedia, effectively extending Wikipedia’s ideological censorship beyond its pages.
He boasted that the Sourceror Bot would scrape and update this list automatically, while another feature would allow editors to remove citations of “unreliable” sources in a couple of clicks. In essence, a paid Wikipedia administrator created a systematic method for deleting dissenting references while tagging ideological allies as authoritative, all with the financial approval of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Wikimedia’s grant proves the bias was sanctioned from the top
This is where Jimmy Wales’s latest comments become crucial. When he says, “the idea that we should take sites that routinely publish crazy conspiracy theories and nonsense just doesn’t make any sense,” he is echoing precisely the worldview that Newslinger was paid to codify.
The grant was not an isolated clerical oversight. It was institutional endorsement. By vetting, approving and funding a project that explicitly weaponised the “reliability list”, Wikimedia signalled agreement with the editorial judgements that underpin it. Therefore, Wikipedia’s ideological skew is not the accidental outcome of volunteer bias but a policy designed, sponsored and justified from the top.
When Wales defends the blacklist, he is defending the very product of that grant money. His remarks confirm what the dossier had warned years earlier, that Wikipedia’s bias was sanctioned and crafted from the top, not the work of a few rogue editors.
Why this censorship model is dangerous for truth and democracy
The danger here extends beyond one platform. Wikipedia remains the default reference point for journalists, students and even AI models that draw on its data. When such a platform blacklists entire schools of thought, it does not merely filter facts, it rewires public understanding.
A student searching for coverage of Indian politics will find The Wire, Scroll and BBC quoted liberally, while OpIndia and Swarajya are absent altogether. This absence becomes a form of erasure. A fake narrative repeated by “reliable” sources is treated as fact, while a truthful correction from a blacklisted outlet is memory-holed.
When neutrality becomes propaganda – the need for ideological transparency
Jimmy Wales once said Wikipedia’s mission was to “make the sum of all human knowledge available to everyone.” Today, that mission appears conditional, as knowledge is welcome only if it conforms to one side of the political spectrum. The very guideline that demands “Neutral Point of View” has been hollowed out, because neutrality now depends entirely on which sources are allowed into the conversation.
As the OpIndia dossier concluded, “If the pool of reliable sources itself is tainted with ideological bias, the ‘Neutral Point of View’ merely remains a requirement where all versions of the Left are prominently added.”
The launch of Elon Musk’s Grokipedia, positioned as an AI-driven alternative to Wikipedia, has arrived at a telling moment. While Wales warns about government censorship, his own platform has long been a blueprint for soft authoritarianism disguised as moderation. If Grokipedia indeed continues to allow multiple ideological references without blacklisting dissent, it could expose how fragile Wikipedia’s self-proclaimed neutrality really is.
What Wikipedia needs is not another lecture on trust from its founder but a reckoning with its own internal censorship. Transparency must begin with acknowledging that neutrality cannot exist when one side of the truth is banned at the source.
In Delhi, the charred body of a 32-year-old UPSC aspirant named Ram Kesh Meena was recovered after a fire in north Delhi’s Timarpur on 6th October. Three weeks later, the police have arrested three people, including the deceased’s live-in partner. The police suspects that what was initially passed off as a death in a fire incident was in reality, a well-planned murder.
The Delhi Police said that the deceased victim’s live-in partner Amrita Chauhan allegedly plotted his murder by involving her ex-boyfriend Sumit Kashyap and a common friend and SSC/CGL aspirant named Sandeep Kumar. The chilling conspiracy was hatched after Ram Kesh Meena, originally from Rajasthan, refused to delete the private and obscene pictures and videos; he had allegedly recorded of his live-in partner.
During interrogation, Amrita Chauhan, a forensics student told the police that the deceased victim had stored her obscene pictures and videos on a hard disk. She claimed that despite her repeated requests to delete the private videos, Meena did not do so. Chauhan added that one of the main motives of killing Meena was to get the hard disk.
The motive behind Ram Kesh Meena’s murder
Ravindra Yadav, Special Commissioner of Police, Law and Order said that the police have recovered the hard disk and found private videos of not only accused Amrita Chauhan but of around 15 other women as well and were stored without their consent. Chauhan claimed that she feared that Ram Kesh would upload her private videos on the internet.
How Sumit and Sandeep attempted to pass off Ram Kesh’s murder as a cylinder blast accident
On 5th October, Sumit and Sandeep beat up Ram Kesh and choked him to death. Subsequently, the duo poured oil, ghee and wine on the body to fuel the fire. After this, Sumit brough a cylinder from the kitchen and kept it near Ram Kesh’s head. He turned the knob on so that the gas filled the room. By this time, the accused duo had found the deceased victim’s laptop, the hard disk and other stuff.
Following this, Sumit used a lighter to ignite fire and locked the main door. The cylinder exploded after the accused duo left the building.
According to Special Commissioner Yadav, the police initially suspected a blast caused by a gas leak. “The front panel of the air conditioner was damaged, so we also considered that the air conditioner had exploded. But when we discussed the case, the story did not add up. Things did not fall into place. So, we decided to conduct an in-depth probe,” Yadav said.
The accused trio turned to YouTube, social media and crime shows to ensure that they make no mistakes and get caught by the police.
While the accused persons invested deep thought and planning in killing Ram Kesh Meena without getting caught, the CCTV footage of their entry and exit from the building where Ram Kesh was murdered a night after, exposed their plot.
During the scanning of the CCTV footage of the building and nearby area, the police noticed that two people with their faces covered entered the building on 4th October (the night prior to Meena’s murder). Soon after, one of them left the building. Later, a woman and a man left the building. This woman was identified by the police as Ram Kesh Meena’s live-in partner Amrita Chauhan.
As a murder angle emerged, the police conducted several raids to nab Sumit, Sandeep and Amrita. On 18th October, the police arrested Amrita Chauhan, who during questioning, identified her ex-boyfriend Sumit and common friend Sandeep. Both of them were arrested on 21st and 23rd October respectively.
When asked by the police if she employed her forensics knowledge to cover up her live-in partner’s murder since she is a Bsc Forensic Science student, accused Amrita Chauhan responded in affirmative. She also revealed that she discussed with Sumit, who worked at a cooking gas cylinder distribution agency, on how to carry out the murder and cover up in such a way that no clues are left. Sumit helped Amrita understand how much time the cylinder would take to explode.
The accused trio managed to pull off the technical aspect of their murder plan; however, they forgot to factor in the CCTV. This proved to be detrimental for them and the police caught them within weeks.
Amrita Chauhan’s family disowned her
Amrita Chauhan, who met Ram Kesh Meena in May this year was reportedly ‘disowned’ by her family in over a year before the murder. In newspaper advertisement published on 8th July 2024, Chauhan’s father Rajveer Singh and mother Kamini stated that they have severed their ties with their daughter over her “inappropriate conduct”. They also expelled her daughter from their property. This newspaper advertisement is reported to have been submitted in the court now in Ram Kesh Meena murder case.
The “man of peace,” the mediator who claimed to have facilitated 8 or 9 ceasefire agreements between conflicting nations, including India and Pakistan, and the “self-declared foremost contender for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize,” United States President Donald Trump has veered away from the peaceful course he claimed to espouse globally, in relation to Venezuela.
Trump had vowed that military obligations that had previously dragged the country into exhausting and protracted wars distant from its own borders would cease under a “Make America great again” (Maga) foreign policy. Likewise, it was also central to his popular “America First” agenda.
However, now the White House has adopted a belligerent stance contrary to Trump’s purported “president of peace” persona and violated his promises as a massive militarisation directed against the autocratic regime of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela is taking shape. The military buildup in the Caribbean Sea marked the largest deployment there in decades and served as a testament to how Trump has once more reneged on his crucial commitment to his voters.
Image via World Map
The US Navy has been assembling a force of warships, fighter jets, bombers, military personnel, drones and spy planes in the Caribbean Sea for the past two months. Long-range bomber planes B-52s conducted “bomber attack demonstrations” near the Venezuelan coast. Moreover, Trump has declared, boastfully, that he has permitted the CIA’s (Central Intelligence Agency) operations in Venezuela.
Trump claims “operation against narcotics”
The United States claimed to commence a war on drugs in Venezuela and Trump has given the CIA authorisation to carry out clandestine operations within the nation. “I authorised for two reasons really. Number one, they have emptied their prisons into the United States of America. They came in through the border. They came in because we had an open border and the other thing are drugs,” he asserted.
The US has conveyed that it killed dozens of people in attacks on small Venezuelan vessels with “narcotics” and “narco-terrorists,” but did not offer any proof or information about the individuals on board.
At least 10 vessels have been struck by US forces since 2nd September and 8 of which have taken place in the Caribbean, taking the lives of at least 43 people.
Donald Trump's targeting of drug cartels in South America is being stepped up as American warships head closer to Venezuela.
A destroyer, the USS Gravely, is now docked in the Caribbean at Trinidad and Tobago and the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford is also cruising towards… pic.twitter.com/OTliXBrTF3
The Republican leader announced, “no war, yes peace” while addressing the nation. He then expressed belief that the military had effectively managed the drug operations at sea, however, he is now contemplating land operations, during his White House speech. Active negotiations with Maduro were halted by his administration in recent weeks.
Venezuela does not produce cocaine, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and was not included in the four pages of a March annual report from the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that focused on cocaine trafficking.
However, the Trump administration continued to insist that some drug trafficking does pass through Venezuela, citing Maduro’s 2020 indictment on federal charges of conspiracy to import cocaine and narco-terrorism. An official disclosed that “the president hasn’t ruled out diplomacy” and “there are plans on the table that the president is considering” with regard to operations against targets inside the South American nation, reported CNN.
Trump claimed that he could keep attacking suspected drug traffickers overseas without a formal declaration of war being passed by Congress. “I’m not going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re going to kill them, you know, they’re going to be like, dead,” he conveyed in his quintessential style.
JUST IN: President Trump fires back after reporter asks him why he doesn't get approval from Congress for taking out narco-terrorists.
Reporter: Why not just ask for a declaration of war?
Trump: I think we're just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country.… pic.twitter.com/N1owgnvt6V
Pentagon press secretary Sean Parnell also reiterated that the Gerald R Ford strike group and its affiliated air wing’s action was intended to “dismantle Transnational Criminal Organisations and counter narco-terrorism.” The USS Gerald R. Ford has space for up to 90 aircraft and attack helicopters. The biggest aircraft carrier in the world is moving closer to Venezuela.
STATEMENT:
In support of the President’s directive to dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) and counter narco-terrorism in defense of the Homeland, the Secretary of War has directed the Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group and embarked carrier air wing to the U.S.…
The entire Trump administration has followed the same narrative, holding Venezuela responsible for the crime and drug problems in the United States.
Maduro retorts “war fabricated by the US”
On the other hand, amid appeals for a diplomatic solution, Maduro has accused the US of manufacturing “a new eternal war” which his country will avoid. He outlined, “They promised they would never again get involved in a war,” and emphasised, “They are fabricating an extravagant narrative, a vulgar, criminal and totally fake one. Venezuela is a country that does not produce cocaine leaves.”
“No to regime change, which reminds us so much of the endless, failed wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and so on,” he even poked fun at the US later and added, “No to CIA-orchestrated coups.” Maduro has declared that he will be mobilising the police, military, and citizen militia to protect the oil-rich nation.
“We are conducting an exercise that began 72 hours ago, a coastal defence exercise to protect ourselves not only from large-scale military threats but also to protect ourselves from drug trafficking, terrorist threats and covert operations that aim to destabilise the country internally,” highlighted Venezuela’s Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez.
“CIA is present not only in Venezuela but everywhere in the world. They may deploy countless CIA-affiliated units in covert operations from any part of the nation, but any attempt will fail,” he warned.
Foreign Minister Yvan Gil noted that Venezuela “rejects the warmongering and extravagant statements of the president of the United States.” He stressed, “We view with extreme alarm the use of the CIA, as well as the military deployments announced in the Caribbean, which amount to a policy of aggression, threat, and harassment against Venezuela.”
The US assaults on Venezuelan vessels were also slammed as unlawful, violent, and amount to murder. Maduro even initiated legal action to cancel opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez’s passport and revoke his citizenship, accusing him of promoting an invasion.
Lopez who has been living in exile in Spain since 2020, has openly stated that he endorse US actions in the Caribbean. “According to the Constitution, no Venezuelan born in Venezuela can have their nationality revoked,” he responded, dismissing the move and reaffirmed his support for US military operations and their presence in the nation.
Maduro quiere quitarme la nacionalidad por decir lo que pensamos y queremos todos los venezolanos: libertad.
El narco dictador Nicolás Maduro ha solicitado al Tribunal Supremo la revocación de mi nacionalidad venezolana, convirtiéndome en el primer ciudadano nacido en Venezuela…
A gas deal with Trinidad and Tobago was also suspended by Maduro, who alleged that Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar was converting her nation into a “aircraft carrier of the American empire against Venezuela.”
Tensions escalate between US and Venezuela
Washington had been using a fleet of eight US Navy ships, ten F-35 fighter jets, and a nuclear-powered submarine for its anti-drug operations since August but Caracas repeatedly charged that these actions are part of a larger plot to topple the Venezuelan government.
According to US officials, Maduro is leader of the drug-trafficker “Cartel of the Suns.” Maduro refutes the allegations. The United States even increased its reward for information that leads to his arrest to $50 million to encourage members of his inner circle to turn him in, without any positive outcome.
Reward poster for information leading to the arrest of Nicolás Maduro. (Source: english.elpais.com)
Nonetheless, Trump’s “bellicose” rhetoric was rejected by Venezuela which also charged that he was attempting “to legitimise regime change with the ultimate goal of appropriating Venezuela’s petroleum resources.” The actions were described as “a grave violation of the UN charter” and the country even took the matter to the United Nations (UN) Security Council.
The Venezuelan leader’s refusal to comply with demands to relinquish power freely and persistent counters of the officials that they were not involved in drug trafficking previously led to frustration on the American side, resulting in the snapping of diplomatic relations between the two parties.
Marco Rubio’s role amid the United States, Venezuela hostilities
Maduro and other top officials made a number of concessions to try to defuse the impasse with Washington, including ceding a significant stake in Venezuela’s oil sector. Even some sanctions on Venezuelan oil had been lifted by the Trump administration, allowing Chevron, a major American multinational energy company, to restart production and boost Venezuelan shipments.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s push for a firm stance, however, instead caused long-standing tensions to exacerbate. “Trump had, in many conversations, meetings with different people emphasized that he really only cared about oil but Rubio was able to drum up this narco-terrorist rhetoric and get Trump to pivot completely,” mentioned a US businessman, according to a report in The Guardian.
Rubio was reportedly able to convince Trump with the help of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and chief of staff Susie Wiles. He accomplished this by also taking advantage of the administration’s categorisation of the transnational gang “Tren de Aragua” which originated in Venezuela, as a “foreign terrorist organisation” that had infiltrated the United States and reportedly contributed to the surge of undocumented migrants escaping Maduro’s rule.
The group was also implicated in collusion with the “Cartel de los Soles,” a secretive organisation of Venezuelan military leaders that the US believes is headed by Maduro and is in charge of smuggling drugs into the United States, according to a White House declaration last March.
War against drug cartels or a regime change operation in a oil rich nation?
The goal of the Trump administration’s Venezuela policy which was formulated by Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe seemed to set on removing Maduro from office. He has held power since 2013, including when he was re-elected in polls tainted by fraud allegations.
Rubio has already voiced his desire to throw him out of his position. He already termed Maduro a “horrible dictator” on Fox News and responded, “We’re going to work on that policy,” when asked if he was calling for his ouster.
More importantly, Washington has long been interested in taking down Maduro. Trump spearheaded “maximum pressure” campaign during his first term in office to unseat his government.
Furthermore, CIA has historically collaborated with Latin American governments on intelligence sharing and security issues. This has made it possible for the agency to pursue drug cartels through working together with Mexican officials. Over the course of its lengthy history in Latin America, it has conducted a wide range of activities, from direct paramilitary participation to intelligence collection and support functions that need little to no physical presence.
However, CIA has no authority to conduct direct lethal actions under those authorisations. Hence, the recent permission stoked concerns that the US was attempting to spark a military takeover against Maduro.
“A build-up this size can only suggest there’s a strategic military goal,” pointed out Dr Carlos Solar while talking to Sky News. He is an expert on Latin American security at the RUSI defence thinktank. He observed that the scale of military strategy in the Venezuelan region is “unproportionate” to the challenge of combating drug trafficking.
According to Solar, the CIA’s intervention is also “not surprising” because the US regularly employs its surveillance capabilities in nations that are considered antagonistic. “With the chances of a military conflict looming, having the most intelligence capable on the ground would be reasonable,” he outlined.
Senator Rand Paul (Republican-Kentucky) also voiced similar reservations on Fox News Sunday and outlined, “So far, they have alleged that these people are drug dealers. No one’s said their name, no one’s said what evidence, no one’s said whether they’re armed, and we’ve had no evidence presented.”
Rand Paul on Trump's strikes on boats: "I would call them extrajudicial killings. This is akin to what China does, what Iran does with drug dealers — they summarily execute people without presenting evidence to the public. So it's wrong." pic.twitter.com/NPCIt9kzgT
Many strikes have occurred on ships that travel a route that transports cocaine and marijuana to West Africa and Europe. However, Paul stated that rather than the military, drug smuggling and associated crimes have “usually been something we do through law enforcement” and referred to fatalities as “extrajudicial killings.”
The campaign now appeared to be expanded by the administration. On 28th October, US Marines targeted vessels off the Pacific coast of South America after launching several assaults off the Caribbean coast. “They’ll be coming in by land a little bit more because they’re not coming in by boat anymore and we will hit them very hard when they come in by land. They haven’t experienced that yet. But now we’re totally prepared to do that,” Trump declared.
Does US seek control of Venezuelan oil in the name of attacking drug cartels
The Trump administration is reiterating the Monroe doctrine, which was developed in the 19th century and saw the US assert Latin America as its exclusive sphere of influence, according to Angelo Rivero Santos. He is a professor of Latin American studies at Georgetown University and a former diplomat in Venezuela’s embassy in Washington.
“It’s not only Venezuela. When you look at their statements on the Panama canal, at the impositions of tariffs on Brazil, the latest spat with the Colombian government, not to mention the military presence in the Caribbean, you see a return of the Monroe Doctrine,” Santos was quoted by the Guardian article.
He further contended that one goal was to appoint more Trump-friendly administrations in the area, akin to those of Daniel Noboa of Ecuador, Javier Milei of Argentina and Nayib Bukele of El Salvador.
Notably, Trump was heard lamenting the failure of the US to take control of Venezuela. “How about we are buying oil from Venezuela? When I left it was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over. We would have gotten all that oil. It would have been right next door,” Trump stated before his 2024 re-election. The world’s largest oil reserves are found in Venezuela.
I have been also telling you that our invasion into Venezuela is Regime Change Operation to get at their oil.
Trump’s dispute with Venezuela regarding drugs also appeared to be based on rather tenuous grounds. Cocaine is mostly produced in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. According to its own government, Venezuela is taking tough measures to combat the trafficking of cocaine. According to a 2025 report by the US Drug Enforcement Administration, Colombia accounts for 84% of all cocaine seizures in the US.
Other nations were listed in the report, however Venezuela was left out. Cocaine generated in South America does pass via Venezuela but the majority of it is sent to Europe with barely any travelling to the United States. Mexico and the Pacific Ocean provide the majority of the cocaine supplied in the country.
Similarly, nearly all fentanyl that enters the United States originates in Mexico. 94% of the narcotic that is captured in the country is stopped at the southern border, per US Customs and Border Protection.
While the Pacific Ocean is the site of the current action, the Caribbean where the first seven strikes were conducted is not a key sea route for drug trafficking.
Likewise, people in Latin America view the CIA with great distrust due to its past undercover operations, efforts to overthrow governments and backing for previous right-wing military dictatorships. According to Ned Price, the deputy to the US ambassador to the UN and a former senior analyst at the CIA and senior counsel at the State Department, the agency’s covert operations can take “many forms.”
Massive military fortification by the United States
The US military deployment has been changing and as of 23rd October, there were ten US military warships in the area, including oil tankers for refuelling ships at sea, guided missile destroyers and amphibious assault ships, according to BBC. There were at least 10,000 troops in the area, excluding personnel stationed at facilities in Puerto Rico alongside a Marine contingent on amphibious assault ships.
Image via BBC
Reuters reported that more aircrafts have been seen at US facilities in Puerto Rico, including F-35 fighter jets and MQ-9 reaper drones which have been utilized to conduct surveillance and attacks in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Mali.
A task force had been sent out by the Navy and Marine Corps off the coast of Venezuela. More than 4,500 sailors and Marines work there as a forward presence for Naval operations. The group consists of reconnaissance planes, an attack submarine, a Special Operations ship and guided missile destroyers.
The MV Ocean Trader, a civilian vessel transformed into a floating base for Special Operations, has also been deployed by the Pentagon. Special Operations forces in the region can use the ship as a command centre and barracks. The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment is also stationed there. It is a top-tier helicopter unit that supports the most hazardous missions in the globe.
This month, it was discovered that the “Little Bird” helicopters that this unit usually uses were operating fewer than 90 miles off the Venezuelan coast, based on The Washington Post. The helicopters were participating in training exercises that could be used to prepare for an extended confrontation, including potential operations inside Venezuela, a US official unveiled to The Post. A carrier strike group had already been ordered to the area comprising of USS Gerald R Ford by the Pentagon.
USS Gerald R Ford (Source: CNN)
Additionally, plane tracking platforms have shown flights of P-8 Poseidon espionage planes and B1 bombers. The United States has committed 8% of its entire naval fleet to the Caribbean deployment. As Dr Solar earlier implied, the magnitude of this deployment reflects a far more substantial motive than merely attacking drug cartels.
Conclusion
The US is notorious for launching wars to establish “democracies” in nations that are abundant in natural resources and energy. The CIA is also recognised for its regime change operations around the globe, including in Ukraine and allegedly even in Bangladesh. They have attacked nations on totally fake grounds before (Iraq), and have a history of destroying entire countries and levelling civilian facilities to ground just to topple an unfavourable leader (Libya). Though a war on Venezuela would appear as an extreme measure in current global situations, it won’t be unprecedented. The USA has done such wars plenty of times.
The Peace talks in Istanbul between Pakistan and Afghanistan have completely fallen apart, edging the two neighbours in a period of uncertainty and ‘Open War’. After three days of negotiations, the two sides failed to reach any agreement, and the talks ended with no outcome.
Now, both countries are blaming each other for the failure. Turkish and Qatari officials, who were also hosting the negotiations and seeking a compromise (serving as mediators), are said to be still negotiating for a breakthrough, but for now, the talks are stuck.
The border conflict that led to the meeting
These talks were an emergency measure because the two countries were in the middle of a serious, war-like situation just a few weeks ago.
It began on October 9, when cross-border air raids were carried out by Pakistan into Afghanistan. Pakistan claimed that it was attacking camps of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), an organisation that had killed hundreds of Pakistani troops.
The Afghan Taliban’s response was fast and powerful. They launched a massive “counteroffensive” all along the border. According to reports, the fighting was incredibly heavy. The Taliban claimed they killed 58 Pakistani soldiers and destroyed 20 security outposts over a single weekend.
The violence got out of control to the point that even other countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, had to step in. They managed to get both sides to agree to an “immediate ceasefire” on October 19. The first round of talks was held in Doha, and this meeting in Istanbul was supposed to be the final step to make the peace last.
What went wrong during the meetings
Even though the talks in Doha seemed positive, the Istanbul session collapsed on some issues that both sides refused to compromise on.
Pakistan has a Big Demand as they want “written guarantees” that the Afghan Taliban would stop the TTP. But sources say they went even further. The Pakistani team asked the Afghan side to agree that Pakistan has the “right to carry out attacks on Afghan soil” whenever the TTP attacks them.
On the other hand, the Afghan Taliban had a major demand of their own. They informed Pakistan that it has to cease granting permission to American drones to cross its airspace to fly into Afghanistan.
Both demands were rejected
The Afghan delegation, consisting of senior members such as Anas Haqqani and Suhail Shaheen, argued that the TTP is an “old and internal” problem for Pakistan, not theirs. They assured no one would use Afghan territory to attack another nation, but they would not agree to Pakistan’s authority to initiate attacks.
On the drone issue, Pakistan’s delegation reportedly admitted for the first time that they have an agreement with a “foreign country”, meaning the U.S., for drone strikes and that they “cannot” break that agreement.
Mediators flummoxed by Pakistan’s strange behaviour
The Turkish and Qatari mediators were reportedly left totally shocked and confused by the Pakistani team’s strange behaviour.
Sources said the Afghan delegation was trying hard to have constructive talks and find a real solution. But it seemed the Pakistani team, reportedly headed by a senior general from the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency, didn’t have the same intention.
There seemed to be no coordination within the Pakistani team. Insiders said that just when they were getting close to an agreement, the Pakistani delegation suddenly backed out, leaving the mediators surprised.
Warning of open war
As the negotiations were unsuccessful, the situation is dangerous. Even before the talks collapsed, Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, gave a strong warning. He stated that if the negotiations fail, there is another option on the table that is open confrontation or open war with Afghanistan.
The Pakistani delegation in Istanbul said the same thing: with no security agreement, Pakistan will “continue to target terrorists inside or outside” its borders.
While all this was going on, U.S. President Donald Trump also tweeted regarding the clashes, stating, “I heard that Pakistan and Afghanistan have started up, but I will solve it very quickly.”
Inside account of Pakistan’s erratic conduct during the Istanbul peace talks
As per Jawad Sarga, eyewitnesses and reliable third party sources present a damning picture of the Istanbul talks. The Pakistani delegation behaved erratically, at times rude and uncoordinated, leaving Turkish and Qatari mediators astonished. Insiders say the Pakistani team repeatedly derailed the meeting with crude language and off topic interventions, even as the Afghan side, led by senior figures, tried to pursue a constructive settlement.
په ترکیه کې د مذاکراتو له ماحول څخه: عبدالخبیر مجروح د مؤثقو منابعو په حواله ویل کیږي چې په ترکیه کې د پاکستان او افغانستان اړخ ترمنځ د مذاکراتو جریان بې له کومې پایلې پای ته ورسید. هغه څه چې ډیر جالب وو دا وو چې پاکستاني پلاوي له مذاکراتو سره بلدیت نه درلود، بې منطقه خبرې یې… pic.twitter.com/kR8G9i2RzS
Key demands from Islamabad shocked other participants. Pakistan asked Kabul to summon and control groups that operate from Afghan soil and to give written guarantees that these groups would not attack Pakistan. Islamabad then went further, seeking the right to strike inside Afghanistan whenever it deemed necessary. The Afghan response was blunt, noting that such groups are Pakistan’s nationals and fighters, and asking how Kabul could be expected to summon and police foreign insurgents on Pakistan’s behalf.
The talks also turned on the drone issue. Afghanistan sought assurances that Pakistan would not permit foreign drones to use its airspace to strike Afghan territory. Pakistan initially signalled agreement, but after a phone call during the session, the Pakistani side reversed its position, claiming it could not prevent US drone overflights. According to sources, Pakistan’s negotiating team even suggested it could not guarantee action against Isis related activity originating from its soil, prompting further alarm among mediators.
In a significant move towards enhancing India’s self-reliance in the aviation sector, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) signed an MoU with Russia’s Public Joint Stock Company United Aircraft Corporation on Monday (27th October) for the production of SJ-100 civil commuter aircraft. Under the agreement, HAL will have the right to manufacture the aircraft for domestic use.
“This will also be the first instance wherein a complete passenger aircraft will be produced in India. The last such project was HAL’s production of AVRO HS-748, which started in 1961 and ended in 1988,” said HAL in its statement.
HAL and Public Joint Stock Company United Aircraft Corporation (PJSC-UAC) Russia signed an MoU for production of civil commuter aircraft SJ-100 in Moscow, Russia on October 27, 2025. Shri Prabhat Ranjan, HAL & Mr. Oleg Bogomolov, PJSC UAC, Russia, signed the MoU in the presence… pic.twitter.com/McN8WQjeSl
The SJ-100 is a twin-engine, narrow-body aircraft which is currently operational with over 16 commercial airlines. According to HAL, the civil jet will be a “game-changer for the short-haul connectivity”. The move is set to cater to the Indian aviation sector’s estimated requirement over the next 10 years of over 200 jets in the category to boost regional connectivity, and for another 350 jets for the Indian Ocean region to connect to nearby international tourist destinations.
“The manufacturing of the SJ-100 aircraft marks the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the Indian aviation industry. It’s a step towards fulfilling the dream of ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat’ in the civil aviation sector. Manufacturing will also strengthen the private sector and create direct and indirect jobs in the aviation industry,” added the HAL statement.
Image via X/@sougat18
Features of the Russian SJ-100 commercial aircraft
Aircraft suitable for domestic flights: The SJ-100 is a small commercial aircraft manufactured from Russian components and does not rely on the West for material or technology. The aircraft, also known as SuperJet 100, was originally built 10 years ago in 2000. The aircraft made its maiden commercial flight in May 2008 and its first commercial flight in April 2011. The jet with 46–49 t (45–48 long tons) maximum take-off mass (MTOW) can carry 87 to 98 passengers. The jet has two variants: a basic one with standard engines and the other, which is modified to compete with the Airbus A220 and Embraer E-jet series.
Redesignable cabin configuration: The arrangement of seats in the cabin of the SJ-100 follows a 2-3 configuration and can be redesigned to meet the requirements of the airlines. The aircraft is best suited for point-to-point routes on domestic and international airlines. It’s an all-weather aircraft and can operate in all climate zones with temperatures ranging from -55 °C to +45 °C, and has a flight range of 3530 km. The aircraft was built with the intention of facilitating Russians in travelling long distances within the country. The SJ-100 incorporates advanced technology found in bigger and newer aircraft designs.
Fly-by-wire (FBW) control system: It is fitted with a Fly-by-wire (FBW) control system, which replaces manual flight controls with an electronic interface, thereby helping reduce the workload on the pilot. The FBW control system provides a full flight envelope system, which prevents the aircraft from exceeding its operational limits.
Autoland system, CAT IIIA: It is also equipped with an autoland system, CAT IIIA, which helps the aircraft land automatically in extremely low visibility conditions.
Advanced navigation and landing modes: The SJ-100 makes use of P-RNAV, LNAV, and VNAV navigation and landing modes, which provide it with greater light and route accuracy, with the use of satellite and ground-based technology.
How the HAL-UAC collaboration is significant for India
For an industry dominated by the American (Boeing) and European (Airbus) aircraft manufacturers, the agreement could be a game-changer for India’s manufacturing sector. It could provide a much-needed impetus for India’s goal of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ by eliminating the country’s reliance on foreign players and developing its manufacturing capacity. The HAL-UAC collaboration will provide India with an opportunity to delve deeper into the know-how of aircraft manufacturing and also develop the capacity for the maintenance and repair of aircraft. Once India develops its capacity in civil aviation manufacturing and establishes itself as an aerospace hub, the country can grow from being an importer to an exporter of aircraft.
India has largely been importing full-assembled commercial aircraft for decades. The collaboration will enable India to manufacture a full passenger aircraft, entirely on Indian soil. This, in turn, will not only help the economy but will also contribute in generating employment, creating value-chain jobs and vendor networks, and enhancing supply-chain growth.
Manufacturing aircraft within the country could also significantly bring down the cost of air travel, thus helping achieve the objectives of the UDAN (Ude Desh ka Aam Nagrik) Scheme, which aims to make air travel affordable and accessible. The objectives of the scheme include connecting Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities with metropolitan cities by linking unserved or underserved airports in smaller cities with major airports. The government has, so far, developed a network of more than 150 airports across the country. One major challenge before the government has been the deployment of suitable small and mid-sized aircraft for operating on domestic routes, while keeping the travel fare affordable. The indigenous manufacturing of the SJ-100 aircraft could help address this challenge.
India deepens ties with Russia as Trump tariffs pushes Delhi toward strategic autonomy
The recent Memorandum of Understanding between Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) for joint production of the SJ-100 civil aircraft marks yet another milestone in India’s deepening partnership with Moscow, a relationship that has only strengthened in the face of growing friction with Washington. The backdrop to this cooperation lies in the unilateral decision by former U.S. President Donald Trump to impose punitive tariffs on India, ostensibly over its continued purchase of discounted Russian oil.
The move was widely seen in New Delhi as hypocritical, given that several European nations, and even the US itself, continued to procure Russian crude and raw materials vital for their energy and strategic industries. For India, which has long championed energy sovereignty and strategic autonomy, Trump’s tariff pressure was a reminder of why overdependence on western nations is strategically risky.
In response, India appears to have doubled down on its multi-vector foreign policy, choosing diversification and self-reliance over coercive alignment. The HAL–UAC agreement follows a series of Indo-Russian collaborations across critical sectors, from defence engines and BrahMos co-development talks to long-term crude and coal supply contracts.
These deals underscore a clear intent: to ensure technology transfer, indigenous manufacturing, and long-term supply security while signalling to Washington that New Delhi will not subordinate its strategic choices to American pressure. Ironically, while the West preaches “rules-based order,” its selective sanctions and protectionist tariffs have only accelerated India’s quest for multipolar partnerships, with Russia emerging once again as a reliable collaborator in both defence and civilian industries.
In a historic first, Delhi on Tuesday carried out a cloud-seeding operation to induce artificial rain, a bold scientific intervention aimed at cleansing the capital’s toxic air. As the smog-choked city gasps under severe pollution levels each winter, this marks a decisive shift toward technology-driven environmental management.
A first for Delhi and possibly for India’s urban future
The operation, conducted across Burari, Mayur Vihar, and Karol Bagh, involved specialized aircraft releasing silver iodide and salt-based flares into moisture-laden clouds. These particles serve as condensation nuclei, encouraging cloud droplets to merge and eventually fall as rain.
Officials confirmed that the first phase of the experiment concluded successfully, with a second sortie planned later in the evening, subject to atmospheric conditions. The project was carried out jointly by the Delhi government and IIT Kanpur, whose scientists provided the technical backbone for the mission.
Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, while hailing the initiative, emphasized its experimental nature: “This is new for all of us. We’ve been exploring every possible measure to tackle pollution, and cloud seeding is part of that effort. If it succeeds, this could become a game changer for Delhiites.”
Inside the operation: How the skies were seeded
According to Delhi Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa, the mission involved a Cessna aircraft operated by IIT Kanpur, which flew in from Meerut and covered multiple locations including Khekra, Burari, North Karol Bagh, and Mayur Vihar.
Each of the eight flares fired weighed about 2–2.5 kilograms, burning for approximately two minutes each. The process lasted around half an hour, with humidity levels ranging between 15–20%. Winds were blowing northward, suggesting that the seeded clouds could drift toward Outer Delhi, potentially expanding the rainfall zone.
The aircraft later returned to Meerut, while meteorologists from the India Meteorological Department (IMD) monitored conditions to determine the likelihood and timing of rainfall, which could occur anywhere between 15 minutes to four hours post-seeding.
The science behind cloud seeding
Cloud seeding isn’t new to meteorology; it has been successfully implemented in China, the UAE, and parts of the US to augment rainfall, reduce drought impact, and even clear haze during major events.
In simple terms, substances like silver iodide, sodium chloride, or potassium chloride are dispersed into clouds, helping water vapor condense into droplets large enough to fall as rain.
While the science is well-established, success rates vary depending on humidity, temperature, and wind speed, factors that are notoriously unpredictable in Delhi’s post-monsoon climate.
Why this could be a game changer for Delhi
Delhi’s annual “airpocalypse” when PM2.5 levels soar to 10–15 times the safe limit has turned into a recurring environmental and public health crisis. Construction dust, vehicular emissions, stubble burning, and weather inversions combine to trap pollutants close to the ground, creating a toxic haze.
If cloud seeding works even partially, it could temporarily settle airborne pollutants, providing immediate relief from smog. It could also serve as an emergency pollution mitigation measure during severe AQI spikes. Besides, data-driven insights for long-term atmospheric management could inspire similar interventions in other polluted cities like Mumbai, Lucknow, or Patna.
Environmental experts caution, however, that artificial rain cannot replace systemic measures such as cleaner fuel transitions, waste management reforms, or crop residue control. Yet, as a rapid-response mechanism, it could complement Delhi’s broader pollution-control strategy.
The IIT Kanpur edge
IIT Kanpur’s research team, led by atmospheric scientists, has conducted successful cloud-seeding trials in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. Their involvement ensured that Delhi’s experiment was based on precise meteorological modelling rather than guesswork.
The institute will now analyze rainfall data, particulate matter reduction, and wind movement to assess the quantitative impact of the trial. If the results prove encouraging, Delhi could schedule regular cloud-seeding sorties during peak pollution months, November and December, each year.
A glimpse into the future
Whether or not Delhi witnesses immediate rainfall, this initiative signals a paradigm shift. For the first time, technology, policy, and climate science have converged to tackle the city’s environmental emergency in real time.
As Chief Minister Gupta aptly put it, “This experiment represents hope, hope that we can innovate our way out of the pollution crisis.”
If the clouds do open up over Delhi in the coming hours, it won’t just be rain, it will be a symbol of India’s willingness to experiment, adapt, and lead in the fight against climate and environmental challenges.
Delhi has turned to the skies to fix what’s wrong on the ground. And if this rain falls, it might just wash away not only the dust but decades of helplessness in the face of winter smog.
The Election Commission of India has announced that a Special Intensive Revision of the electoral roll will be conducted in in 12 states and Union Territories in the next phase. The ECI has announced the schedule for the SIR exercise. The states covered in the upcoming SIR include poll-bound states like West Bengal. However, Assam, which is going to the polls in 2026, is not covered in the 12 states.
While an SIR in Bihar and West Bengal gave heartburn to leftists and the extended anti-BJP ecosystem, the same lot is now rattled over the ECI’s decision not to conduct an SIR in Assam.
During a press conference on 27th October 2025, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar informed the media that the citizenship rule for Assam “differs from the rest of the country” and thus, a special order will be issued for SIR in Assam.
Explaining why Assam will not undergo an SIR like other states and UT’s, CEC Kumar said, “A special order will be issued by the Election Commission to hold SIR in Assam. Under the Citizenship Act, there are separate provisions for citizenship in Assam. Under the supervision of the Supreme Court, the exercise of checking citizenship is about to be completed. The June 24 SIR order was for the entire country. Under such circumstances, this would not have applied to Assam.”
#WATCH | Phase 2 of SIR | On Assam not included in the second phase of SIR, CEC Gyanesh Kumar says, "Under India's Citizenship Act, there are separate provisions for Assam. Under the supervision of the Supreme Court, the checking of citizenship there is about to be completed. The… pic.twitter.com/NoeqZ5x6DY
“So, there will be separate revision orders issued for Assam, and a separate SIR date will be announced,” he added.
It is essential to note that Assam operates under distinct rules because of a separate provision in the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the 1985 Assam Accord. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which was introduced after the Assam Accord of 1985, states that immigrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh prior to 1st January, 1966 are deemed to be Indian citizens, while those who entered between 1st January, 1966 and 25th March, 1971 have to fulfil certain conditions to be deemed eligible for citizenship.
Assam’s special citizenship law caps foreigners from voting or holding citizenship rights. Apparently, the ECI cannot apply a uniform SIR without conflicting with the Assam’s special provisions, as SIR verification including the 2003 cutoff could inadvertently overlap or undermine them.
Besides, the NRC in Assam ordered and monitored by the Supreme Court since 2013 is nearing completion. Final appeals and re-verifications are pending though. The Assam NRC has already excluded over 19 lakh people as “doubtful citizens”, triggering opposition. Thus, conducting an SIR now would risk double-deletion, duplicate efforts and also essentially mean an interference with SC-mandated timelines of the NRC. Since citizenship adjudication in Assam remains ongoing under the Supreme Court’s supervision, making parallel revisions through SIR will be impractical.
‘SIR in Bihar and Bengal bad and Supreme Court must intervene, SIR in Assam is good and ECI should ignore SC-monitored NRC’: The leftist hypocrisy
Leftists have a penchant for outraging over something and embracing the same as per their convenience. In Bihar, they wanted the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll by the Election Commission to either not be conducted or be done under Supreme Court’s supervision. However, in Assam, the same leftists cabal wants the Election Commission to conduct SIR defying the Supreme Court’s directives simply because that’s the leftists want.
It must be recalled that erlier this year, a batch of petitions were filed before the Supreme Court by several opposition leaders like TMC MP Mahua Moitra, former AAP co-founder Yogendra Yadav, RJD MP Manoj Jha and organisations such as People’s Union for Civil Liberties, and the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the ECI’s regarding the conduct of the SIR in Bihar,
They urged the top court to put a stay on the SIR, alleging that it was a conspiracy to disenfranchise a large number of voters. However, the apex court rejected their argument and refused to put a stay on the SIR exercise, acknowledging that it was a routine exercise to update the electoral rolls by removing bogus voters and that the ECI was constitutionally empowered to do that. The court termed the petitioners’ allegations of mass disenfranchisement as a case of “trust deficiency”.
Now the same Icchhadhari protestor, Yogendra Yadav, is upset over SIR not being conducted in Assam. In an X post published on 27th October, Yogendra Yadav wrote, “Assam is the only election going state that will not have SIR. I wonder why.”
Assam is the only election going state that will not have SIR. I wonder why.
Similarly, DMK spokesperson Saravanan Annadurai also questioned why SIR is not being conducted in Assam. He also went on to cast aspersions on the integrity of the ECI and said, “…What has the ECI learnt from its experience in Bihar and how does it implement those findings in these 12 states? Why Assam has been left out of this SIR? When did SIR become a citizenship exercise? Why is ECI trying to bring in the criteria of citizenship? Is ECI a citizenship-finding unit?”
#WATCH | Chennai: On phase 2 of SIR in 12 States/UTs, including Tamil Nadu, DMK spokesperson Saravanan Annadurai says, "…What has the ECI learnt from its experience in Bihar and how does it implement those findings in these 12 states? Why Assam has been left out of this… pic.twitter.com/oEaGDtkhUc
Meanwhile, Congress spokesperson Shama Mohamed also dismissed ECI’s explanation that with an SC-ordered NRC process underway, conducting SIR will not be appropriate, as a mere “excuse”.
“Next year, four states will go to elections — Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal are included in the SIR, but Assam is not. Why? Assam shares a border with Bangladesh and has a large number of suspected infiltrators. The CEC gave the excuse of the NRC but what happened in NRC? Out of 19 lakh people excluded, only 7 lakh were Muslims, and 12 lakh were non-Muslims. After wasting more than 1600 crores of taxpayers’ money, the NRC was quietly dropped. Why is the ECI not revealing the number of infiltrators found in Bihar? And why has it not released the list of 47 lakh deleted voters? How will people even know that their names have been deleted and only then can they raise objections?” Mohamed said.
Next year, four states will go to elections — Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal are included in the SIR, but Assam is not. Why?
Assam shares a border with Bangladesh and has a large number of suspected infiltrators. The CEC gave the excuse of the NRC but what happened in NRC?… pic.twitter.com/ApuFHJtDhR
The Print also came up with it’s “50 Word Edit” on the ECI excluding Assam from the second round of SIR of electoral rolls. “Election Commission’s explanation for excluding Assam from the second round of SIR of electoral rolls is convoluted and irrational. By linking it to the NRC, it has rendered the existing voters’ list suspect. This creates new confusion and ground for conspiracy theories. ECI has tied itself in knots over SIR.”
However, the Congress party and its supportive ecosystem conveniently forgets that the Election Commission’s job is to identify ineligible voters and remove their names from the electoral roll. The ECI’s function is not to detect and deport illegal immigrants, issue citizenships, or examine the validity and legality of citizenships. In Bihar SIR, approximately 6.5 million voters were removed from the list. However, not all the names removed were illegal immigrants. Those removed included voters who died, those who failed to prove that they are citizens of India, those who permanently migrated to other places, and those voters who were present in more than one list.
Despite this, the opposition parties and leftists have gone from opposing the SIR in other states to asking ‘why not here?’ in Assam. This glaring hypocrisy stems from the fact that in Bihar, Congress and other anti-BJP parties feared that their vote bank comprising illegals, particularly, Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh would be weeded out of the electoral roll.
In Assam, however, the opposition wants the ECI to go against the Supreme Court and conduct SIR so the opposition can run their agenda that the ECI in collusion with the BJP are disregarding the Supreme Court just to target and disenfranchise Muslims and those they believe are traditionally opposed to the BJP. They know that the SIR could purge their illegal Muslim voter-base but also validate the BJP’s anti-infiltrator plank.
Basically, if the SIR had happened, the Congress and leftists would have cried ECI-BJP conspiring to disenfranchise Muslim, but since it’s not happening this year, they are crying why ECI is not conducting SIR before elections. The opposition parties are trying to suggest that the ECI is delaying SIR in Assam because in the 2019 NRC out of 19 lakh people excluded, 7 lakh were Muslims, and 12 lakh were non-Muslims (read Hindus both Indian and Bangladeshi), the BJP is trying protect those Hindus left out in the NRC from being removed from the electoral roll.
The only reason the NRC is stuck in a limbo, is because of widespread concerns raised over the alleged inclusions and exclusions in the list. CM Sarma had earlier raised concerns over this. The Assam government has maintained that the NRC in its current form included many foreigners and excluded many indigenous people, in addition, it says that the number of people who entered Assam illegally after March 24, 1971, the cut-off date for the NRC, is way higher than 19 lakhs.
The Election Commission has made it clear that the exercise of checking citizenship, ordered and monitored by the Supreme Court is about to be completed, and thus, a separate SIR will be announced for Assam accordingly. Yet, the opposition wants to peddle a fake narrative that the ECI is somehow delaying SIR in Assam on the BJP’s direction.
It is opposition’s politics of convenience, the same SIR that ‘threatened’ democracy in Bihar and Bengal somehow becomes the ‘protector’ of democracy and electoral sanctity in Assam.
It is interesting to note that while the ECI has said that a separate date for SIR in Assam will be announced, the state’s Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has said that his government is willing to cooperate with the ECI whenever the poll body decides to conduct SIR.
On 24th October, Professor Anna I Krylov, a Chemist and USC Associates Chair in Natural Sciences, wrote a striking open letter that has reignited the debate on political interference in science. In the letter, Professor Krylov declared that she will no longer engage with the Nature Publishing Group. Her decision came with a clear accusation that the publishing house has “abandoned its mission in favour of advancing a social justice agenda.”
In simple terms, Krylov and other scientists are warning that journals like Nature are giving more weight to who a researcher is, rather than what they discover.
When science becomes a battleground for ideology
The open letter titled “Why I No Longer Engage with Nature Publishing Group”, published on Substack, read like both an act of protest and a warning. She recounted declining an invitation to review a paper for Nature Communications because the group has “institutionalised censorship,” “sacrificed merit in favour of identity-based criteria,” and injected “social engineering into its author guidelines.”
Professor Krylov highlighted examples that reflected this drift. The Springer Nature Diversity Commitment (2019) openly instructs editors to prioritise demographic diversity and asks them to “intentionally and proactively reach out to women researchers.” In Nature Reviews Psychology, the introduction of “citation justice” urges authors to reference underrepresented scholars, not necessarily the most relevant or rigorous studies. Furthermore, Nature Human Behaviour’s 2022 policy paper declared that research deemed “harmful” to certain social groups could be censored, which is one of the most controversial cases she cited in the letter.
While quoting scholars like Jerry Coyne and Emma Shaw, Krylov warned that such trends amount to “turning science into social engineering,” where bibliographies and editorial decisions are shaped not by intellectual merit but by ideological arithmetic. She questioned if the invite sent to her to peer review the paper was because of her qualifications or because of her “reproductive organs”.
She wrote, “I cannot stop but wonder, was I asked to review the manuscript because of my expertise in the subject matter or because of my reproductive organs?”
A wider problem – when activism overtakes expertise
This ideological creep is not limited to scientific publishing. The diversity, equality and inclusion, better known as DEI, has been injected across institutions from academia to corporate boardrooms. The DEI movement has become a quasi-religious dogma. In the field of entertainment, “representation metrics” now often override creative choices. Furthermore, in corporate sectors, companies like Boeing and, in India, Godrej, have faced scrutiny. In fact, in the case of Boeing, it has been argued that the cultural shift towards diversity goals has severely impacted the company’s engineering excellence and accountability.
The pattern has been consistent all over. The Left’s moral vocabulary of “inclusion” and “justice” is being recast as a managerial and intellectual framework. When such ideological dogma is applied to fields like STEM, where empirical truth must stand independent of ideology, it becomes dangerous. As Krylov noted, “The purpose of science is the pursuit of truth, not the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
Why politics must not contaminate science
When it comes to scientific publishing, what pushes it towards becoming a better source of information is the fact that it thrives on scepticism, which cannot be replaced with solidarity. It is meant to question authority, not follow ideological trends. Yet in recent years, parts of academia have treated politics as an inseparable companion to knowledge production.
As a result, instead of pushing diversity in thought processes, it has enforced conformity. There is immense pressure on scholars to signal allegiance to “the right causes”, no matter if it hampers the very base of science, that is ‘facts’.
It is impossible for science to coexist with political fear. If editors censor findings, or if reviewers are selected by identity rather than expertise, research becomes activism by another name. Whether the bias is of exclusion or forced inclusion, the distortion is the same and truth becomes secondary.
By severing ties with Nature, Professor Krylov has brought a much-needed question back into focus. Can science remain neutral in an age where neutrality itself is seen as political? Her stand is not merely about one journal, but about the future of truth-seeking itself. “Should Nature recommit to scientific excellence,” she wrote, “I will be happy to revisit my decision. In the meantime, I will encourage my fellow scientists to stand up for the integrity of science.”
In a world where activism increasingly masquerades as objectivity, her words serve as both a challenge and a reminder that the pursuit of truth must never bow to the politics of virtue signalling. Her protest is not just against one journal, but against a wider cultural shift turning science into an echo chamber of ideology.
Who is Professor Anna I Krylov?
Professor Anna I Krylov is the USC Associates Chair in Natural Sciences and Professor of Chemistry at the University of Southern California (USC), specialising in physical and theoretical chemistry. A graduate of Moscow State University (MSc, 1990) and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (PhD, 1996), she completed her postdoctoral research at the University of California, Berkeley.
Krylov’s research group develops advanced theoretical methods and computational tools to study excited electronic states, spectroscopy, quantum information, and solar energy applications. Over her distinguished career, she has received numerous honours, including the Dirac Medal, Sloan Research Fellowship, ACS Award in Theoretical Chemistry, and fellowships from both the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
When the watchdog of India’s finances refused to bow to political power, it was met with filth, smears, and institutional sabotage.
In the annals of India’s democratic institutions, few episodes reveal the audacity of political power and the resilience of institutional integrity as vividly as the Coal Block Allocation Scam, popularly known as Coalgate. It was not merely a case of corruption or inefficiency. It was, at its heart, a battle between constitutional morality and political expediency, between the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, the constitutional watchdog of the public purse, and the powerful political machinery of the then United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government led by Dr. Manmohan Singh.
And as P. Sesh Kumar’s remarkable new book, Unfolded: How the Audit Trail Heralded Financial Accountability and International Supreme Audit Institution, reveals, the price of integrity was humiliation, isolation, and even stench. Quite literally.
The Stinking Room of Power
Kumar, who served as Director General of Audit in the CAG during the coal block audit, recounts how his team, tasked with one of the most consequential audits in India’s history, was assigned a small, dingy room next to a stinking toilet in the Coal Ministry. The intent was not lost on anyone. It was a message from the establishment: you are not welcome here.
“The audit was not welcomed. They saw us as a nuisance,” Kumar told News18. “We were given a small room next to a stinking toilet. Toilets may have improved now, but they were stinking then.” This was the state of governance under an economist prime minister who often prided himself on “institutional independence.”
The CAG’s team was investigating the opaque process through which coal blocks, India’s valuable natural resource, were allocated to private players. What they unearthed would shake the foundations of the UPA regime: a potential windfall gain of ₹1.86 lakh crore to private companies, caused by the government’s arbitrary and non-transparent allocation method.
The ₹1.86 Lakh Crore Bombshell
Contrary to the UPA’s claims of “speculative math,” Kumar’s book reveals that the figure was neither plucked from thin air nor politically motivated. It was grounded in data from Coal India Ltd., covering 57 out of 75 private coal block allocations. The auditors calculated extractable reserves, applied industry-standard price-cost data, and made conservative adjustments for expenses. Every assumption was disclosed transparently.
“The CAG disclosed its assumptions upfront. Anyone questioning the figure could test those assumptions,” Kumar notes. The auditors never claimed that ₹1.86 lakh crore was a direct loss. It was a foregone opportunity, a quantifiable measure of how much the exchequer could have earned had the coal blocks been auctioned transparently, as later upheld by the Supreme Court when it cancelled all such allocations.
The now-famous phrase “windfall gain,” Kumar reveals, wasn’t even coined by the CAG. It came from an internal note by the then Coal Secretary, who admitted that the allocation process had the potential of conferring “windfall gains” on private firms. The CAG merely quantified what the government’s own files already acknowledged.
The Hidden Files and the Ministry of Stonewalls
The process of unearthing the truth, however, was anything but smooth. The auditors faced stonewalling, non-cooperation, and even missing records. Out of more than 200 Screening Committee meetings where crucial decisions on coal allocations were made, the CAG’s team got access to just two or three sets of minutes.
The message was clear: the government had much to hide. Kumar writes of how files mysteriously disappeared, delays were engineered, and bureaucratic obstacles were piled high to frustrate the audit.
And yet, the auditors persevered. Working through holidays like Durga Puja, the team continued to dig until one day, they stumbled upon a policy file that would become the cornerstone of the entire scandal.
This file contained internal communications dating back to 2004, including notes by the Coal Secretary, the Law Ministry, and even the Prime Minister himself, who briefly held the coal portfolio. It revealed that as early as 2006, the Law Ministry had cleared the concept of competitive bidding for coal blocks. Yet, inexplicably, the government sat on it for years, preferring the opaque and discretionary allocation route that benefited a few private players.
That discovery demolished the UPA’s defense that auctions were “legally impossible” at the time. The truth, as the CAG report exposed, was far simpler: the system was designed to benefit the chosen few.
The Political Counterattack
The reaction from the corridors of power was swift and vicious. Then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who had carefully cultivated the image of a clean technocrat, spoke against the CAG report in Parliament. Senior ministers held press conferences branding the findings as “deeply flawed” and “misleading.” The intent was unmistakable to discredit the institution, not the numbers.
The Congress’s political machinery and its friendly media ecosystem unleashed a smear campaign against the CAG and its then head, Vinod Rai. They were painted as “politically motivated,” “anti-growth,” and “anti-UPA.” It was an attempt to delegitimize the very idea of independent audit scrutiny.
But history has been kinder to the auditors. The Supreme Court later vindicated the CAG’s findings, calling the coal allocations “arbitrary and illegal” and cancelling all 214 coal block allocations made between 1993 and 2010. The constitutional watchdog had been right all along.
The Real Meaning of the Coal Audit
Kumar’s book reminds us that the CAG’s coal audit was never about numbers alone. It was about principles of transparency, accountability, and the sanctity of public resources. In a democracy, natural resources belong to the people, not the political class or their corporate cronies.
By exposing how a secretive Screening Committee parceled out coal blocks without competitive bidding, the CAG restored faith in the very idea of constitutional oversight. It proved that even in an era of political dominance and media manipulation, institutions could stand tall if led by men and women of conviction.
“The real victory was not in a number printed on a report,” Kumar writes, “but in reaffirming that accountability in public finance is not an act of politics, it is an act of democracy.”
A Lesson for Our Times
The coal scam saga and the shabby treatment meted out to the CAG team should serve as a sobering lesson for all those who talk glibly about “independent institutions.” Under the UPA, the institutions of accountability were not strengthened; they were stifled. When the CAG did its job, it was ridiculed and harassed. When investigative agencies probed corruption, they were accused of being “politicized.”
And yet, despite the filth, both literal and metaphorical, the auditors in that stinking room held their ground. Their courage ensured that India’s democracy did not lose its moral compass.
Today, as India continues to build a more transparent and accountable governance model under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it is worth remembering the CAG’s fight during the UPA era. It was not just a fight for clean audits; it was a fight for clean governance.
The smell from that toilet room in the Coal Ministry may have faded with time, but it remains a metaphor for what the CAG stood against: the stench of corruption and political deceit. And in standing firm, the CAG ensured that the Constitution, not the coalition, had the final word.
