Home Blog Page 13

India’s online 1.5 GB Battalion versus Elon Musk: As SpaceX CEO launches ‘Prime Minister Ambani’ tirade, how his own political spending would make him the US’s ‘President Musk’ and why Starlink is a national security question 

Months after rattling the Trump administration officials launching rhetorical attacks on India over Russian oil purchases, and pushing back against China’s online anti-India racism, India’s online ‘1.5 GB Battalion’ has now taken American billionaire and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to the cleaners over the Starlink regulatory impasse. After the initial ‘oligarchs’ attack, Elon Musk descended into behaving like an anti-BJP troll and targeted businessman Mukesh Ambani. Musk’s own political spending and cooperation with US government agencies suggest that, if we go by his logic, he should be called America’s de facto ruler, ‘President Musk’. 

On 10th October, Elon Musk shared screenshots of media reports alleging a close nexus between Reliance and the ruling party. He shared a 2022 Al Jazeera report titled “How a Reliance-funded firm boosts BJP’s campaigns on Facebook” alongside an archived 2024 Indian Express article about Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited. Sharing these articles was part of Musk’s attempt to portray Indian telecom regulations as an insider’s game rigged to protect domestic giants. 

Before this, Musk had taken a direct jab at Mukesh Ambani, calling him the “Prime Minister Ambani” and “real boss of India” and issued a sarcastic ‘apology’. 

Elon Musk suggests Ambani is the ‘real boss’ because an entity linked to him donated to the BJP; by that logic, isn’t the Trump loyalist America’s ‘President Musk’? 

While Elon Musk highlighted old news reports on an Ambani-linked entity giving funds to the BJP to suggest that Mukesh Ambani is the de facto Prime Minister of India, his own political spending indicates that he is the de facto President of the United States.  

In the 2024 US presidential election cycle, Elon Musk was the largest individual political donor. Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show that Musk spent over $288–290 million, primarily through his super PAC, America PAC and related groups to support Donald Trump and other Republicans. 

Elon Musk has donated millions of dollars to back various Republican Party candidates. The reported amounts far exceed typical donor levels and include get-out-the-vote efforts plus later lottery-style incentives. Musk has spent roughly $366 million in the US mid-term elections so far to back Republicans.

In fact, the FEC filings show that despite his brief public fallout with President Trump last year, Elon Musk continued substantial donations to Trump-aligned GOP super PACs. 

Besides whopping donations, the camaraderie between America’s ruling dispensation and Elon Musk extends to non-political investments as well.  

Policy decisions being manipulated so Elon Musk could benefit 

President Trump’s financial disclosures indicate that his accounts purchased SpaceX stock, up to $50,000 range post-IPO, and, on 18th August 2026, between $1 million and $5 million in SpaceX senior unsecured notes, 5.35% due 2031.  

Just two days later, President Donald Trump signed a national space transportation policy aimed at over 1,000 annual US launches or reentries by 2030. With this, Trump expanded the US space transportation policy to commercial access and infrastructure, essentially the areas wherein SpaceX is dominant.  

More recently, Donald Trump awarded Elon Musk the National Medal of Science for engineering achievements in space exploration, intelligent systems, communications, and manufacturing, on 8th October. 

Musk’s SpaceX holds billions in NASA and defence contracts. In addition, Musk enjoys a strong backing from the Trump administration.  

Moreover, the Trump administration has also been accused of trading away public lands for corporate benefits, particularly by selling off public lands to well-connected corporate interests.  

 In fact, it was only after a bipartisan outrage that compelled President Trump’s congressional allies to remove public land sell-off provisions from the final version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025. However, low-profile land swaps have emerged as a loophole to keep the game going. 

In June 2026, the Trump government approved a land exchange with Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which provides 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge for expansion of the company’s rocket production and launch facilities in Starbase, Texas. In exchange, the US Fish and Wildlife Service received only 683 acres of formerly SpaceX-owned land, a portion of which will expand the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge. This land exchange was unrealistically expedited, as revealed in the internal government email. 

Elon Musk’s Starshield building spy satellites network for US National Reconnaissance Office 

In 2024, Reuters reported that Starshield, the military and intelligence arm of Starlink run by SpaceX, was producing a massive network of spy satellites for the US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). This program is being undertaken as per a classified contract signed in 2021 worth $1.8 billion. 

Moreover, SpaceX has also secured contracts to build satellites that track ballistic and hypersonic missiles.   

Despite closely working with a national-security regime in his country by holding classified contracts, secrecy requirements, and government control, Musk does not label NRO an ‘oligarchy’.  

However, when Indians say that they want that traffic from Indian users to be monitorable and controllable within India, and that the state be able to suspend Starlink service in case of national emergency, Musk cries ‘monopolistic chokehold’, ‘Prime Minister Ambani’, and resorts to behaving like a petty political troll. 

Musk either fails to comprehend what the real concern Indian netizens are raising or is deliberately dodging the question by making the issue about the impact on Ambani’s profits if Starlink enters the Indian market. 

Starlink approval is not an oligarch or monopolistic chokehold issue; it’s a national security question 

While Starlink facing regulatory scrutiny in India has caused unease for Elon Musk, New Delhi’s national security concerns are rooted in the country’s past experiences. 

In 2008, the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks resulted in the brutal killing of over 200 innocent civilians by Pakistani Islamic terrorists. What ensured uninterrupted communication between the Jihadis and their handlers, who were issuing real-time instructions while sitting in Pakistan, was a satellite phone manufactured by a UAE-based manufacturer, Thuraya Telecommunications Company. These satellite phones totally bypassed the Indian surveillance system. 

India’s geographical location is such that the country is surrounded by problematic neighbours, an outright cross-border Islamic terror sponsor Pakistan, Bangladesh, which is undergoing rapid Islamisation and tilting against India, and China, a rival that lays claim over India’s northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh.  

Separatists, infiltrators, and homegrown terrorists alike would easily have their hands on Starlink internet units, making it an extra burden on India’s national security architecture. This is particularly problematic because, unlike conventional telecom in India, which involves equipment manufactured by Indian companies and operates strictly under Indian laws, Starlink remove the centre of control from India, essentially making it beyond the range of interception by Indian security agencies.  

Not to forget, Indian security forces in Manipur recovered Starlink satellite equipment from Kuki terrorist groups, raising alarm bells over how advanced communication systems are being smuggled across borders into sensitive conflict zones. 

In Myanmar, signal intelligence reports revealed that transnational crime syndicates rely heavily on Starlink systems to run massive online scamming hubs targeting victims worldwide. Security forces raiding a Chinese-run scam centre in Myanmar seized 30 Starlink satellite units that provided high-speed connectivity for international fraud operations. 

In Africa, Islamic terror groups, including Jama’at Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), Boko Haram, and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), actively smuggle portable Starlink terminals across the borders of Nigeria and Libya into the Sahel region. By deploying these satellite kits across Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, terrorist organisations circumvent traditional telecom blackouts and enhance their command-and-control capabilities. 

In South America, Brazilian authorities found Starlink terminals installed at illegal gold mining sites deep within remote Amazonian rainforests, where wildcat miners used the internet connection to evade police raids and organise logistics. 

In fact, it was seen in January this year how SpaceX activated its satellite internet, Starlink, in Iran to help protesters bypass the internet ban imposed by the Mullah regime. 

As Elon Musk’s SpaceX enabled Starlink in Iran for free on 9th January, protesters with smuggled Starlink terminals bypassed government-imposed restrictions and gained access to an uncensored internet. It must be recalled that Starlink has been a major workaround in the 2022 Mahsa Amini and the 2019 anti-government demonstrations in Iran. Tens of thousands of Starlink terminals were smuggled into Iran, as there is a ban on owning the device or using SpaceX’s satellite internet. 

It was estimated that there were around 40,000 to 50,000 Starlink subscribers in Iran. 

All this when the Iranian authorities had not officially approved Starlink in the country. This episode perfectly exemplifies how Starlink, in times of crisis or political instability in a country, can be weaponised as a tool stoking unrest in a country or facilitating regime change. 

Elon Musk has been quite a vocal critic or ardent supporter of political leaders and heads of state across the world.  

Currently, Musk is using his social media platform X for political messaging about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and even calling for his ouster from power ahead of elections.  

Not to forget, Starlink became essential for civilian and military use in Ukraine after the war with Russia broke out. Now that Trump has struck a diesel deal with Russia, it is likely that Zelenskyy is going to get dumped by the US and painted as the reason behind the delays in the end of the war. 

With Musk, Trump’s billionaire lapdog, echoing his boss on Zelenskyy, Ukraine fears a Starlink outage. 

The 1.5 GB Battalion in action 

There is a famous X post which says, “Never attack Russia in winter. Never attack India by Twitter”. The Indian netizens, ironically, powered by the Ambani-owned Jio’s 1.5 GB data per day, are trolling Elon Musk with memes, facts, questions, and sarcasm. The bigger irony? This whole episode has been ongoing on the social media platform Musk owns.  

In response to Musk’s ‘Ambani monopoly’ rhetoric, one Indian X user asked, “Dear President Musk, Please let Chinese EV giant BYD enter the American market. Why should Tesla enjoy a monopoly?”  

Another one posted a meme which says, “Do such a work that even the world’s richest man is reduced to a beggar on his own app” 

Another X user highlighted news reports about Elon Musk’s connections with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  

Beyond memes, India’s security concerns about Starlink are real. Elon Musk and SpaceX should focus on compliance with Indian laws and addressing the concerns the Modi government is raising instead of whining about supposed ‘cronyism’, ‘monopolistic chokehold’, and weaponising X as a pressure campaign tool.  

Elon Musk, Trump’s billionaire lapdog: Musk echoes his boss on Zelenskyy after targeting India and calling Ambanis ‘crony capitalists’

0

Elon Musk has once again demonstrated how quickly his enormous social media platform can become an amplifier for political messaging. The billionaire owner of X has thrown his weight behind US President Donald Trump’s latest attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, declaring that the Ukrainian leader has “gone too far” after Trump demanded that Ukraine elect a new president.

The timing of Musk’s intervention is particularly noteworthy. Only days ago, the billionaire was attacking the Indian government and the Ambani family over regulatory hurdles facing his satellite internet company, Starlink. Now, as Washington escalates its confrontation with Kyiv, Musk has chosen to echo the American President’s position.

The contrast raises an important question about the principles underpinning Musk’s public interventions. Is the billionaire consistently standing up for what he believes is right, or does his willingness to challenge political authority depend on whose government is involved and whether its decisions affect his interests?

Musk backs Trump’s demand for a new Ukrainian president

On October 11, Musk responded to a post by the White House rapid-response account Rapid Response 47, which had shared a video of Trump criticising Zelenskyy and arguing that Ukraine needed a new president.

“Zelenskyy has gone too far,” Musk wrote.

The remark came amid a sharp deterioration in relations between Washington and Kyiv. Trump had accused Zelenskyy of repeatedly failing to reach an agreement with Moscow and argued that Ukraine should elect a leader capable of negotiating an end to the war.

The immediate backdrop was a dispute over Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries and a controversial arrangement announced by Trump to facilitate Russian diesel supplies to international markets.

Zelenskyy criticised the arrangement, arguing that easing restrictions on Russian energy exports could provide Moscow with additional resources to sustain its military campaign. Trump, meanwhile, blamed Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure for aggravating fuel shortages and putting pressure on American consumers.

Musk’s intervention effectively placed him alongside Trump in this confrontation. It was not an isolated instance of the billionaire criticising Zelenskyy. In 2025, Musk had also called for elections in Ukraine and made allegations about Zelenskyy’s popularity and corruption that were not substantiated by evidence in the statements cited in contemporary reporting.

There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with Musk expressing an opinion on the war or criticising a foreign leader. The question is whether his interventions reflect a consistent set of principles or a selective approach to political power.

When India exercises regulatory scrutiny, Musk takes a different tone

The contrast becomes more interesting when viewed alongside Musk’s recent confrontation with India over Starlink.

The satellite internet company has faced regulatory scrutiny as it seeks to establish and expand its services in India. Such scrutiny is hardly extraordinary. Telecommunications infrastructure involves questions of licensing, spectrum allocation, security requirements and lawful access to communications. Governments have legitimate responsibilities in each of these areas, particularly when the infrastructure is operated by a foreign company.

India’s regulatory requirements cannot simply be dismissed because they inconvenience a prominent entrepreneur. Nor should the commercial ambitions of a multinational company automatically take precedence over national security considerations.

Yet Musk’s public attacks on the Indian government and the Ambani family have helped frame the dispute as a broader battle against entrenched business interests and alleged crony capitalism.

That narrative deserves scrutiny in its own right. The existence of regulatory delays does not, by itself, establish that a government is acting to protect a particular business group. Such allegations require evidence, not merely the assertion of a billionaire whose company has a commercial interest in the outcome.

There is also a wider competitive context. India is developing its domestic space capabilities, while its telecommunications and satellite connectivity markets are commercially significant. Starlink’s expansion would inevitably intersect with existing operators and India’s strategic ambitions.

These factors do not prove that Musk’s attacks are motivated by commercial self-interest. They do, however, make it reasonable to examine his public statements alongside the business interests at stake.

The contradiction in Musk’s public posture

Musk has cultivated an image as a disruptive entrepreneur who challenges established institutions, questions conventional wisdom and resists political pressure. Since acquiring Twitter and rebranding it as X, he has repeatedly presented the platform as an important arena for free expression.

But the freedom to criticise governments is not the same thing as a commitment to challenge every government equally. Nor does opposing one administration automatically make someone a consistent champion of individual liberty. Musk’s public interventions have curiously been aligned with the US government’s stance.

Afraid that China would block the supply of rare earth minerals, the US has refrained from calling out Beijing over the purchase of Russian oil or other protectionist measures. Similarly, Musk has maintained a deafening silence on China’s ban on Starlink, possibly following the US government’s cue and for his own business interests — for Teslas are mainly manufactured in China.

In India’s case, Musk has been willing to publicly confront the government when Starlink’s commercial ambitions encounter regulatory obstacles. In Ukraine’s case, he has amplified Trump’s demand for a change in political leadership.

The two situations are not identical. India is considering the regulatory conditions under which a foreign company can operate, while Ukraine is fighting a war against Russia and facing pressure over the terms of a possible settlement. Treating the disputes as interchangeable would obscure important differences.

Nevertheless, both episodes illustrate Musk’s willingness to intervene in political debates that extend well beyond the immediate operation of his businesses.

The central issue is not whether Musk is entitled to hold these opinions. He plainly is. It is whether his self-presentation as an independent-minded defender of free expression withstands scrutiny when his interventions align with the priorities of political leaders who hold power over matters important to him.

Ukraine’s future cannot be reduced to a dispute between Trump and Zelenskyy

There is another fundamental consideration in the Ukrainian controversy: the right of Ukrainians to determine their own political leadership.

Trump can argue that Zelenskyy has failed to secure a peace agreement. Musk can agree with him. But neither man’s opinion substitutes for the political will of the Ukrainian people.

Ukraine’s wartime circumstances also complicate the question of elections. The country’s martial-law framework restricts the holding of national elections during the current period, making any discussion of a new president inseparable from the legal and security conditions under which voting could take place.

Moreover, the debate over negotiations cannot be separated from the conduct of Russia’s war. Any assessment of Zelenskyy’s approach must consider not only Kyiv’s decisions but also Moscow’s actions and the terms on which a durable settlement might be achieved.

A demand for new leadership is not, by itself, evidence that a change in leadership would produce peace.

The same standard of scrutiny should apply to Musk’s intervention. His enormous reach on X can turn a short remark into a global political talking point, but the scale of that reach does not make the argument more persuasive.

A billionaire’s principles deserve the same scrutiny as his business interests

Musk is entitled to criticise Zelenskyy, just as he is entitled to challenge India’s regulatory decisions. The point is not to deny him that freedom. It is to apply the same scrutiny to his conduct that he frequently demands of governments and other powerful institutions.

When India imposes regulatory requirements on Starlink, Musk’s supporters may frame the dispute as a struggle against political interference. When Trump demands that Ukraine replace its president, Musk’s supporters may interpret his endorsement as support for peace negotiations.

But the underlying question remains: what consistent principle connects these interventions?

If the answer is the defence of free speech, that principle should accommodate disagreement with both Indian and American authorities. If the answer is national sovereignty, it should recognise India’s right to regulate foreign telecommunications companies and Ukraine’s right to determine its political future.

Musk’s freedom to speak is not in question. The consistency of the principles he invokes is. When a billionaire who presents himself as an independent force in global affairs repeatedly enters political disputes, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether his positions are driven by a coherent philosophy or by the shifting alignment of political and commercial interests.

That question is particularly relevant when his latest intervention mirrors the position of the American President at a moment of heightened tension between Washington and Kyiv.

Leftist journalist Faye D’Souza says there’s no evidence CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s decisions benefitted the BJP or that voter names deleted in SIR were anti-BJP: The Indian Express hit job and eventual distancing from Opposition’s ‘Vote Chori’ bogey

On 9th October, Faye D’Souza, the leftist ‘independent journalist ‘, appeared on a France 24 English program ahead of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest on the 10th of October against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Faye D’Souza spoke at length about the dubious Indian Express report that passed off internal communication of dissent by the other two Election Commissioners regarding certain decisions about the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral rolls. 

Faye D’Souza cites the Indian Express report to insinuate that some decisions of CEC Gyanesh Kumar regarding SIR might be ‘illegal’ but admits that there’s no proof any of this benefitted the BJP electorally 

Interestingly, even Faye D’Souza, whose predisposition against the central government is well-known, conceded that contrary to the apocryphal narrative the CJP and Opposition parties are pushing, there is no evidence so far to back up the claim that “those voters deleted from the electoral rolls during the SIR exercise across various states in recent months, may have not voted for the BJP.” 

D’Souza discussed the claims in the Indian Express report, which passed off the dissent expressed by the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, about certain processes linked to the SIR exercise in internal communications as ‘evidence’ that the ECI was acting in a dictatorial fashion. 

“The evidence that we do have, or the evidence that The Indian Express has said it has, is documents that, according to The Indian Express, prove that two out of three election commissioners had objections to various parts of the process; that they raised questions during the parts of the process that were not answered; that their objections were ignored; that they were actually process decisions that were made that they weren’t even involved in. Now the reason why these are these things are a problem is because the law says very clearly that the chief election commissioner is just first among equals and really has no authority to make decisions on his own,” she said. 

D’Souza, however, insinuated that if the two Election Commissioners say that their objections were ignored during decision-making, then this makes certain decisions of CEC Gyanesh Kumar “illegal”. Regardless, the leftist journalist opined that there is no proof that CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s decisions, opposed by other ECs internally, benefitted the BJP in any manner.

“All decisions have to either be unanimous or by majority. So if two out of three say that they were kept in the dark or their objections were ignored or they weren’t even considered in some points, then this could arguably make some of these decisions illegal. And that is as far as, you know, the questions have been raised so far. The questions that we can ask for sure. Now whether the ruling party benefited from this or not is conjecture, and we don’t have really any evidence to, you know, say that conclusively,” D’Souza said. 

The Indian Express hit job and eventual distancing from the Opposition’s ‘vote chori’ bogey 

In late September 2026, The Indian Express published a dubious ‘investigative’ report casting aspersions on the integrity of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. This series of ‘investigative reports’, however, was, in reality, a well-timed hit job against CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The Indian Express claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months on issues concerning the Special Intensive Revision, Form 6, electoral-roll software, voter additions and deletions and other administrative decisions. The newspaper presented these findings as proof of an unprecedented rupture within the Election Commission. 

Highlighting the internal objections, the IE report wove an alarmist narrative that powers were being centralised in Delhi, that statutory Electoral Registration Officers were being bypassed, that software was overriding field-level decisions and that the Election Commission was facing an unprecedented institutional breakdown. 

The Election Commission issued an elaborate clarification stating that internal objections do not mean an institutional coup.  

In fact, the internal discussions and dissenting note exchanges by the CEC and the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, indicate that the Commission’s top officials freely and strongly express their opinions and disagreements about various issues pertaining to the electoral process and take decisions after thorough consensus, contrary to the framing that CEC Gyanesh Kumar alone holds the reins of the Election Commission. 

The Indian Express was widely used by the CJP leaders and INDI bloc politicians as some sort of ‘proof of “hijacking of India’s democracy” just because they lost elections in some states and the public rejected them for the third time in Lok Sabha elections. 

OpIndia reported earlier that neither the claims by The Indian Express report around the Form 6 modifications issue nor the claims about alleged “centralisation” of electoral roll databases are backed by enough evidence to support the ‘Delhi has taken over the voter database’ accusations. 

Interestingly, as the backlash mounted over sensationalising internal exchange of dissent notes by Election Commissioners as some sort of evidence of ‘power centralisation’ and ‘collapse of democracy’, The Indian Express subtly created distance between their claims about SIR to the ‘vote chori’ and ‘Election Commission compromised’ claims Rahul Gandhi, the INDI bloc and the CJP are peddling. 

On 10th October, the day the CJP supporters gathered in the National Capital to protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and demand his resignation, The Indian Express published an editorial titled: “It’s about the voter, not the party they vote for”. 

The editorial claims that The Indian Express‘s ‘investigation’ raised questions about the conduct of SIR of electoral rolls, an individual’s right to vote, and CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning and so on. However, it says that despite catching up with the CJP-led mobilisation, the Opposition’s narrative and approach regarding SIR and elections in recent years raise questions of their own. 

The Indian Express editorial argues that the Congress party’s, particularly Rahul Gandhi’s, “stolen elections, “annulment of SIR” and “return to the ballot paper” rhetoric, though it carries appeal across the ideological spectrum, is a loser’s complaint.  

The rhetoric that accompanies these scenes is of “stolen elections”, “annulment of SIR”, “going back to the ballot paper”. In other words, Congress has taken a powerful issue that cuts across the ideological spectrum, one that touches the right of every voter to shape the country of the future, to let itself off the hook for its own defeats. 

It also highlighted that Congress was on an election-losing spree even before the SIR, which began only in 2025, ahead of the Bihar state assembly elections. 

“Congress has not lost election after election for a decade and more because of the recent SIR or the poll referee. Nor was it that some EVMs failed to count its votes everywhere, except in Kerala or Karnataka. It needs to face up to its own deepening disconnect with the people — and that is separate from, not part of, the ECI-SIR story,” the editorial adds. 

Apparently, the opposition’s EVM hacking, VVPAT tampering, and Rahul Gandhi’s ‘vote chori’ bogey could not sow distrust in the minds of the Indian people against the Election Commission, its integrity and the transparency of the electoral process. Thus, the anti-BJP cabal has chosen CEC Gyanesh Kumar as their scapegoat. However, beyond charged rhetoric and on-street theatrics, their narrative is so weak and devoid of strong evidence that even their own ideological allies and fake news peddlers like Faye D’Souza are not buying it. 

Faye D’Souza and her track record of anti-BJP propaganda 

‘Journalist’ Faye D’Souza has earned notoriety for peddling anti-BJP propaganda and even fake news. 

During the 2020 Covid pandemic, D’Souza had retweeted a debunked story about the standard of N95 masks and protective equipment being distributed by the government   

D’Souza was also fact-checked over her statements on Justice S Muralidhar’s relocation from the Delhi High Court during 2020. She maintained that the Modi government executed a precipitous transfer of the justice due to his criticism directed at the Delhi Police and his orders mandating the lodging of First Information Reports (FIRs) against politicians accused of delivering inflammatory speeches. 

However, it was revealed that the move was proposed by the Supreme Court Collegium days before his judgment. The Union Law Ministry simply sent out the notification in accordance with the decision. Furthermore, the Collegium controls appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary, and the government has no role in these affairs. 

In early 2020, D’Souza had vehemently protested against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and accused the government of imposing the National Register of Citizens (NRC) without any clarification on the matter. Resorting to typical Marxist agitprop, D’Souza had posted a video captioned ‘Cheat Sheet for answering the WhatsApp uncles on CAA and NRC’, labelling supporters of CAA-NRC as ‘WhatsApp uncles’.  

‘200 officers in touch with us’, ‘vote chori’: Rahul Gandhi’s latest conspiracy bombshell against Modi govt and CEC Gyanesh Kumar, but where is the proof?

0

Rahul Gandhi has found a new way to escalate his confrontation with the Narendra Modi government and the Election Commission of India. On Monday, October 12, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha claimed that 200 officers within the Modi government were in touch with the Opposition and passing on information. He simultaneously accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other officials of facilitating “vote chori” and allegedly hijacking the country.

These are extraordinary allegations. Yet, as Gandhi made them, he did not publicly identify the 200 officers, disclose the information they had supposedly shared, or present documentary evidence establishing the alleged network. Nor did he present conclusive evidence at the press conference demonstrating that the Chief Election Commissioner had facilitated electoral fraud.

The question, therefore, is straightforward: if these allegations are as serious as Gandhi claims, why isn’t the supporting evidence before the public?

The ‘200 officers’ claim: An explosive allegation without publicly disclosed evidence

Speaking ahead of the INDIA bloc’s planned march to the Supreme Court, Gandhi declared that 200 officers from the Prime Minister’s government were communicating with the Opposition and passing on information. His statement was intended to convey that even officials within the government were supposedly assisting his campaign.

But a number is not evidence. Gandhi has not publicly named these officers, explained their respective roles, specified what information they have allegedly passed on, or produced verifiable material establishing the claim.

There is also a significant distinction between government employees privately expressing disagreement with the government and officials providing information that substantiates allegations of electoral wrongdoing. The former, even if true, would not automatically establish the latter.

If Gandhi possesses evidence of wrongdoing within the government or the Election Commission, he can disclose the relevant material to the appropriate authorities, subject to legitimate confidentiality and legal restrictions. If the information is sensitive, it can be presented through appropriate legal channels. What cannot reasonably be expected is that the public should accept the existence of an alleged network of 200 officers simply because the Leader of the Opposition says it exists.

The allegation creates an impression of a government whose own officials are supposedly helping expose a conspiracy. Until evidence emerges, however, that remains Gandhi’s claim, not an independently verified fact.

Where is the evidence of ‘vote chori’?

The same problem confronts Gandhi’s broader campaign against the Election Commission.

The Congress leader has repeatedly invoked “vote chori” while questioning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The INDIA bloc has also demanded changes to the electoral process and a halt to the revision exercise.

Electoral rolls must be accurate, and allegations of wrongful deletion, voter exclusion or manipulation deserve serious examination. Any citizen who is wrongly excluded from the electoral rolls should have access to effective remedies. But identifying administrative discrepancies is not the same as proving deliberate electoral fraud.

The Election Commission’s revision exercise and the Opposition’s objections to it raise questions that must be evaluated using verifiable records, the applicable rules and evidence of specific wrongdoing. A claim that names have been removed from electoral rolls does not, by itself, establish that votes were stolen to benefit a particular party. The reasons for deletions, the affected voters’ circumstances and any evidence of deliberate manipulation must be examined.

Gandhi’s rhetoric routinely jumps from alleged irregularities to sweeping claims of a conspiracy to hijack democracy. The public deserves to know precisely which elections, constituencies, records and decisions establish the alleged wrongdoing.

There is a particularly revealing development in this context. After an INDIA bloc delegation met President Droupadi Murmu on October 9, Gandhi said the President had asked the Opposition to provide evidence supporting its “vote chori” allegations. The delegation had sought action against the Chief Election Commissioner and alleged that electoral irregularities threatened democracy.

That request should not be difficult to understand. When someone alleges that a constitutional institution has facilitated electoral fraud, asking for supporting evidence is an elementary requirement of accountability, not an attempt to silence dissent.

Creating a political narrative before establishing the facts

Gandhi’s latest claims also serve an obvious political purpose: they help portray the planned protests as a national movement against an alleged conspiracy rather than a political confrontation centred on disputed allegations. It also gives him an edge over his CJP counterparts, who are stealing his limelight and challenging him on his turf.

By claiming that 200 government officers are sharing information with the Opposition, Gandhi creates the impression that the government’s own machinery is supposedly exposing wrongdoing. By accusing the Chief Election Commissioner of facilitating “vote chori”, he presents the controversy as a struggle between citizens defending democracy and officials allegedly undermining it.

He has also framed the issue as a battle to save the Constitution, insisting that the protest is not about Rahul Gandhi or Narendra Modi. He invited even BJP supporters to join the march, which was announced as part of the INDIA bloc’s effort to take its demands to the Supreme Court.

But repeating an allegation, surrounding it with dramatic language and organising a protest around it does not make it true. Political mobilisation can generate public attention; it cannot substitute for evidence.

Indeed, the more serious the accusation, the greater the responsibility to substantiate it. A claim that a government has enabled electoral fraud should be supported by material that can withstand scrutiny, not merely by speeches, slogans and press conferences. And curiously, these voter fraud allegations vanish when Congress wins state and bypoll elections.

A familiar problem: Making allegations and facing questions about proof

Gandhi’s political career has featured several high-profile confrontations over his public allegations. One notable example was his “chowkidar chor hai” remark, which he had wrongly attributed to the Supreme Court during the Rafale controversy. He subsequently tendered an unconditional apology to the court for that attribution.

That episode does not establish that every allegation Gandhi makes is false, nor does it mean that criticism of the government should be discouraged. Opposition leaders have a legitimate responsibility to scrutinise those in power, and exposing corruption or electoral malpractice is an important democratic function.

The problem arises when allegations are presented as facts before the evidence has been demonstrated. Gandhi’s critics have repeatedly accused him of making dramatic charges and then struggling to substantiate them. When asked, his record warrants scrutiny, but each new allegation must still be assessed on its own evidence rather than dismissed merely because of past controversies.

The same standard applies to the current dispute. If the Opposition has documentary proof of electoral manipulation, it should place that evidence before the relevant authorities and allow the claims to be examined. If the alleged 200 officers possess information that establishes wrongdoing, the Opposition should explain how that information supports its accusations.

Prove the allegations before demanding public acceptance.

The integrity of elections is too important to become a contest in which the loudest accusation automatically wins. The Election Commission should answer legitimate, evidence-based questions, and citizens must be able to challenge electoral irregularities through lawful mechanisms. Equally, political leaders must be held accountable for the claims they make.

Gandhi’s allegation about 200 officers remains unsubstantiated in the material he has publicly presented. His charge of “vote chori” also cannot be treated as proven merely because he has repeated it and organised protests around it. This does not establish that no irregularity has occurred; it means that the sweeping conclusions he has drawn require evidence that has not yet been publicly demonstrated.

The Supreme Court is an appropriate forum for legal grievances, not a stage on which political assertions acquire credibility merely through their delivery. If Gandhi believes he can establish his allegations, he should present the evidence and allow the legal process to test it.

But he won’t, because he lacks evidence to reasonably prove ‘vote chori’ is a reality. When Congress wins elections in Telangana and Kerala, CEC Gyanesh Kumar becomes a beacon of integrity. When Congress loses elections elsewhere, CEC Kumar is accused of engineering ‘vote chori’ and enabling ‘dictatorship’.

And when questioned if he has the evidence to prove his claims, the only answer that comes forth is: ‘ Youare working for the BJP and PM Modi.’

In reality, ‘vote chori’ is just a smokescreen to mask Congress’ incompetence.

Delhi Riots: Court denies UAPA-accused Natasha Narwal permission to visit the UK for research presentation at Soros-funded SOAS; read about her role in the 2020 violence and the UK varsity’s anti-Hindu activities 

On 6th October, a Delhi Court denied permission to Natasha Narwal, a UAPA accused in the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots larger conspiracy case, to travel to the UK for an academic conference and research-related work. 

Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts noted that the right to travel abroad is not absolute and that the pendency of the UAPA proceedings against Natasha Narwal, who was associated with the anti-Hindu Pinjra Tod outfit during the riots, remains a relevant consideration. 

The court, thus, rejected Narwal’s plea seeking permission to travel to the UK from 2nd November to 1st December 2026. Judge Sameer Bajpai held that given the seriousness of the case and the stage of proceedings, it would not be appropriate to allow the accused to go out of the country. 

“Further, the Court agrees with the submission of the Ld. SPP that although in its judgment dated 15.06.2021,
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi granted liberty to the applicant to seek permission of this Court for going abroad, but as the matter was serious, the Hon’ble High Court directed the applicant to surrender her passport, if the same was already issued to her,” the court said.

“Further, as far as the judgments as referred by Ld. Counsel for the applicant are concerned, the right of the applicant to travel abroad is not an absolute right and is subject to certain exceptions and the pendency of the present case under the provisions of UAPA is probably the most relevant exception,” it added.

The court stated that as the offences for which Narwal has been charge-sheeted are under the UAPA, which are punishable with life imprisonment and even with death penalty, and further, “as the matter is pending for consideration of charge, the Court doesn’t deem it appropriate to allow the applicant to visit abroad. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.”

Notably, Natasha Narwal sought permission to visit the UK to present a research paper, “Gendered Carceral Labour as Social Reproduction,” at the 23rd Annual Historical Materialism Conference, set to be held at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, from 5th to 8th November. 

In addition, she planned to visit the University of Warwick and do archival research at the British Library. 

Narwal contended that she had regularly attended court proceedings, has never failed to comply with bail conditions. In addition, the UAPA accused argued that if her plea is denied, she will also suffer financial loss. 

The court, however, did not deem it fit to grant permission to Natasha Narwal given the seriousness of the case. 

The prosecution had submitted that accused Natasha Narwal should not be granted permission to travel abroad in view of the charge’s pendency and the critical stage at which the case is.

The prosecution had submitted that while granting bail to Narwal in June 2021, the Delhi High Court had explicitly imposed a condition that the applicant shall surrender her passport and seek prior permission of the Court before travelling out of the country, and this condition was consciously imposed having regard to the gravity of the allegations and to ensure the applicant’s continued presence for trial.

In addition, the prosecution expressed apprehension that Narwal might leave for the UK and seek asylum there given the lenient extradition laws.

Delhi Riots accused Natasha Narwal wanted to attend a conference at the George Soros-funded university in London 

Interestingly, the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) Natasha Narwal wanted to visit has a documented track record of anti-India and anti-Hindu activities. The SOAS is funded by George Soros, the American philanthropist and regime change specialist, notorious for funding anti-India entities and individuals in and outside India.

In February this year, the SOAS released a dubious 218-page report titled ‘Better Together: Understanding the 2022 Violence in Leicester’.The inquiry ditched its initial claim that “no single community or group is to blame” for the violence, distrust, and tensions in Leicester, by repeating blame on Hindus and dedicating a full chapter and recommendations to portraying Hindus and Hindutva. The SOAS researchers, with an anti-Hindu past, presented Hindutva or Hindu nationalism as a ‘clear factor’, a ‘state-backed international project’, and a form of ‘extremism ’, equating it to what they called “political Islamism”. 

Amusingly, the SOAS propaganda report targeted OpIndia for its Leicester violence coverage. In the segment analysing the impact of social media on the incidents in Leicester back in 2022 and vice versa, the report almost ridiculed Hindu social media users for raising their voice against Islamist attacks on Hindus in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, particularly in Leicester under the hashtag #HindusUnderAttack. 

The report claimed that social media narrative manipulation was at play during the Leicester violence in 2022, with OpIndia being a significant contributor. It even suggested that the Bharat Mata Ki Jai slogan carries ‘Hindu nationalist’ sentiments. 

Even as it was Muslim leaders and Islamists like Majid Freeman who were found guilty of instigating violence against Hindus, the SOAS report claimed that Hindus from India’s Daman and Diu “were central actors in the events from May until September.” 

Despite the 2022 Leicester violence being a case of Islamist intolerance of unapologetic Hindus and India, the SOAS University of London report found Hindutva to blame. 

Role of Pinjra Tod activist Natasha Narwal in the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots 

Co-founder of the far-left group Pinjra Tod, Natasha Narwal is accused of orchestrating protests at Seelampur. The prosecution said that Narwal was made a part of the DPSG group, following her success in Seelampur. He added that she was a part of a meeting on 16th February and 17th February during which the Anti-CAA conspiracy was hatched. 

The prosecution has submitted in court that Narwal was privy to the principal conspirators. She was coordinating with the Jamia coordination committee.   

Notably, Narwal was arrested by the Delhi Police on 22nd May 2020, along with co-accused Devangna Kalita.  

While Pinjra Tod was founded in 2015 primarily in opposition to hostel curfews at Delhi’s colleges and universities, their far-left agenda had been evident for a long time. 

Unsurprisingly, Natasha Narwal has also been a columnist with several Left-leaning online portals in the past. She had written three articles for the far-left propaganda portal The Wire. Harbouring deep-seated hatred and Hinduphobia, Natasha Narwal has also written for NewsLaundry. 

Interestingly, in all her writings on the two platforms, while Natasha displays substantial hatred for Hindus and their traditions, even misrepresenting and lying about what the place of women is in Hindu society, she seems to have stayed clear of any targeted criticism of women’s place in Islam and the Muslim community. 

While the courts have earlier denied and then granted bail to Natasha Narwal, they have opined that prima facie the allegations against Narwal are true.  

In 2021, after reviewing the WhatsApp group DPSG’s chat under scrutiny, Additional Judge Amitabh Rawat said that there was a specific reference to Narwal and the distribution of red chilli powder to women so that they could attack police and paramilitary on 23rd February 2020. 

In June 2021, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Devangana Kalita of Pinjra Tod, Natasha Narwal of Pinjra Tod, and Asif Iqbal Tanha of SIO (Student Islamic Organisation). The High Court had exceeded its brief and made observations regarding the application of UAPA against the accused and the definition of terrorism itself. 

OpIndia reported in detail how the Supreme Court contradicted itself by not cancelling bail granted to Natasha Narwal and Devangna Kalita.

CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das released on a one-year bond on condition of not breaching peace: Read what the law says

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das were released on Sunday (October 11, 2026) on the orders of an Executive Magistrate after the trio signed a one-year bond. The CJP leaders were released 20 hours after their detention by the Executive Magistrate on the condition that they will not engage in breach of peace for one year.

The Delhi Police detained the top CJP leaders inside their flight at IGI Airport in Delhi to prevent them from organising an unlawful agitation at Jantar Mantar disguised as a demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The preventive action against the CJP leaders was taken under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Let’s understand what the law laid down under the two provisions says.

Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS are part of the legal framework that empowers the law enforcement authorities to take preventive measures in anticipation of an unlawful activity. The provisions allow the concerned authorities to take preventive action in anticipation that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity, or commit a cognizable offence.

In this case, the CJP leaders were trying to create unrest in the national capital by organising a protest for which permission was clearly denied by the Delhi Police, considering their past unlawful conduct. They planned to proceed to Jantar Mantar and had also urged their supporters to gather there to organise the illegal demonstration in violation of Section 163 of the BNSS, which was imposed at the place and various other parts of Delhi by the Delhi Police to maintain law and order. Due to this, the Delhi Police took them in preventive custody under Section 170 of the BNSS.

Pertinently, detention under the aforesaid provisions is different from a formal arrest, which is governed by Section 35 of the BNSS. A formal arrest is made after the commission or suspected commission of a cognisable offence, while a preventive detention is made before the commission of an offence or in anticipation of it.

Section 126 of the BNSS empowers a concerned Executive Magistrate to take preventive action against a person on receiving information that the person is likely to commit a breach of the peace, disturb public tranquillity, or do a wrongful act that may probably cause such a breach. The provision does not envisage detention, but it empowers the Executive Magistrate to require a person to execute a bond or bail bond to keep the peace for up to one year.

Screenshot via Indian Kanoon

If a person breaches a peace bond executed under Section 126, the immediate consequence is forfeiture of the bond/security, followed by a procedure for fresh security for the remaining period of the bond. Breach of the bond does not automatically mean imprisonment; however, if the person fails to furnish security, he can be sent to prison and released after he furnishes the security. Besides, a bond executed under the provision does not immunise the person from arrest or prosecution if he commits an offence in future.

The rationale behind the provision is to allow local administration to maintain peace and security in an area. It empowers the concerned authority to act proactively to prevent a law and order situation rather than taking action after the offence has been committed. The same rationale is found underlying Section 170 of the BNSS.

Section 170 of the BNSS empowers the police to arrest a person before a cognisable offence happens, if the police know of a plan to commit it and believe that arrest is necessary to prevent it. It is a preventive power, and a person arrested under the provision means is taken into preventive custody.

Screenshot via Indian Kanoon

Under the provision, the person cannot be kept in custody for more than 24 hours from the time of his arrest, unless continued detention is required or authorised by another BNSS provision or another law. The provision itself does not require signing of a bond or furnishing of security.

In the present case, the CJP leaders were detained by the Delhi Police under Section 170 and were placed before the Executive Magistrate and made to sign a bond under Section 126. Considering that the leaders are likely to organise an unlawful agitation, the Executive Magistrate made them sign a one-year bond, in which they undertook not to breach the peace for the said duration.

If the CJP leaders are found violating the one-year bond they signed, they may face forfeiture of their Rs 50,000 surety bond; fresh criminal proceedings can be initiated against them; and the police may impose stricter penal sections or take immediate legal action, including re-arrest or detention for any renewed breach of peace or law and order violations. 

Viral claim of ‘RSS men’ attacking girl during CJP protest is fake, it’s a boy and he abused the men before the fight

Social media is rife with fake news that a girl was attacked by so-called Hindutva/ RSS groups, and the police remained a mute spectator. The disinformation was spread quickly on social media by ‘influencers’, CJP and Congress handles alike.

The official handle of the Cockroach Janta Party posted, “DEEPLY DISTURBING! BJP-RSS goons beating a young girl in the presence of Delhi Police, with an officer seemingly guiding them to stop the recording. Why is Delhi Police helping goons attack peaceful protestors instead of protecting them? Who gave them this free hand?”

Other CJP spokespersons also capitalised on the fake news of assault on a girl by so-called RSS/ Hindutva men in the hopes of stirring sympathy for their otherwise flop show on Saturday (10th October).

The official handle of the Congress party tweeted, “BJP-RSS goons are beating up protesters in front of the Delhi Police. Modi-Shah have established a reign of hooliganism across the entire country. The video shows goons knocking a girl to the ground and beating her while the police just watches the spectacle.”

Needless to say, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi also peddled the same fake news, even claiming that he has given license and encouragement to the ‘real goons’ of RSS-BJP to unleash violence on women and youth.

YouTubers and pretentious ‘social media influencers’ such as Amit Khilor also weaponised the story for their political vendetta.

The broader claims made through the viral video were that, in the presence of the Delhi police, the so-called ‘RSS/BJP workers’ were able to thrash and tear the clothes of a girl without any resistance.

But a different angle of the same incident puts things in context. A group of 2-3 men were travelling in their car when they were provoked by a mob of CJP protestors.

A video shared by Dr Prakash Singh shows how the men were gheraoed and intimidated by the mob. In the visuals, it could be seen that the CJP goons were attacking their car and kicking the window panes.

He pointed out that a fake narrative is being peddled that two men named Ravinder and Ramandeep were tearing the clothes of a girl. Dr Prakash pointed out that the goons were showing middle fingers, shouting expletives and attacking their vehicle after seeing the sticker of ‘Jai Shree Ram’ on the back of the car.

Other Hindus activists pointed out that the CJP mob was rattled by the presence of saffron flags. Nonetheless, there is no iota of doubt that the mob provoked Ravinder and Ramandeep to take matters into their own hands.

It is thus important to clarify that the individual wearing a black T-shirt, who was one of the provocateurs, is not a girl but a boy. However, since this fact is unlikely to evoke sympathy, there is deliberate disinformation about the identity of the individual.

Not only that, but aspersions are also being cast strategically on the integrity of the Delhi police. It is being claimed that the cops remained mute spectators to the assault on a girl (who is, in fact, a boy).

As a matter of fact, this claim is ridiculous because the Delhi police have been showing extreme restraint for almost a week, tolerating aggressive attitude and verbal abuse by CJP supporters in the hopes of keeping things under control with minimal force. In the video shared by Dr Prakash, a cop could be seen

However, such deliberate lies are neither new nor uncommon. Earlier, OpIndia had debunked fake news claiming that the Delhi police had gheraoed the Bangla Sahib Gurdwara. It was done almost instantly from ground zero. But this did not deter the usual suspects from disseminating the fake news.

Having said that, a real case exists of a woman being pepper-sprayed and verbally abused by rabid CJP supporters for raising slogans of ‘Vande Mataram.’ The victim was identified as Mouli.

It is well known from the June/July 2026 protest of CJP that they are capable of creating anarchy on the streets and disrupting law and order. OpIndia has reported cases where mobs of Cockroach Janta Party supporters took the law into their own hands and assaulted cops.

‘Uncleaned voter roll protects the fraudster, not the voter’: 124 former civil servants back the Election Commission of India, support SIR of electoral rolls

On Saturday, 10th October, 124 former IAS, IFS, and other service officers have issued an open letter to the people of the country in support of the Election Commission of India and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls. The former officers defended the election process and said that claims of elections being “rigged” should be supported by proper evidence.

Notably, 42 judges have already released a similar letter in support of the commission on 7th October.

In the recent letter, the officers said they had spent their careers conducting and studying elections. They explained that the election system had improved significantly from the days when booth capturing, violence, stolen ballot boxes, and fake voting were common. Booth capturing became a criminal offence in 1989.

Former officers highlight improvements in elections

The letter pointed to Bihar’s 2025 Assembly election as an example of improved election management. According to the officers, Bihar recorded its highest voter turnout since 1951, with women voting in record numbers. The election also saw no re-polling, a first in the state’s history.

They highlighted, “We know what a rigged election looks like. We served in those days you know only from films: the katta at the booth, the bahubali’s men, ballot boxes stuffed or stolen, voters turned away. Booth capturing was so common that Parliament made it a crime in 1989. When violence speaks, democracy falls silent.”

The officers said the Election Commission had introduced several checks to protect voting. Candidates’ agents can observe the voting process, receive signed records of votes counted and monitor sealed voting machines kept in strong rooms. They also noted that matching paper slips with machine counts provides another layer of protection, a safeguard upheld by the Supreme Court in 2024.

They mentioned, “This did not happen because officials became saints. It happened because the system that the ECI created trusts no one blindly. Every candidate’s agent watches every booth and takes home a signed count of the votes cast. Machines are sealed with the agents’ signatures and guarded in strong rooms that candidates may watch.”

“Rigging would require thousands of officials and representatives of different political parties to remain silent,” the letter said, adding that no such conspiracy had been proved.

The officials also emphasised that the same logic is also applicable to the senior-most level. “The Election Commission was made a multi- member body, a design the Supreme Court upheld in 1995, so that no one person holds such power. Three Commissioners weigh every question from different angles, and that’s not something unforeseen,” the letter mentioned, addressing the alleged disagreement between the Election Commissioners.

SIR necessary to clean voter lists

Defending the SIR exercise, the former officers said Bihar’s voter lists had not undergone an intensive revision since 2003. They stated that the exercise identified around 22 lakh deceased voters, seven lakh duplicate entries and lakhs of people who had permanently moved away.

The letter said that removing such entries was necessary to prevent people from voting in someone else’s name. “An uncleaned roll does not protect the voter. It protects the fraudster,” the officers wrote.

They also rejected concerns that the SIR was intended to exclude voters. According to the letter, the draft voter list is provisional, and a missing name does not automatically mean that the voter has been removed permanently. Officials must issue notice and provide an opportunity to be heard before removing a name. Two levels of appeal are also available.

The officers added that around 21.5 lakh new voters were included during the exercise. Political parties can also appoint representatives to work alongside Booth Level Officers (BLOs).

The letter outlined, “Ordering a Special Intensive Revision is a cleaning up operation; it sanitises voters lists and weeds out ineligible voters. It brings some discomfort in the process, which is part of every major initiative to improve the health of Indian democracy.”

Supreme Court safeguards and Election Commission’s role

The letter highlighted the Supreme Court’s monitoring of the SIR process. The court did not stop the exercise but directed that the names of all 65 lakh people missing from Bihar’s draft voter list be published with reasons. It also allowed online claims, directed officials to accept Aadhaar as proof of identity, arranged free legal aid for appeals and warned that the exercise could be struck down if illegal practices were found.

The officers further stated that on May 27, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission’s authority to conduct the revision under Article 324 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, while adding safeguards for voters mistakenly removed from the list.

They also defended the Commission’s multi-member structure, noting that the Supreme Court had upheld the arrangement in 1995. They said the presence of three Election Commissioners helps ensure that decisions are examined from different viewpoints.

Officers urge citizens to check their names

The former officers said the Election Commission should not be judged based on political results. They pointed out that parties ruling at the Centre had lost elections in Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana, Jharkhand and Jammu and Kashmir under the same Commission. The ruling party also lost its parliamentary majority in the 2024 general election.

They urged citizens to check their names on voter lists and help parents, neighbours and migrant workers do the same. Those whose names are missing should file claims through the available process.

The letter also defended BLOs, many of whom are teachers and anganwadi workers, saying they work from door to door to update voter records.

“Question everything, but when someone says ‘rigged’, ask for proof they will swear to,” the officers wrote. They stressed that citizens have the right to question elections, but accusations should be supported by evidence and raised through legal channels, including objections to voter lists and election petitions before High Courts.

The letter concluded by warning that repeated claims of election fraud without proof could weaken public trust in democracy. It said the same election system should not be called fair when a party wins and dishonest when it loses.

A total of 124 former IAS, IFS, and other service officers signed the open letter. Their names and designations are listed below:

S. No.Name of OfficerFormer Designation
1Kanwal Sibal, IFSFormer Foreign Secretary
2R.D. Kapur, IASFormer Food & Public Distribution Secretary
3Samirendra Chatterjee, IASFormer Secretary, GOI
4Gopal Krishna, IASFormer Shipping & Transport Secretary
5Vivek Bhardwaj, IASFormer Panchayati Raj Secretary
6Anand Kumar, IASFormer Culture Secretary & Chairman, RERA
7Sarvesh Kaushal, IASFormer Chief Secretary, Punjab
8Iyer Krishna Rao, IASFormer Chief Secretary, AP
9L V Subramanyam, IASFormer Chief Secretary, A.P
10Ashok Kumar Sinha, IASFormer Chief Secretary, Bihar
11Palatt Mohandas IASFormer Chief Secretary, Kerala
12Shailendra Kumar, IASFormer Chief Secretary, Telangana
13Naveen Prakash, IASFormer West Bengal Information Commissioner
14Shyamala B. Causik, IFSFormer Ambassador
15Bhaswati Mukherjee, IFSFormer Ambassador
16Yogesh K Gupta, IFSFormer Ambassador
17Prabhu Dayal, IFSFormer Ambassador
18Ashok Kumar, IFSFormer Ambassador
19Vidya Sagar, IFSFormer Ambassador
20Ashok Sajjanhar, IFSFormer Ambassador
21J S Sapra, IFSFormer Ambassador
22N P SharmaFormer Diplomat
23Balakrishna Shetty, IFSFormer Ambassador
24Prabhat Shukla, IFSFormer Ambassador
25Anil Trigunayat, IFSFormer Ambassador
26J K TripathiFormer Ambassador
27Deepak Vohra, IFSFormer Ambassador
28K Aravinda Rao, IPSFormer DGP, Andhra Pradesh
29Sarvesh Chandra, IPSFormer DGP, WB
30S K Goel, IRSFormer Chairman, CBEC
31Nikhilesh Jha, IASFormer Special Secretary, GOI
32Navneet Sehgal, IASFormer Chairman, Prasar Bharti
33Vinod Kr Agarwal, IASFormer Special Chief Secretary, Telangana
34Sheela Priya, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, TN
35B R Naidu, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, MP
36Sunil Kumar Gulati, IASFormer Special Chief Secretary, Haryana
37T Balakrishnan, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, Kerala
38Rajhans Upadhyaya, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, Rajasthan
39M.L.Meena, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, WB
40M. Madan Gopal, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, Karnataka
41Hemant K Sinha, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu
42N Manjunatha, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, Karnataka
43Mahendra Kumar Parekh, IASFormer Chairman, Rajasthan Tax Board
44Jairaj Pathak, IASFormer DG, All India Institute of Local Self Govt Maharashtra
45A K Monnappa, IASFormer Secretary, Karnataka
46M Lakshminarayana, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, Karnataka
47B H Anil Kumar, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, Karnataka
48P B Ramamurthy, IASFormer Addl Chief Secretary, Karnataka
49Shyam Sunder Bissa, IASFormer Secretary, Rajasthan
50N N Pandey, IASFormer State Election Commissioner
51Ramesh Chander Nayyar, IASFormer Principal Secretary, Punjab
52Yogendra Bhakt, IASFormer Member, Bihar Public Service Commission
53C M Seth, IFoSFormer Chairman, J&K Pollution Board
54J B Goyal, IASFormer Secretary, Punjab
55G G Saxena, IASFormer Secretary, Delhi
56Atanu Purkayastha, IASFormer Member Secretary, CIC
57Surender K Ghonkrokta, IASFormer Chairman, State Food Commission
58S P Gupta, IASFormer Chairman, Animal Board of India
59C. Umamaheswara Rao, IASFormer Principal Secretary, Andhra Pradesh
60S L Gangadharappa, IASFormer Principal Secretary, Karnataka
61N Prabhakar, IASFormer Secretary, Karnataka
62B F Patil, IASFormer Secretary, Karnataka
63Ramesh Zalki, IASFormer Secretary, Karnataka
64S.S Uppal, IASFormer Secretary, M.P
65Shailesh Kr Pathak, IASFormer Secretary, M.P
66Suarsan Nayak, IASFormer Special Secretary, Orissa
67Arun Kumar, IASFormer Secretary, Jharkhand
68R S Poddar, IASFormer Secretary, Jharkhand
69Shiv Ji Chaoupal, IASFormer Secretary, Jharkhand
70Meena Thakur, IASFormer Secretary, Jharkhand
71Ashok Kumar Tripathy, IASFormer Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa
72Pramod Kumar Mohanty, IASFormer Special Secretary, Orissa
73Awinash Kumar Singh, IASFormer Addl Secretary, Jharkhand
74Mubarak Singh, IASFormer Vice Chairman, JDA, J&K
75Deepak Nandi, IASFormer Divisional Commissioner, Rajasthan
76K K Sharma, IASFormer Divisional Commissioner, Rajasthan
77Niranajan Sahu, IASFormer Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Orissa
78Om Prakash Baiwara, IASFormer Director, College Education, Rajasthan
79Chandra Mohan Kashyap, IASFormer Commissioner
80Raj Kumar Singh, IAS
81Prashant Naik, IASFormer Secretary, Meghalaya
82Arun Kumar Bhatt, IASFormer Secretary, M.P
83S S Rana, IRS, IRSFormer Principal Commissioner, Income Tax
84R K Gupta, IRSFormer DG, Income Tax
85Devendra Mishra, IRSFormer Principal Commissioner, Income Tax
86Vijay Singhal, IRSFormer Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax
87Vijay Kumar, IRSFormer Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax
88Pradeep Sharma, IRSFormer Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax
89M M Juneja, ICLSFormer DG, CoA, Ministry of Corporate Affairs
90G Manoj Kumar, IRSFormer Principal Commissioner Income Tax
91Navneet Soni, IRSFormer DG, Customs & GST
92Gobinda Bhattacharya, IAASFormer Dy CAG
93A.K.Malhotra, IFSFormer PCCF, Jharkhand
94Devendra Pandey, IFoSFormer PCCF (HoFF)
95Radha Krishan Goel, IFoSFormer Director, Indira Gandhi Forest Academy
96Kishore Rao, IFoSFormer Director, UNESCO
97Deo Dutt Sharma, IFoSFormer Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board
98Anand Mohan Sharma, IFoSFormer PCCF, Jharkhand
99A K Gulati, IFoSFormer PCCF, H.P
100RMN Sahai, IFoSFormer PCCF, Karnataka
101Kanwerpal, IFoSFormer PCCF, Karnataka
102Ganesh Sugur, IFoSFormer PCCF, Karnataka
103Brij Kishore, IFoSFormer PCCF, Karnataka
104I B Srivastava, IFoSFormer PCCF, Karnataka
105Kishan Singh Sugara, IFoSFormer PCCF, Karnataka
106A P Chaudhary, IFoSFormer PCCF, AP
107Raj Sood, IFoSFormer PCCF, HP
108Raj Kumar Mahtolia, IFoSFormer Addl PCCF, WB
109O P Khare, IFoSFormer Addl PCCF, MP
110N D Tiwari, IFoSFormer Addl PCCF, Karnataka
111B B Goyal, ICASFormer Chief Advisor Cost, MOF
112M K Anand, ICASFormer Principal Advisor Cost, MOF
113Shubha Bambhani, ITSFormer Addl DG, DoT
114Harekrushna Sahu, IRASFormer F&A and CAO, South Eastern Railway
115K Rangarajan, IRASFormer General Manager, Railway
116Krishna Pratap Singh, IRSFormer ADG Export Promotion
117Jai Shankar Tiwary, IASFormer DC, Ranchi
118Dilip Jha, IASFormer DC
119Jata Shankar Chaudhary, IASFormer Commissioner
120B P Singh, IESFormer Director, IRCON
121V P SinghFormer Director, IRCON
122R V S ManiFormer Dy. Secretary, MHA ( Padma Shri Awardee)
123J P Prakash, IRSFormer Commissioner, Income Tax
124Pradeep Kumar, IRSFormer Commissioner, Income Tax

As Abhijeet Dipke claims ‘even Indira didn’t do this’ after his airport detention, read what the Congress govt actually did to torture the Opposition during the 1975 Emergency

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijit Dipke and fellow party leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were detained by Delhi Police shortly after their flight landed at Indira Gandhi International Airport on Saturday, 10th October. The police team boarded their flight shortly after it touched down in the national capital to take the leaders into custody. Right before the police stepped in, Dipke recorded a video inside the aircraft and posted it on social media.

In his video statement, Dipke targeted the government, alleging that police were picking up young leaders to block a protest. Raising slogans like “Inquilab Zindabad,” he claimed, “Picking up 30-year-olds straight off the plane is something even Indira Gandhi didn’t do during the Emergency.” He called the police action a clear sign of fear within the ruling dispensation and went on to describe it as a “dictatorship”.

The action against the CJP leaders came right ahead of their planned demonstration at Jantar Mantar, which had not been permitted. The protest was organised against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with the party demanding his resignation over alleged irregularities in electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and controversy surrounding Form 6 voter registrations.

Following the airport detention, CJP leaders immediately began crying foul, trying to equate basic police preventive measures with the brutal era of Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. However, drawing a parallel between routine law-enforcement checks and the state-sponsored terror of 1975 shows a severe lack of historical understanding or a deliberate attempt to gain political sympathy.

Comparing modern security precautions with the darkest chapter of Indian democracy ignores what actually happened during the Emergency. Under Indira Gandhi, civil liberties were completely suspended, press censorship was absolute, and democratic rights were erased overnight. Equating a temporary airport detention with the night of 25th June 1975, completely distorts the reality of India’s past.

The dark era of 1975: How the opposition was brutally silenced

On 25th June, 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a National Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing internal disturbance. This step was taken right after the Allahabad High Court invalidated her 1971 election victory and banned her from holding elected office for six years. Within hours of the declaration, opposition stalwarts were rounded up across India in late-night raids, and fundamental rights were frozen.

Indira Gandhi’s government did not spare prominent opposition leaders during the Emergency. Jayaprakash Narayan, popularly known as Lok Nayak, was among those detained. He had led a movement demanding what he called Sampoorna Kranti, or total revolution, and had become one of the most prominent voices against corruption and the Congress government’s functioning.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani, both senior leaders of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, were also arrested. Vajpayee spent nearly 19 months in prison, while Advani’s experience during the Emergency later informed his criticism of the media’s response to government pressure. His widely remembered remark was: “When asked to bend, they crawled.”

Former Deputy Prime Minister Morarji Desai was jailed as well. After the Emergency ended, he became India’s first non-Congress Prime Minister. Chaudhary Charan Singh, another prominent opposition leader, was also detained and later emerged as a major figure in anti-Congress politics.

Socialist leader George Fernandes was arrested in the Baroda Dynamite Case after organising resistance to the government. He had spent time underground before his arrest and later contested the 1977 general election from Muzaffarpur in Bihar while still in prison, winning the seat.

These arrests reflected the extent to which the government acted against its political opponents. The Emergency also weakened institutional checks on executive power and placed severe restrictions on the press. Newspapers faced censorship, while people who criticised the government risked detention.

The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) became the most abused law during the Emergency, allowing the state to jail anyone indefinitely without trial or charge. Thousands of political workers and leaders were locked away under MISA for months.

MISA became closely associated with the arbitrary detention of people who opposed the government. Political activists, opposition leaders and others were held without the ordinary protections available through a criminal trial. The law’s use during the Emergency remains one of the most criticised aspects of Indira Gandhi’s rule.

The ruthless assault on students and youth

While political leaders were locked in cells, the Indira Gandhi-led Congress government showed no mercy to innocent students either. Today, leaders like CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke often complain about Delhi Police’s routine security management, framing it as “brutality on students.” 

When looking back at history, the treatment of students during the Emergency was not a matter of temporary detention; it was a campaign of state-sponsored torture, custodial abuse, and outright murder.

Instead of encouraging education and building careers, the Congress regime used the full force of police power to crush young boys and girls who stood up for democratic freedom. The government’s crackdown affected students who were part of the wider movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan. The movement had attracted young people from different political backgrounds who were demanding action against corruption, rising prices and misgovernance. Instead of treating all such protests as an opportunity for political dialogue, the authorities increasingly relied on arrests and force to control dissent.

Horrific accounts of student abuse and torture

The sheer scale of violence against student activists between 1975 and 1977 remains horrifying. Students across colleges and universities were subjected to inhuman methods of physical abuse:

The “Aeroplane” torture: In Karnataka, police regularly used a method called the “aeroplane.” A student’s hands were tied behind their back with a rope, and they were pulled high off the ground using a pulley, suspended in midair while being beaten into unconsciousness. Student leaders Puttu Swamy, Padmanabh Harihar, and Shrikant Desai in Hubli, as well as Ravi in Mysore, were subjected to this horrific treatment. Udaya Shankar, a student from Canara College in Mangalore, was dragged away without a warrant, severely beaten until his body was covered in deep bruises, denied food, and put through the “aeroplane” torture three separate times in the presence of senior officers.

Delhi University horrors: DU Union Secretary Hemant Kumar Vishnoi was picked up during a picnic at Buddha Gardens. He was hung upside down, beaten, and had burning candles applied to his bare soles, along with chili powder stuffed into his nose and rectum, all to force a fake confession. DU student Mahavir Singh was tortured so brutally that his skin peeled off at the touch of his own clothes, while Shiv Kumar Sharma was forced to inhale chili powder and beaten with rifle butts. Student leader Ashwini Kumar was made to lie flat on the floor while a police constable danced on his chest in heavy boots. Over 200 Delhi University teachers were arrested on a single day on 26th June, 1975.

JNU abuses: Jasbir Singh, a student from Jawaharlal Nehru University, was held in a police station and beaten for hours with wooden clubs and boots. The next day, he was chained to a pole between two chairs and swung back and forth until he vomited blood, while officers threatened to throw his body into the Yamuna River.

The torture of Ashwini Kumar Choubey: Even before the formal Emergency, former Union Minister Ashwini Kumar Choubey faced extreme brutality as an RSS student leader at Patna University supporting Jayaprakash Narayan. In June 1974, he was arrested, forced onto a scalding hot iron chapati pan, beaten with iron rods, and left for dead inside a sack. He survived only after fellow activists broke into the jail. During the Emergency in 1975, he was re-arrested while trying to take his B.Sc. exams and kept in a dark, mosquito-infested cell near the mentally challenged ward in Buxar Jail without adequate food or water, leading to severe kidney damage.

The movement escalation: In Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, peaceful student protests were met with live police firing. In Bhopal in 1973, eight students were shot dead during a strike. During the Bihar Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti demonstrations in 1974 led by youth leaders like Lalu Yadav, Sushil Modi, and Ram Vilas Paswan, police opened fire multiple times, killing over a dozen students on the streets.

The tragic custodial death of P. Rajan

Among all the atrocities committed against students, the case of P. Rajan remains one of the most tragic examples of Emergency-era cruelty.

P. Rajan was a final-year engineering student at the Regional Engineering College, Calicut. On 1st March, 1976, he was picked up by the Kerala Police under the mistaken suspicion of having links to Naxalite activists who had attacked a police station. In reality, Rajan had no connection to the incident. Police officers under Crime Branch DIG Jayaram Padikkal had simply been ordered to round up every person named “Rajan” in the area.

Rajan was taken to the Kakkayam police camp, where he was subjected to continuous third-degree torture, including the use of heavy iron and wooden rollers pressed onto his body. He died in unlawful police custody on 2nd March, 1976.

To cover up the crime, the police disposed of his body, which was never recovered. His father, Professor T.V. Eachara Warrier, fought a long and lonely legal battle, writing to the Prime Minister, Home Minister, and MPs, asking for his son’s whereabouts. The truth was finally forced out in the Kerala High Court only after Eachara Warrier filed a Habeas Corpus petition. The state government, under then Home Minister K. Karunakaran, was forced to admit in court affidavits that Rajan had indeed died due to continuous police torture while in custody.

Forced sterilisations and mass human rights violations

The nightmare of the Emergency extended far beyond political detentions and student abuse. Under the unchecked authority of MISA, an estimated 1,40,000 to over one million citizens, including journalists, academics, and peaceful protestors, were held without charges or trial for up to 18 months.

The regime also targeted the ordinary public through aggressive mass control programs. Led by Sanjay Gandhi, the administration launched an unconstitutional forced sterilisation drive. Driven by target-based quotas and backed by foreign development grants, police force was used to round up vulnerable citizens. 

Entire villages were surrounded, and poor, uneducated men were forcefully dragged to makeshift surgical camps. In a single year, approximately 6.2 million men were forcibly sterilised, a figure over 15 times greater than the sterilisations conducted during Nazi rule. Complete lawlessness prevailed, to the extent that even a commercial airliner was hijacked by regime sycophants, an act later shamelessly defended in Parliament.

Modern law enforcement vs. historical dictatorship

When CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke compares basic preventive actions at Delhi airport to Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, the comparison crumbles under the weight of historical facts. The temporary detention of these so-called political organisers heading to a planned unrest bears no resemblance to an era marked by mass sterilisations, complete press censorship, suspended constitutional rights, and custodial killings.

Furthermore, current law enforcement measures are grounded in specific security requirements. During previous CJP-led demonstrations in July, agitators caused widespread public disruption, damaged public property, and clashed with security personnel under the banner of student protests. Subsequent police investigations revealed that behind the guise of an organic, youth-led agitation, over 2,800 individuals with serious criminal antecedents had entered the crowds.

What was promoted as a completely spontaneous movement was, in fact, an organised political effort handled by experienced political workers, relying on impressionable students as front-line cover. Taking lawful, preventive measures to maintain order and protect public safety in a capital city is the fundamental responsibility of any elected government, not a dictatorship. 

Attempting to hide behind the dark legacy of the Emergency only serves to undermine the genuine suffering of thousands who lived through India’s real democratic crisis. It is equally important that political leaders do not use the suffering of that period merely as a rhetorical tool. Any comparison with the Emergency should be based on evidence, not just political slogans.

As Elon Musk whines about Starlink clearance in India, read about the billionaire’s connection to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein

In a dramatic escalation of his push to enter the Indian telecom market, tech billionaire Elon Musk stepped up his personal and political attacks against Reliance Industries Chairman Mukesh Ambani and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Musk turned to his social media platform, X, to launch a series of blistering posts aimed at Ambani and the political establishment.

Musk’s latest barrage featured screenshots of media reports alleging a close nexus between Reliance and the ruling party. He shared a 2022 Al Jazeera report titled “How a Reliance-funded firm boosts BJP’s campaigns on Facebook” alongside an archived 2024 Indian Express article about Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited. Sharing these articles was part of Musk’s attempt to portray Indian telecom regulations as an insider’s game rigged to protect domestic giants.

This post followed an even more direct jab earlier the same day, where Musk openly mocked Mukesh Ambani’s influence in Indian politics. “Dear Prime Minister Ambani, Please accept my humble apologies for not realising that you are the real boss of India. Naturally, you would prefer to maintain your monopolistic exploitation of the great people of India, but would you nonetheless consider allowing Starlink to compete?” Musk wrote. He further alleged that certain “oligarchs” were seeking to block Starlink in order to “maintain their monopolistic chokehold on the Indian people.”

Reliance has chosen not to publicly respond to Musk’s provocative comments.

Unearthing the Epstein Files: Released documents show Musk’s interest in Epstein’s parties

As Elon Musk poses as a champion of open competition and play against corporate powerhouses in India, he is struggling to defend own reputation back home in the United States. The released Justice Department documents in January this year revealed that Musk had far more extensive and friendly communications with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein than he had previously admitted.

The Department of Justice made public a massive tranche of 3 million documents, shedding light on Epstein’s networks with world leaders, politicians, and business titans. Among these files were email threads showing Musk and Epstein cordially messaging each other between 2012 and 2013 to schedule a trip for Musk to Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little St. James.

In November 2012, Epstein emailed Musk asking, “How many people will you be for the heli to island”. Musk replied, “Probably just Talulah and me. What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” referring to his former wife, Talulah Riley. On Christmas Day in 2012, Musk wrote back to another invitation from Epstein: “Do you have any parties planned? I’ve been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I’m looking for.” Epstein responded, “Understood , I will see you on st Barth, the ratio on my island might make Talilah uncomfortable,” to which Musk quipped, “Ratio is not a problem for Talulah.”

Logistical issues ultimately prevented the trip from taking place. On 13th December 2013, Musk checked in again: “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?” Epstein answered, “any day 1st – 8th . play it by ear if you want. always space for you.” The two settled on 2 January, but Epstein had to cancel because he was held up in New York, writing to Musk, “Bad news- Unfortunately , my schedule will keep me in New York . I was really looking forward to finally spending some time together with just fun as the agenda. so i am very disappointed.”

These revelations starkly contradict Musk’s previous statements, shortly after Epstein’s arrest in July 2019. The Tesla CEO told Vanity Fair in 2019 that Epstein was “obviously a creep” and claimed that Epstein “tried repeatedly to get me to visit his island. I declined.” While Musk previously admitted to visiting Epstein’s Manhattan apartment for 30 minutes with Talulah Riley for book research, he always maintained he turned down island invitations. He also claimed that a widely circulated photograph showing him with Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, was merely a case of her “photobombing” him at a party.

The DOJ files also include records from Epstein’s assistant, Lesley Groff, making plans for Epstein to have lunch at SpaceX headquarters on 25th February 2013, as well as friendly congratulatory notes sent by Epstein after SpaceX rocket launches. 

Earlier, in September 2025, documents released by Congressial Democrats on the US House Oversight Committee also mentioned Musk’s name. One entry in Epstein’s schedule, dated 6th December, 2014, read: “Reminder: Elon Musk to island Dec. 6 (is this still happening?)”

In response to the document release, Musk took to X and attempted to clarify his position, insisting he had nothing to hide. “No one pushed harder than me to have the Epstein files released and I’m glad that has finally happened. I had very little correspondence with Epstein and declined repeated invitations to go to his island or fly on his ‘Lolita Express’, but was well aware that some email correspondence with him could be misinterpreted and used by detractors to smear my name. I don’t care about that, but what I do care about is that we at least attempt to prosecute those who committed serious crimes with Epstein, especially regarding heinous exploitation of underage girls,” Musk posted. 

Image via X

SpaceX paid $250,000 to settle sexual Misconduct case against Elon Musk

Compounding the intense scrutiny surrounding Musk’s sexual misconduct, revelations surfaced regarding a $250,000 settlement paid by SpaceX in 2018 to resolve a sexual misconduct case involving Musk. The case involved a flight attendant who worked on a contract basis for SpaceX’s corporate jet fleet.

According to a declaration signed by a friend of the attendant, the flight attendant was encouraged by her superiors to complete professional masseuse training at her own expense so she could provide massages to Musk during flights. During a late 2016 flight to London inside a private cabin on Musk’s Gulfstream G650ER jet, Musk asked her to come to his room for a full-body massage. The attendant found Musk completely naked except for a sheet covering the lower half of his body. During the massage, Musk exposed his erect penis, touched her thigh without consent, and offered to buy her a horse if she would perform sex acts. The attendant declined the proposal and continued with the massage without engaging in sexual conduct.

Following her refusal, the flight attendant experienced retaliation, with her work shifts cut back significantly. Feeling pushed out, she retained a California employment lawyer in 2018 and submitted a complaint to SpaceX’s HR department. The matter was resolved quickly following a mediation session attended by Musk personally, culminating in a $250,000 severance payment bound by strict non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements.

Global security concerns: Starlink’s connection to crime and terrorism

Beyond Musk’s controversial personal ties, Indian national security agencies and global law enforcement bodies have serious reservations regarding the deployment of Starlink technology. Around the world, Starlink’s high-speed, satellite-based internet terminals have repeatedly ended up in the hands of terrorist groups, scam syndicates, and violent criminals.

The threat has already hit close to home for India. Security forces in Manipur recovered Starlink satellite equipment from Kuki terroists groups, raising alarm bells over how advanced communication systems are being smuggled across borders into sensitive conflict zones.

This issue extends far beyond India’s borders. In Myanmar, signal intelligence reports revealed that transnational crime syndicates rely heavily on Starlink systems to run massive online scamming hubs targeting victims worldwide. Security forces raiding a Chinese-run scam centre in Myanmar seized 30 Starlink satellite units that provided high-speed connectivity for international fraud operations.

In Africa, violent extremist organisations have exploited Starlink to coordinate brutal campaigns. Islamic terror groups, including Jama’at Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), Boko Haram, and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), actively smuggle portable Starlink terminals across the borders of Nigeria and Libya into the Sahel region. By deploying these satellite kits across Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, terrorist organisations circumvent traditional telecom blackouts and enhance their command-and-control capabilities.

In South America, Brazilian authorities discovered Starlink terminals installed at illegal gold mining sites deep within remote Amazonian rainforests, where wildcat miners used the internet connection to evade police raids and organise logistics.

Starlink’s potential for geopolitical misuse became glaringly evident during the conflict in the Middle East. Elon Musk triggered massive international concern when he announced plans to provide Starlink satellite internet to recognised aid organisations in Gaza following an internet blackout during military operations. The decision drew fierce opposition from Israeli authorities, who warned that the terrorist group Hamas would inevitably hijack the connectivity to plan and carry out insurgent attacks.

Indian government dismisses allegations, prioritises National security

Given the real-world security risks demonstrated across multiple continents, the Indian government has firmly rejected Musk’s narrative that Starlink is being blocked to shield domestic monopolies like Reliance. Official statements emphasise that telecom licensing is strictly a matter of national security and regulatory compliance, not political favouritism.

Addressing Musk’s aggressive social media posts, the government clarified its position, stating: “The Government has put in place a fair and non-discriminatory authorisation framework for all telecommunication services, including satellite communication services. Under this, telecom licences have been granted to three Global Mobile Personal Communication by Satellite services based on non-geosynchronous satellite orbit-based satellite communications, as part of its commitment to enable provision of satellite communication services in India.”

The government made it clear that every operator seeking to offer satellite broadband must undergo rigorous security vetting before being allowed to operate or receive spectrum assignments. “Under the terms and conditions of license, every such licensee is required to demonstrate compliance with security conditions. This is aimed at ensuring that services provided meet various security requirements to ensure safety of all users and their data. Security assessment as part of this process is currently under way in respect of all the three licensees,” the government explained.

Rubbishing claims of cronyism, official authorities confirmed that all applicants are treated equally and face the exact same security standards. “As and when this process is completed for a licensed entity, it may proceed to the next step of seeking assignment of spectrum. At present, all three entities are at broadly the same regulatory stage. As such, the suggestion that the framework or its application is unfair or discriminatory is baseless and misconceived,” the statement concluded.

Ultimately, while Elon Musk continues his public relations war against Mukesh Ambani and the Indian government, New Delhi remains steadfast. Facing valid security concerns illuminated by global instances of Starlink misuse, the government is taking a cautious, safety-first approach to protect national sovereignty and consumer data before handing over the keys to India’s digital skies.