After spearheading the malicious media campaign to malign a Hindu religious institution in the Dharmasthala mass grave hoax, Dhanya Rajendran’s The News Minute has now stooped to a new low by monetising on someone’s personal agony. In a recently published “exclusive” report, The New Minute carried out a hit job against Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu by misrepresenting a California court order in his divorce case.
In the article, The News Minute relied on a year-old court order in his divorce proceedings to mar Vembu’s reputation. The article claimed that Vembu’s public image of a role model and someone with “simple living and high thinking” was contradicted by the pre-trial findings of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, which is hearing his divorce case. The article mentioned that the court order directed Vembu to post a bond of $1.7 billion, and appointed a receiver over multiple Zoho entities in the US and his personal assets, to protect his ex-wife Pramila Srinivasan’s rights.
It produced an excerpt from the court order which read: “The record in this case demonstrates that Petitioner (Sridhar) has acted without regard for Respondent’s (Pramila’s) interests in community assets and without regard for the law, and that Zoho Corporation, T&V Holdings, Inc., Tony Thomas, ZCPL and related entities will act at Petitioner’s direction to further Petitioner’s interest and prejudice Respondent’s interests.”
The media outlet presented the allegations levelled by Vembu’s wife, Pramila Srinivasan, as facts to insinuate that he did not want to give his wife her due share in their shared assets. The article also stated that an “extensive profile of the tech billionaire” was soon going to be published in The News Minute.
The News Minute’s propaganda countered by Vembu’s attorney
The online media portal’s attempt to tarnish the image of Vembu, a supporter of nationalist causes, which seems to have made him a target of the hit job, was countered by his attorney in an online post. Vembu’s attorney, Christopher C. Melcher, called out The News Minute for relying on a January 2025 court order, which was on appeal, and pointed out that some facts were missing from their article. Melcher explained that the allegations levelled by Vembu’s wife against him were “outrageously false” and that her lawyer, who accordting to Melcher, is not even licensed to practice law in California, misled the judge. He stated that the part of the California court order relating to the appointment of a receiver over multiple Zoho entities has been stayed on appeal and that the $1.7 billion bond order is on appeal.
As Sridhar Vembu’s counsel, I can add some facts missing from the article. The order was made 1 year ago on an emergency application by his wife, meaning we had little time to response to the outrageously false allegations she made against Sridhar. The judge in California was…
The news article refers to an old order partially stayed on appeal: Vembu’s lawyer
Melcher clarified that Vembu offered his wife 50% of his shares in ZCPL, but she refused to accept it and went on to claim that he was trying to cheat her in the divorce. He further stated that Vembu had already transferred his share in the family home to her. Regarding the $1.7 billion bond, Melcher said that the order had no legal authority. “Despite acting honourably during this process, the judge was fooled into making an order that Sridhar post a $1.7 billion bond for the wife’s supposed protection. There is no legal authority for such an order. A subsequent judge acknowledged that the amount seemed absurd. Sridhar was able to borrow up to $150 million against his shares, which was the extent of his ability to comply, but his wife would not accept the money,” Melcher wrote on X on Thursday (8th January).
Vembu’s attorney further stated that the wife did not even seek alimony and is merely wasting his time. “This was a waste of time by the wife, as she has nothing to show for her effort to disparage Sridhar. Her attorney misled the court and may be misleading her, too, about reality, while he has billed millions of dollars in fees. This has nothing to do with alimony, by the way, as the wife has not even sought an order for support. Sridhar is in full compliance with all lawful orders of California,” Melcher added.
The News Minute tried to pass off interim court observations as a final verdict
The libellous article by The News Minute is a testament to the portal’s predatory journalism. Just because Sirdhar Vembu does not align with the media outlet’s ideological leanings, it exploited his marital dispute to pass a moral judgment on him, while also making money from his personal distress. The article cherry-picked the court’s observations from the pre-trial stage, when the evidentiary record available before the court is limited. It attempts to pass off interim observations of the court, which are often overturned, as the final verdict in an ongoing divorce proceeding. The malice of the media outlet is laid bare by the fact that the article insidiously omits to mention that the court order has been appealed from and part of it has been stayed.
The media outlet is loved by anti-India forces
This exposes how The News Minute misuses journalism as a tool to further its agenda by targeting individuals who do not fit its ideological narrative. It is pertinent to mention here that in October 2025, the editor-in-chief of The News Minute, Dhanya Rajendran, was nominated for “Impact Prize of the Year 2025” by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), weeks after she amplified the baseless Dharmasthala “mass grave” hoax in efforts to malign a Hindu religious institution. Notably, the donors of the RSF, a Paris-based NGO, include the French Foreign Ministry, European Commission, Swedish SIDA, the Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a U.S. government-funded organisation widely known as the CIA’s soft arm for regime change, and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF). OSF network funds a web of Indian NGOs, media portals, and “civil society” actors that consistently amplify anti-India and anti-Hindu narratives.
Why Sridhar Vembu is targeted by the Left
This is not the first time that Sridhar Vembu and Zoho have been attacked by the left-liberal ecosystem. In January 2020, the left cabal ran a boycott campaign against Vembu and Zoho after he was invited as the chief guest at an event organised by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). However, Vembu refused to bow down to the leftist hounding and said that he would not let his views be affected by Twitter attacks. Vembu’s unapologetic nationalism and his pro-India ideology have placed him on the hit list of the left-liberal media, which is sold to foreign buyers.
In a major move aimed at preventing Islamic radicalisation of youth, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has slashed funding for its citizens interested in studying in the United Kingdom (UK). The UAE’s decision comes after the UK refused to ban the Islamic terrorist organisation Muslim Brotherhood.
The UAE excluded UK institutions from the list of global universities for which scholarships would be approved and qualifications certified, amidst deteriorating relations with the UK. Abu Dhabi’s decision stems from the concerns that there is a risk of Islamist radicalisation on UK campuses, a report in FT stated.
When the UK officials asked the UAE about the names of their universities missing from the revised list of overseas universities eligible for state scholarships and official recognition, the UAE officials confirmed the omission was deliberate, as per the report.
“[The UAE] don’t want their kids to be radicalised on campus,” one person privy to the discussions was quoted.
Data shows that in the academic year 2023–24, 70 students at UK universities were reported for possible referral to the Prevent deradicalisation programme for symptoms of “Islamist radicalisation”. This was almost double the number recorded in the previous academic year. This was out of a total higher education student population of around three million.
Over the past decade, the UAE has cracked down heavily on Islamists within the country, and in 2014, it designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation. The UAE has long advocated that the UK must proscribe the Muslim Brotherhood. However, the latter remains reluctant.
In November 2025, the US government also initiated the process of designating specific chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs).
UAE blacklisted UK-based organisations linked with the Muslim Brotherhood, the UK’s nonchalance emboldening the Islamist outfit
In January 2025, the UAE blacklisted 8 United Kingdom-based organisations for their ties to the Islamic terror outfit ‘Muslim Brotherhood.’
The 8 outfits were identified as Cambridge Education and Training Centre Ltd, IMA6INE Ltd, Wembley Tree Ltd, Waslaforall, Future Graduates Ltd, Yas for Investment and Real Estate, Holdco UK Properties Limited and Nafel Capital.
Notably, the Islamist outfit Muslim Brotherhood has been banned even in Muslim-majority Arab countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. However, the UK, a ‘secular’ country, has neither banned the outfit nor declared it a terrorist organisation.
The United Kingdom has been grappling with rapid Islamic radicalisation and conversions to Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood is reported to have expanded its presence in the UK through students coming to study there and Islamist exiles who fled repression in their home countries. Muslim Brotherhood-linked organisations collaborate with Islamists from South Asia, established to promote the work of Abu A’la Mawdudi and representing Jama’at-e-Islami.
In 2024, former Communities Secretary Michael Gove MP named the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) as an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Back in 2015, the UK government’s review of the MAB revealed that the outfit was “dominated” by the Muslim Brotherhood.
The review detailed how the Muslim Brotherhood gradually expanded its footprint in the UK over the past five decades. By the late 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood began mobilising settled second-generation Muslims in the UK using the Iraq and Palestine issue.
By the 1990s, the Muslim Brotherhood established various organisations to promote their jihadist viewpoints and lure in supporters.
“None were openly identified with the Muslim Brotherhood and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood remained (and still remains) a secret. But for some years the Muslim Brotherhood shaped the new Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), dominated the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and played an important role in establishing and then running the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). MAB became politically active, notably in connection with Palestine and Iraq, and promoted candidates in national and local elections. The MCB sought and obtained a dialogue with Government. MAB were active partners in a security dialogue with the police and collaborated with the police in ejecting Abu Hamza, the militant Salafist preacher, from a mosque in north London. The MAB have participated in the governance of this mosque ever since,” the 2015 report on the Muslim Brotherhood reads.
The review also found that through its various organisations, the Muslim Brotherhood has been raising funds in the UK. Muslim Brotherhood-controlled organisations like the UK Islamic Mission (UKIM), and Islamic Forum for Europe (IFE), among others, run dozens of mosques in the UK. These organisations have been open supporters of the Palestinian Islamic terror group Hamas.
The 2015 review further highlighted that while the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK has claimed to be opposed to ‘militant’ Salafism and Al Qaida, the UK government’s engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood “did not take account Muslim Brotherhood support for a proscribed terrorist group and its views about terrorism which, in reality, were quite different from our own; – aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”
Despite the 2015 review tracing the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadist proclivities, the UK government did not proceed with banning the outfit, saying that there was no evidence linking the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorist activities in Britain.
Muslim Brotherhood: History, motto and jihadist activities across the world
The Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan al-Muslimin was founded in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, a teacher and Islamic scholar. The Islamist outfit’s foundation was based on the premise of anti-Western colonialism and the supposed erosion of Islamic values in the post-Ottoman world. Al-Banna launched the Muslim Brotherhood as a pan-Islamist movement which focused on charity and Islamist advocacy.
In its early years, the Muslim Brotherhood filled gaps left by weak and nonchalant governments by building schools, hospitals and mosques for the poor and illiterate people in Egypt while also preaching Islam and ‘Tawhid’ (Allah’s oneness and supremacy) as some antidote to secularism and imperialism. The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood makes abundantly clear that though it may not have initially been linked to violence; ‘Jihad’ has always been its way.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto says, “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
By the 1930s, the Muslim Brotherhood had gained thousands of members and entered politics as well. However, the Islamist outfit had a paramilitary wing called the Secret Apparatus or al-Nizam al-Khas. This wing carried out political assassinations and jihadist violence. In 1948, the Secret Apparatus members assassinated Prime Minister Mahmoud El Nokrashy Pasha for banning the Islamist outfit. In 1949, al-Banna was murdered by the Egyptian Secret Police in retaliation for Pasha’s murder.
The members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Secret Apparatus used to undergo heavy physical and military training. They were trained to use firearms and carry out underground operations. Emphasising deception and secrecy (Taqqiya), the Jihadists belonging to the Apparatus infiltrate and subvert political parties, armies, intelligence, media, educational institutions and even NGOs. While in countries like the UK, violence may not be the go-to tactic of the Muslim Brotherhood, using media, politics, educational institutions, and charities for furtherance of the Islamic jihadist agenda continues.
In 2012, MB won the elections and picked Mohamed Morsi as President. However, in 2013, a military coup led by then-General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi ousted Morsi. The Islamist outfit was banned and declared a terrorist organisation in Egypt.
The Muslim Brotherhood continues to be seen as a threat to political stability by many authoritarian governments in the Middle East and North Africa. Recently, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, would be considered “foreign terrorist and transnational criminal organisations.”
The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Russia have already designated the Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation. Jordan banned the group in April 2025 after arresting people linked to the movement who were accused of plotting attacks using rockets and drones.
The Muslim Brotherhood also inspired Maulana Abul Ala Maududi’s Jamaat-e-Islami in the 1940s. Banned Islamic terror outfits like the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and Popular Front of India (PFI), both of which have been involved in Jihadist attacks against Hindus and are working on plans to turn India into an Islamic nation, draw inspiration from Muslim Brotherhood tactics. Besides influencing Islamic terrorist groups active in India, the Muslim Brotherhood had launched a #BoycottIndianProducts campaign against India, targeting India’s economic interests in 2021. In 2023, the Muslim Brotherhood conspired to paint a bad picture of India under the guise of defending the honour of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
The Somnath Temple in Gujarat has been a witness to the numerous attacks by foreign Islamic invaders on the Hindu Dharma and civilisation. It stands tall as a symbol of Bharat’s resilience and civilisational continuity. On the 8th of January 2026, the nation is celebrating Somnath Swabhiman Parv. While the Hindu temple came under attack by Islamic invaders since 1026, its reconstruction and return to its original glory irked even the ‘secular’ leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru in independent India.
India was partitioned on Islamic lines, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was created on the corpses of countless Hindus, Sikhs and other non-Muslims. While the Muslim-majority Pakistan became an Islamic republic, the Hindu-majority India adopted a ‘secular’ character. However, India’s ‘secular’ and ‘progressive’ political leadership significantly undermined Hindu rights and interests, apparently to appease the Muslims who did not go to Pakistan even though the majority of Muslims voted for Pakistan’s creation.
From the British Colonial Raj to Congress Raj, the blatant snubbing of Hindu rights continued in both pre- and post-independent India. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of an independent India, was outspokenly against the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple.
PM Nehru wrote a series of letters between 1950 and 1951, wherein he expressed opposition to the reconstruction and consecration of the Somnath Temple. Nehru wrote around 17 letters to various officials, including Cabinet ministers, chief ministers, the President, the Vice President, and even to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, making his deep disdain for the Hindu community’s quest for reclamation of its destroyed temples known.
Jawaharlal Nehru objected to President Rajendra Prasad’s decision to attend the Somnath Temple consecration ceremony
On 2nd March 1951, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru ‘confessed’ that he was against the idea of President Rajendra Prasad associating himself with the grand opening ceremony of the Somnath Temple. He urged Prasad not to preside over the ceremony.
“…I confess that I do not like the idea of your associating yourself with a spectacular opening of the Somnath temple. This is not merely visiting a temple, which can certainly be done by you or anyone else, but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has a number of implications. Personally, I thought that this was no time to lay stress on large-scale building operations at Somnath. This could have been done gradually and perhaps more effectively later. However, this has been done. I feel that it would be better if you did not preside over this function,” Nehru wrote.
This letter came in response to President Prasad’s letter informing PM Nehru that Navanagar’s Jam Saheb at invited the President to preside over the Somnath consecration ceremony. President Prasad wrote, “I personally do not see any objection to associating myself with the function, particularly because I have never ceased visiting temples, and… denominational religious or semi-religious institutions….”
Nehru did not “like” the waters of distant rivers being collected for the Somnath consecration, asked the Foreign Secretary to write to embassies not to arrange waters sought from various rivers
In a note to the then Secretary-General and Foreign Secretary, PM Nehru said that he did not like the idea of collecting waters of various rivers and twigs from mountains for the Somnath consecration ceremony. He also expressed his disappointment over then-President Rajendra Prasad visiting the Somnath Temple to attend the Pran Pratishtha ceremony.
“I have also written to Mr Munshi about the Somnath temple. It is fantastic that our Embassies should be addressed in this way and asked to collect the waters of distant rivers and twigs from various mountains. I mentioned to the President sometime ago that I did not fancy his visiting the Somnath temple on this occasion. He said he had promised to do so and it was difficult for him to get out of his promise. There is nothing more to be done about it. But I have made it clear both to the President and to Mr Munshi that I do not at all like these activities,” PM Nehru wrote in the note dated 17th April 1951.
Not only this, but PM Nehru also asked the Ministry of External Affairs official to write to Indian embassies abroad not to heed requests to fetch waters from various rivers for the relevant purpose.
“Does External Affairs know anything about these letters addressed to our Embassies abroad asking for the waters of various rivers? I think you might write to our Embassies not to pay the slightest attention to these appeals.…” Nehru wrote.
In a letter to then Union Home Minister C Rajagopalachari, PM Nehru expressed amazement over letters being written to Indian embassies abroad for the collection of waters from various rivers for the Somnath temple ceremony.
“…I should like to draw your special attention to what he has written about the Somnath temple business. I am very much troubled about this, and yet I do not know what I can do. In any event it is amazing for people to write to our Embassies for the waters of the rivers there,” PM Nehru wrote.
PM Nehru was ‘distressed’ about the President and some cabinet ministers attending the Somnath Temple inauguration
In a note to MEA Secretary S Dutt on 9th May 1951, PM Nehru expressed ‘distress’ over the association of the Indian and Saurashtra government with the Somnath Temple consecration ceremony.
“I have been much distressed at the association of the Government of India with the ceremony that is taking place at Somnath. I wrote to the Jam Saheb and to the Government of Saurashtra about it. I find now that in fact some Ministries of the Government of India, including our Ministry, had been consulted and in fact they encouraged various steps that were taken. I am afraid we can do nothing further in the matter now. But I think all this association is most unfortunate,” Nehru wrote.
Nehru’s letter to Navanagar Jam Saheb expressing worry over the Islamic nation Pakistan accusing India of not being secular over government involvement in the Somnath Temple consecration
Hardly five years after Pakistan came into existence after the slaughter of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and other Kafir communities, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was worried that Pakistan was accusing the Indian government of not being secular.
In a letter to Maharaja Digvijaysinhji Jadeja, the Jam Saheb of Navanagar or the modern-day Jamnagar, PM Nehru not only raised objections over the Saurashtra government spending Rs 5 lakh on the Somnath Temple ceremony and President Rajendra Prasad attending the event, but also lamented that Pakistan is taking advantage of this to prove that India is not secular.
“So far as the Government of India is concerned, I am going to make it perfectly clear in answer to questions in Parliament that they have nothing to do with this matter. But I can hardly say that about the Saurashtra Government, although I think their association as a Government is not proper and they should not spend Government funds on it. I have written to the Chief Minister about this also…Pakistan of course is taking great advantage of this to try to prove that we are not a secular State,” PM Nehru wrote in the letter dated 22nd April 1951.
Such was the desperation to appear secular and distance the State from Hindu Dharma or Dharmic/civilisational event that PM Nehru did not want Pakistan to be able to question India’s secularism. Pakistan, officially being an Islamic Republic, with nothing remotely to do with secularism, had no locus standi to question whether India is a secular state or not.
Nehru declined Navanagar Jam Saheb’s invitation to the Somnath Temple consecration ceremony, calling the event ‘Hindu revivalism’
In a letter responding to the invitation extended by Maharaja Digvijaysinhji Jadeja, the Jam Saheb of Navanagar or the modern-day Jamnagar, to the Somnath Temple consecration ceremonies, Nehru declined the invitation.
PM Nehru went as far as to call the reconstruction and consecration of the Somnath Temple an act of ‘revivalism’. He also lamented that the President, some ministers and the Jam Saheb were a part of it. Nehru even stressed that the President of India and cabinet ministers attending the ceremony will have ‘bad consequences’.
The letter dated 24th April 1951 reads, “Thank you for your letter of the 22nd April conveying an invitation to the ceremonies at the Somnath temple. I am afraid it is not possible for me to leave Delhi at this critical juncture for any such function. But apart from this, I must be quite frank with you about this ceremony. Indeed I have written to you about it in another connection already. I am troubled by this revivalism and by the fact that our President and some Ministers and you as Rajpramukh are associated with it. I think that this is not in line with the nature of our State and it will have bad consequences both nationally and internationally. As individuals, of course, it is open to anyone to do what he chooses in such matters. But many of us happen to be more than private individuals, and we cannot dissociate ourselves from our public capacities.”
Nehru told Home Minister C Rajagopalachari that the President should not go to the Somnath consecration ceremony
In a letter dated 11th March 1951, PM Nehru informed the then Union Home Minister C Rajagopalachari about the President receiving an invitation to the Somnath Temple consecration ceremony. The Prime Minister wrote that although he is not opposed to President Prasad going to a temple or any place of worship, he does not want the President to attend the Somnath temple function. Nehru opined that the President’s presence in the ceremony of the Hindu temple will have several implications, although the PM did not elaborate on what sort of implications.
“… As the President is anxious to associate himself with this function, I do not know whether it is desirable for me to insist that he should not do so. I propose, therefore, subject to your advice, to tell him that he can exercise his own discretion in the matter, although I still think that it would be better for him not to go there,” Nehru wrote.
Nehru fumed over the Saurashtra government providing Rs 5 lakh for the Somnath Temple consecration ceremony
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was so keen on keeping his ‘secular’ credentials intact that on 21st April 1951, he wrote a letter to then Saurashtra Chief Minister U.N. Dhebar questioning him about the reported allocation of Rs 5 lakh for the Somnath Mandir ceremony by his government. Nehru dubbed the fund allocation an improper use of public funds.
“I have seen an item of news in the papers to the effect that the Saurashtra Government has sanctioned a sum of Rs 5 lakhs for the installation ceremony of the Somnath temple. I was much surprised to read this and I should like to know if this is correct. Whatever the importance of the Somnath temple might be, this is not a governmental matter and it is for private individuals to collect money for it. I doubt if it is a proper use of public funds held by Governments to be spent in this way,” PM Nehru wrote.
Nehru irked over the impression abroad that the Somnath consecration was a government-funded affair
Prime Minister Nehru felt that the secular and progressive image of his government was tainted by the impression abroad that the Somnath Temple ceremony was a government-linked or, rather, government-funded affair. In a letter to Kanhaiyalal Maniklal Munshi, or simply KM Munshi, who was then Food Minister and oversaw the Somnath temple’s reconstruction, Nehru called the Saurashtra government’s decision to spend Rs 5 lakh on the Somnath consecration ceremony “improper expenditure”.
In the letter dated 22nd April 1951, Nehru was also upset about Navanagar Jam Saheb writing letters to Indian embassies for waters of various rivers for the ceremony.
“I am distressed at the impression abroad that the Somnath installation ceremony is more or less a Government affair. Questions are going to be asked in Parliament and I am going to make it clear that the Government of India has nothing to do with it. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about the Saurashtra Government which, I am surprised, is reported to have decided to spend Rs 5 lakhs over the installation ceremony. I think this is improper expenditure for a Government at any time and more especially in view of the circumstances in the country today,” Nehru wrote.
“I have written to the President on this subject also and to the Jam Saheb. Unfortunately, the Jam Saheb is not only the Chairman of the Trustees of Somnath temple, but also the Rajpramukh of Saurashtra. His letter to our foreign Embassies has given us a lot of trouble and created a good deal of misunderstanding,” he added.
Ahead of the Somnath consecration, Nehru directed Chief Ministers not to do anything that affects the secular character of the State
In one of his letters to various Chief Ministers in the country about the Somnath Temple consecration ceremony, PM Nehru directed CMs of all states to “not do anything which comes in the way of our State being secular.”
“That is the basis of our Constitution and Governments, therefore, should refrain from associating themselves with anything which tends to affect the secular character of our State,” Nehru wrote in the correspondence dated 2nd May 1951.
‘Governmental association with Somnath ceremony will injure us abroad and even in India’: When Nehru feared the world would cancel his ‘secular’ certificate if his government had links with the inauguration of a Hindu temple in Hindu Hindu-majority country
In another letter addressed to a government official, wherein PM Nehru expressed his objection regarding the supposed government ‘association’ to the Somnath Temple’s consecration ceremony. This letter was written on 28th April 1951 to Ranganath Ramchandra Diwakar, then Minister of Information and Broadcasting.
Nehru expressed worries about the ceremonies set to take place at the Somnath Temple, saying that he was troubled by the inquiries about whether it is a government function or not.
“I have been rather worried about the ceremonies that are going to take place at Somnath temple. Many inquiries are addressed to me as to whether this is a governmental function or not. I have replied both in India and abroad, as well as in Parliament, that this is not a governmental function, although some Members of Government may be personally interested,” Nehru wrote.
He also expressed discomfort over a ‘pompous’ ceremony being held at the Somnath Temple and any government association with it, asserting that this will injure his ‘secular’ government, inside and outside India.
“I think that this pompous ceremony regarding Somnath temple and any kind of governmental association is going to injure us abroad and even in India. Indeed I am getting many complaints and letters about it. Inquiries are addressed to me if this is how a secular State behaves. All I can say in reply is that this is not a governmental function,” Nehru added.
He further urged that the radio broadcast should tone down the description of the events at the Somnath Temple consecration ceremony and that it should not appear in any way as a governmental function, as if he was worried ‘someone’ would be upset about Hindus doing worship in Hindu temples and the President and some cabinet ministers attending the event as practising Hindus.
“I feel that in the circumstances our radio broadcast should rather tone down the description of what happens at Somnath and not make it appear in any way that it is a governmental function,” PM Nehru’s letter reads.
‘How a secular Government such as ours can associate itself with such a revivalist ceremony’: PM Jawaharlal Nehru’s letter to President Rajendra Prasad
In the letter dated 22nd April 1951, Prime Minister Nehru raised serious concerns over the events related to the Somnath Mandir. Nehru said that his ‘secular’ government is facing questions about come his government is associating itself with such a ‘revivalist’ ceremony. He further highlighted the Somnath Trustee and Navanagar Jam Saheb’s letters to various Indian embassies about collecting water from various rivers and the soil of specific mountains.
“I am greatly worried about the Somnath affair. As I feared, it is assuming a certain political importance. Indeed references have been made to it internationally also. In criticism of our policy in regard to it, we are asked how a secular Government such as ours can associate itself with such a ceremony which is, in addition, revivalist in character. Questions are being put to me in Parliament and I am replying to them saying that Government has nothing to do with it and those persons who are connected in any way are functioning entirely in their personal capacity,” Nehru wrote.
Mentioning the Rs 5 lakh expenditure the Saurashtra government was making on the Somnath ceremony, PM Nehru deemed this “undesirable”, saying that amidst starvation and economic challenges, such expenditure was inappropriate.
“At any time this would have been undesirable, but at the present juncture, when starvation stalks the land and every kind of national economy and austerity are preached by us, this expenditure by a Government appears to me to be almost shocking. We have stopped expenditure on education, on health and many beneficent services because we say that we cannot afford it. And yet, a State Government can spend a large sum of money on just the installation ceremony of a temple,” Nehru wrote.
PM Nehru’s reasoning behind opposing the Saurashtra government’s decision to spend Rs 5 lakh on the Somnath consecration ceremony reminds one of the hue and cry Islamo-leftists made over the construction of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir and Prime Minister Narendra Modi being the representative Yajman during the Pran Pratishtha of Shri Ram Lalla.
For years, liberals have argued that instead of building Ram Mandir, hospitals, schools, and universities should be built, suggesting that Dharmic expenditure at massive levels is a waste, as if building the temple would have prohibited construction of schools, colleges, or there would be no other land left for such buildings.
PM Modi’s active participation in the Ayodhya Ram Mandir consecration ceremony was in sharp contrast to PM Nehru’s idea of ‘secularism’, where Hindu grievances are dismissed as a revivalist agenda. India owes its secular character to Hinduism and Hindus with the Hindu consciousness and civilisation; India would be as soulless as Pakistan.
PM Nehru’s letter to beloved ‘Nawabzada’ Liaquat Ali Khan of Pakistan about the gates of Somnath Temple being brought back from Afghanistan
The most outrageous of all the letters Nehru wrote regarding the Somnath Temple consecration ceremony was the one he wrote on 21st April 1951 to Pakistan’s Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. Addressing Khan as “Dear Nawabzada”, Nehru described the Pakistani media reports that the gates of the original Somnath Temple, destroyed by Mahmud Ghazni centuries ago, were being brought back ahead of the consecration ceremony, as “completely false”.
“…A recent broadcast from Peshawar in Pushto on the 17th April is an example of extreme irresponsibility and falsehood. I shall be grateful if you will consider this.The story of the gates of Somnath temple being brought back to India from Afghanistan is completely false and there is not an atom of truth in it. This has been publicly denied. In fact nobody knows if there are any such gates anywhere and nothing of the kind is being sent from Afghanistan to India. Nevertheless, the Pakistan Press has been full of this story,” Nehru wrote.
“I leave it to you to judge how far the broadcast, a report of which I am enclosing, is decent or desirable from any point of view,” PM Nehru added, demonstrating the extent he went to appease and placate Muslims not only in India but even in Pakistan.
All relevant letters and notes accessed via Nehru Archive.
Nehru’s letter to Liaquat Ali Khan reminds one of how he wrote to Mohammad Ali Jinnah, informing him that to appease Muslims, his party had truncated the four stanzas of the nationalist song Vande Mataram to remove references to Maa Durga. The truncated version was then adopted by the party in 1938.
In consequence of Congress’s abject surrender before Islamists and fixation with being ‘secular’, the Vande Mataram song was mutilated, and four stanzas were dropped out of six to placate those who, just years after, betrayed the nation.
Jawaharlal Nehru opposed the reconstruction of the Somnath Mandir
Jawaharlal Nehru’s strong opposition to President Rajendra Prasad and some cabinet ministers attending the Somnath Mandir consecration ceremony was not surprising, given that he tried his best to prevent the reconstruction of the temple destroyed by Muslim invaders.
The former Prime Minister was opposed to Hindus having the authority to reclaim their most revered religious places, even after the nation suffered through a brutal, religiously motivated partition. If not for Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the revival of Somnath Mandir would have been a long and bloodied struggle, as the Hindus did for the Ram Janmabhoomi.
On 13th November 1947, Sardar Patel reached Junagarh to a roaring welcome from the state’s citizens, promising to restore the Somnath Mandir. After his return to Delhi, a cabinet meeting decided to reconstruct the temple and determined that the state would cover the costs. However, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi wanted people to cover its expenses, which led to the decision being overturned. He was killed in 1948, and Sardar Patel passed away in 1950, after which Kanhaiyalal Maneklal (KM) Munshi, the cabinet minister at the time, became chairman of the trust’s advisory committee, which was tasked with restoring the temple.
In a clear declaration of his position on the Somnath Mandir revival issue, Nehru told Munshi, “I don’t like your trying to restore Somnath. It is Hindu Revivalism.”
Conclusion
From truncating the song Vande Mataram due to its glorification of Maa Durga after Muslim outrage, reducing the historic Tamil sceptre Sengol, which had Nandi, the vahana of Lord Shiv seat atop, to Nehru’s ‘walking stick’, opposing construction of Somnath Mandir, to rejecting the existence of Lord Ram in the 2007 affidavit in Sethusamudram Project case, Congress has historically attacked and undermined Hindus, Hindu Dharma and Sanatan civilisation.
On 7th January (Wednesday), San Francisco-based artificial intelligence, OpenAI, introducedChatGPT Health, a specialised feature to safely link people’s health apps and medical records. More than 260 doctors from 60 nations worked closely to create the new experience.
Users can ask health and wellness-related queries in this exclusive, sandboxed area of ChatGPT. They can choose to link their medical records and fitness or nutrition applications so that their answers are based on personal information.
OpenAI informed, “You can securely connect medical records and wellness apps to ground conversations in your own health information, so responses are more relevant and useful to you. Designed in close collaboration with physicians, ChatGPT Health helps people take a more active role in understanding and managing their health and wellness while supporting, not replacing, care from clinicians.”
System intended to aid, not replace
The tech giant mentioned that health is already one of the most popular reasons people use ChatGPT. Over 230 million people globally ask health-related queries each week, according to its de-identified study. Many people do it late at night, after clinic hours, when there are no doctors available, as Google searches spiral.
Fidji Simo, CEO of Applications at OpenA, I discussed the idea behind this design and stated that it is to make users feel “more informed, prepared, and confident navigating their health” while upholding the distinction between critical medical data and general AI use. She highlighted the complexity of navigating the healthcare system, even with excellent care, and how AI could assist both doctors and patients with some of the most pressing problems.
However, Simo emphasised, “AI doesn’t replace medical care, but it can play an important role in helping people navigate a complicated healthcare system.” She pointed out that ChatGPT excels at synthesising vast volumes of information and providing straightforward explanations.
Connect health data in a separate system with data protection
OpenAI outlined that people have the option to link Apple Health on iOS devices, electronic medical records, which are currently only available in the United States, and wellness applications, including MyFitnessPal, Peloton, Weight Watchers, Function, AllTrails and Instacart. According to the company, ChatGPT can consult lab results, visit summaries, sleep patterns, exercise levels and diet diaries after access is specifically granted.
The corporation instructed that customers must opt in, app by app, as nothing is linked by default. OpenAI has teamed up with b.well, a US-based digital health firm that already links data from over 2.2 million healthcare providers for medical records. The latter pulls records from patient portals, cleans them and makes them AI-usable via healthcare interoperability standards. OpenAI stated that users have the option to disconnect records at any time. It would delete the data from b.well’s systems.
Moreover, OpenAI has been trained not to save personal information from discussions, and users will be able to remove chats from its servers within 30 days. Although ChatGPT automatically encrypts chats and data while they are at rest, access controls can be enhanced by turning on multi-factor authentication.
OpenAI maintained that health information is held apart from the rest of the chatbot. According to the organisation, ChatGPT Health functions independently and has its own memory, files and chat history. OpenAI’s foundation models are not trained using health conversations, and routine chats do not include health data. For further security, ChatGPT might recommend relocating to the health chat in relation to a conversation outside the specific feature.
A platform to educate users without alarm
According to OpenAI, ChatGPT Health has been adjusted to be educational without being alarming and to send users to medical specialists when necessary. Simo asserted, “We’ve done a lot of work to make sure the model is informative without ever being alarmist.” The rollout is going to happen gradually in order to learn and continue improving the experience. A sign-up is needed for a waitlist.
People outside of the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the UK who have ChatGPT Free, Go, Plus, and Pro plans are eligible. Access will initially be granted to a small beta group with hopes to eventually extend it to all users, including free-tier users.
The launch coincided with a review of health technology monitoring by regulators. Commissioner Marty Makary of the US Food and Drug Administration announced that the agency would restrict oversight of wearable technology and software intended to promote healthy lives, a day earlier. He referred to ChatGPT as a product that should be advertised while warning about serious safety issues.
Conclusion
The technology has experienced an unprecedented transformation over the past few years, reaching new heights in this extraordinary era of AI. However, these advancements are not without their risks. On the one hand, the lives of individuals have become considerably smoother due to the availability of technology at their fingertips; however, on the other hand, their privacy has been significantly compromised.
Major technology companies have often been under fire for this issue. Meta has already been caught up in the controversy where the information of millions of users was acquired from Facebook without their consent by Cambridge Analytica. The practice of sharing data with third-party applications has raised grave worries. Chinese applications, such as TikTok, which has been banned in several countries, permit third-party trackers to gather data.
Likewise, YouTube, owned by Google, is infamous for its collection of personal user information. OpenAI has declared that ChatGPT Health will take special measures regarding sensitive health information, but this does little to mitigate the vulnerability of the users. Furthermore, these apps continue to make similar assurances, which have proven futile. OpenAI might be an exception to the rule; however, security concerns will remain until it delivers on its promise.
Is Pakistan quietly witnessing its own Gen Z uprising, not on the streets, not through violent protests, but through ideas that refuse to be buried? That question has gained new urgency after a new op-ed published in a leading Pakistani newspaper was abruptly taken down, under pressure from the country’s powerful military establishment.
The incident has triggered widespread anger online and turned a young academic into an unlikely symbol of resistance against Pakistan’s entrenched power structure.
The flashpoint of this growing debate was an opinion article titled “It Is Over”, written by Zorain Nizamani, a Pakistani PhD student based in the United States. The piece was originally published by Pakistan’s leading newspaper, The Express Tribune on 1st January, but disappeared from the newspaper’s website within hours.
While no official explanation was offered, the takedown is widely believed to have been ordered under pressure from Pakistan’s military establishment, often referred to as the country’s “deep state.”
An op-ed that struck a nerve
The removal of this article immediately sparked outrage, especially among young Pakistanis on social media. Screenshots of the op-ed began circulating widely, with users accusing the state of censorship and hailing Nizamani as a rare voice willing to speak uncomfortable truths. Many described him as a “national hero” for articulating what a large section of Pakistan’s youth has been feeling for year but has been too afraid to say openly.
Zorain Nizamani is the son of well-known Pakistani actors Fazila Qazi and Qaiser Khan Nizamani. He is currently pursuing a PhD in criminology at the University of Arkansas and also works as a lawyer and academic.
Notably, his article did not name Pakistan’s army chief General Asim Munir, nor did it directly mention Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif or his government. Yet, its message was clear and clearly unsettling to those in power.
What the op-ed actually said
In “It Is Over,” Nizamani wrote about the growing disconnect between Pakistan’s ruling elite and its younger population. He argued that the country’s old power structures have failed to understand, engage with, or inspire Gen Z.
“For the older men and women in power, it’s over,” he wrote. “The young generation isn’t buying any of what you’re trying to sell to them.” He added that no amount of seminars, speeches, or school programs promoting patriotism could fix the problem because patriotism does not come from slogans.
Image via Money control
“Patriotism comes naturally when there is equal opportunity, sound infrastructure and efficient systems in place,” Nizamani wrote, pointing to the everyday realities faced by young Pakistanis.
While the article avoided naming individuals, it was a sharp critique of Pakistan’s long-standing civil-military power structure. It highlighted how years of misgovernance, corruption, and lack of opportunity have pushed young people to the edge.
Joblessness, corruption and a silent exit
Nizamani’s argument was backed by hard realities. Pakistan is grappling with soaring unemployment, which surged by 31% in 2025, according to Dawn. At the same time, the country is facing a massive talent exodus. Government data shows that more than 5,000 doctors and 11,000 engineers have left Pakistan in the last two years alone.
According to Nizamani, today’s youth is far more aware than previous generations. “Gen Z and Gen Alpha know exactly what is happening,” he wrote. Despite repeated attempts by the state to shape public thinking, he argued, young people are seeing through the narrative.
“They might be too scared to speak because they prefer breathing,” he wrote, underlining the fear that still dominates public life in Pakistan.
Instead of open rebellion, Nizamani said the youth is choosing a quieter path, leaving the country altogether. “The younger lot has had enough,” he wrote. “They’ve learned they cannot challenge power, so they are taking a silent exit.”
A generational disconnect
One of the most striking parts of the op-ed was how clearly it described the gap between the rulers and the ruled. Nizamani pointed out that while Gen Z wants faster internet, cheaper smartphones, and freedom to freelance, those in power want tighter firewalls, higher taxes, and more restrictions.
“You make millions every day, your children live abroad, you drink clean water and eat the finest food,” the article said. “Why would you care?”
For many readers, these lines captured the frustration of a generation that feels ignored, controlled, and sacrificed to protect elite interests.
Backlash after the article was taken down
The removal of the article only amplified its impact. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Canadian chapter said the deletion proved the article’s point.
“Forced patriotism no longer works,” the party wrote on X. “Gen Z sees corruption, inequality and hypocrisy clearly. Without justice, jobs and dignity, propaganda fails.”
Zorain Nizamani's article "It Is Over" being removed only confirms its truth. University talks and forced patriotism no longer work. Gen Z sees corruption, inequality, and hypocrisy clearly. Without justice, jobs, and dignity, propaganda fails. Old control methods are dead, the… pic.twitter.com/mUjWE0TBDW
Journalists, lawyers and activists echoed similar sentiments. Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jafferi called the piece “written from the heart of every young person in Pakistan.” Activist Mehlaqa Samdani said the article’s disappearance was exactly the kind of censorship it warned against.
Please read this brilliant article by Zorain Nizamani, a PhD student at the University of Arkansas, in which he bluntly tells Pakistan’s ruling elite that Gen Z is no longer falling for their attempts to manipulate and control narratives.
Former minister Moonis Elahi described it as a “reality check” for those shaping Pakistan’s policies.
Pakistan’s Human Rights Council also condemned the move, calling it a direct violation of freedom of expression and constitutional rights.
Amid the storm, Nizamani clarified on LinkedIn that he had no political affiliation. “My article was based on my personal observations, my views and my take on things. I do not carry disdain against anyone; there is enough hatred in the world, truth is always controversial,” he wrote.
His mother, Fazila Qazi, said the piece was a general commentary on youth perceptions and not aimed at any specific institution.
Conclusion: A quiet revolt against the deep state?
The takedown of Zorain Nizamani’s op-ed may have been intended to silence dissent, but it appears to have done the opposite. By deleting the article, the establishment unintentionally validated its message, that Pakistan’s youth no longer believes in the old methods of control.
This is not a rebellion of slogans or street protests. It is a quieter, deeper revolt, one rooted in ideas, awareness, and refusal. Whether through social media outrage or by simply leaving the country, Pakistan’s Gen Z is sending a clear message to the deep state: they are done being told what to think, and they are no longer afraid of seeing the truth.
Saswati Halder, head of the English department of Kolkata’s Jadavpur University, has been asked to take a leave of absence until the end of January. The decision was made on 6th January (Tuesday) by Vice-Chancellor Chiranjib Bhattacharjee. The move took place after two students were asked to remove their hijabs during an examination on 22nd December due to suspicions of cheating. They were allegedly frisked by Halder and a research scholar to make sure there were no cheating devices on them.
The development transpired one day after a committee appointed by the institution to look into the accusations suggested that the chair of the department be stripped of her duties while the inquiry was underway. “Professor Halder applied for leave for personal reasons. The leave application has been accepted,” the VC claimed. According to reports, she made the request “under pressure” from 7th to 30th January.
“The head of the English department was called to the VC’s office at 1 pm on Tuesday and was asked to go on leave until 30th January. The VC reportedly told her students were firm in their demand to remove Halder from her responsibilities until the probe was over. So it is better for her to go on leave,” an official informed.
The committee’s chairperson, Syed Tanveer Nasreen, stated that one of the students who appeared before the West Bengal Minorities Commission (WBMC) insisted that several of the questions posed to her were “offensive.” Nasreen mentioned, “When asked about such questions, the teacher said she did this out of naivete.”
Colleague crticises the university’s action
It was “unfortunate,” according to a professor of the department, that Halder had to take a leave before the committee’s submission of its report along with proposals, and pointed out, “She apologised to the students belonging to a particular community for subjecting them to frisking. She has been frisking students like any other teacher, regardless of their religious or community identity. Still, she was ready to apologise. However, the university administration forced her to go on leave.”
The professor highlighted that Halder carried out her duties because they cannot allow pupils to use improper means during exams. “If this goes on, then no one will be ready to carry out the job of frisking. Halder has been left traumatised over the way she was made to go on leave,” she outlined.
The department head had already scheduled a meeting for 8th January with the department’s board of studies (BoS). “She requested the VC if she could go on leave after the meeting but was asked to take the leave from Wednesday (7th January) itself,” the senior teacher conveyed. She further expressed, “Halder was extremely disturbed and succumbed to the pressure. She came to the department after meeting the VC, conducted an exam and wrote the email, applying for leave until 30th January.”
Background of the controversy
During the university’s two-day convocation, some female students from the arts faculty, affiliated with the Students Federation of India (SFI), the youth wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), exhibited a poster accusing a section of the department staff of “Islamophobia.” Likewise, some of the English department’s students filed a written complaint with the VC, complaining that the Muslim girls were harassed and singled out under the guise of strict invigilation.
They added that the teacher’s action breached their classmate’s constitutional rights and was equivalent to profiling. Afterwards, a six-person West Bengal Minorities Commission delegation visited the campus on 30th December after learning about the incident and met with the vice-chancellor, registrar and student representatives to obtain information regarding the allegations.
Ahmed Hasan Imran, the chairman of the commission, stated that making pupils take off their headscarves is “completely wrong” and unacceptable. He declared, “Such incidents appear to involve deliberate profiling and such actions have no place in an academic environment.” According to Ahmed, Halde should not be present on the campus until the university committee’s internal investigation has concluded for the sake of an objective and fair inquiry.
A three-person fact-finding committee was established by JU to take up the issue and provide a report within a month. However, protests commenced, charging the university with violating the fundamental rights of students. The Education Minister Bratya Basu conveyed that the department has taken the instance seriously and would respond appropriately once the minority commission’s report is received.
On the other hand, the Jadavpur University Teachers Association (Juta) called on the university administration to create a policy on invigilation during exams. In an internal memo to professors, the group urged faculty members to uphold the “mutual respect between teachers and students” and voiced concerns over cheating and the use of unjust methods.
Additionally, it argued that the enquiries were objectionable in relation to the religious beliefs of the students and Halder should apologise. The English department’s board of studies also recommended the same.
Halder defends herself
The head of the English department refuted the allegations of Islamophobia and contended that the action was executed due to suspicions of cheating amid the examination. Moreover, a classmate wearing a hood helped to find out if the student was wearing an earbud.
She added that two other hijab-wearing students, including one with a disability, were not ordered to take off their head scarves because the invigilators were not suspicious of their behaviour. The professor stated that the girl who was ordered to partially remove her hijab was led to a vacant room next door and her female batchmate was the only person there to aid her.
The pan India hijab story
The debate regarding the hijab is neither new nor recent. It has periodically arisen in various regions of India, often accompanied by allegations of Islamophobia, to circumvent regulations, incite unrest and amplify trivial matters into major concerns. A hijab controversy rocked the Latin Catholic Church-run Saint Rita’s Public School in Palluruthy of Kerala last year. The institution had to close for two days as a disagreement transformed into a communal dispute.
The reason was a heated altercation that broke out when a girl showed up in an Islamic headscarf, which is not allowed at the school. However, her parents and six other people reportedly caused a commotion on campus and insisted that she be permitted to wear the religious attire.
The Left government ordered the school to yield to the demand, in a prime illustration of the nexus between the “secular” parties and the radical elements of the second-largest community in India. Education Minister V Sivankutty interfered with a politically charged decision and instructed to allow the student to wear hijab and continue her studies, rather than upholding the school’s discretion to maintain order.
Likewise, a massive row began in 2022 when several Muslim students at a college in Karnataka’s Udupi were refused admission to classes due to their hijabs. They were denied access to classes because the college administration noted that the veil is not part of the uniform. Afterwards, Muslim students wore burqas and started an agitation. They even acknowledged consulting with the Campus Front of India (CFI), which is supported by the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI).
The attorneys for the students invoked “Sharia Law” in the Karnataka High Court to stress that the headscarf is a fundamental religious practice for Muslim women. However, the court determined that it is not an essential practice in Islam and the uniform is a legitimate restriction on the right to religion. The Islamo-leftist ecosystem cast aspersions on the judgement and then it was challenged in the Supreme Court.
A year later, female Muslim students at the government-run Koroimura Higher Secondary School in Tripura’s Sepahijala district caused a stir when they defied school rules by sporting hijabs in class. A group of Hindu boys then protested by donning saffron-colored kurtas. However, the headmaster Priyatosh Nandi stepped in and told all pupils, regardless of faith, to wear school uniforms.
“After a meeting with teachers, I recently directed all students to attend school wearing a proper uniform. However, girl students from the minority community said they cannot follow this directive as wearing hijab is a religious belief,” he expressed. In the meantime, a Muslim student in the tenth grade and his associates vandalised Nandi’s room.
A similar scene unfolded in the same year when protests were held outside NG Acharya & DK Marathe College in Mumbai’s Chembur against the college’s uniform policy. The demonstrations erupted when girls wearing burqas were denied admission by security personnel stationed outside the campus gates because they did not conform to the uniform regulations. Their parents were also present there.
“We held a meeting with parents on the 1st of May to go through this new dress code policy. Everything, including the prohibition on the burqa, the hijab, scarves, and stickers, had been announced. Everyone had agreed to the dress code at the time. However, they are currently protesting,” highlighted principal Vidya Gauri Lele.
The crisis was resolved after police officers arrived and engaged in negotiations with the parents and college management. The college administration in a statement specified that the students would be permitted on the campus with a burqa, hijab, or scarf, but they had to remove it in the restroom before entering the classrooms and could put it back on when they left in the evening.
The hijab has been consistently employed by the members of the Muslim community to flout the rules of educational institutions, only to assert Islamophobia, bring in Sharia law, and characterise the demand to comply with regulations applicable to all students as an assault on their religious identity. This has been evident throughout the years, spanning from the west to the east and from the north to the south, and the occurrence at Jadavpur University is its latest example.
Islamophobia: Handy black cloak utilised to escape responsibility, create controversy
“Islamophobia” serves as a convenient instrument for Islamists and their leftist allies to categorise everything under one umbrella, fabricating issues where none existed at the slightest inconvenience. This is the reason why Jadavpur University, which is otherwise a bastion of liberal and ultra-leftist politics and propaganda, is not immune from supporting the veil, which has resulted in deaths of several Muslim women globally, from Iran to Afghanistan and even in the West.
This should also suffice to comprehend the true nature of their ideology, as they rallied against a teacher who was merely performing her duties, to the point where she not only endured harassment but had also been forcibly sent on leave. It is highly unlikely that Halder would receive a fair trial, considering the rampant Muslim appeasement in West Bengal. Furthermore, the action taken against her is akin to a sword hanging over other teachers who would dare to fulfil their duties.
They might not only hesitate but could also completely refrain from checking or requesting Muslim students to adhere to the rules due to fear of the repercussions, thereby leading to cheating in examinations or breaching the institution’s regulations and norms. The current case has, sadly, established this precedent and further strengthened such troubling elements.
On 7th January, YouTuber Anubhav Gupta said in a social media post on X that he received a threat call asking him to remove his recent expose video targeting Dhruv Rathee and his AI based application, AI Fiesta. In his video, which was published on 22nd December, Gupta alleged that Rathee is involved in large scale data privacy violations, misleading marketing claims, and questionable business practices linked to the app. OpIndia spoke to Anubhav in detail about the threat call.
According to Gupta, the call came after the video began circulating widely on social media. He stated that the caller demanded that the video be taken down. Gupta cited the phone number from which he received the call, carrying a German country code, +49. While sharing the number on X, he asserted that the intent of the call was to intimidate him into removing the content, which he said is entirely based on publicly available policies and documents linked to the app.
In the post, he wrote, “Got a Threat Call to take down my video. Where, I explained how Dhruv Rathee is stealing your Data. I WONT TAKE IT DOWN GERMAN SHEPHERD.”
The statement was widely shared by his followers, with over 450 reposts and 2,000+ likes on X alone.
Speaking to OpIndia, Anubhav Gupta described the threat call in detail. He said the caller spoke in a Haryanvi accent and began the conversation by asking whether he wanted to “grow on YouTube”. When Gupta asked the caller to identify himself, the caller refused and instead issued threats.
Gupta said the caller warned that he had “people” who could physically assault him, record the act, and force him to upload the video on his own YouTube channel. According to Gupta, the caller also implied that since he already had Gupta’s phone number, obtaining his home address would not be difficult.
Gupta said the caller then referred specifically to his expose video, mentioning that it had received around 25,000 to 26,000 views. He alleged that the caller demanded the video be deleted immediately, warning that if it went viral, the consequences would escalate. Gupta said the call ended abruptly after the threat was delivered. He clarified that while the words he shared publicly were not a verbatim transcript, they accurately reflected the meaning of what was said, as he understands Haryanvi but does not speak it fluently.
When OpIndia asked Gupta whether the caller identified himself or indicated any affiliation, Gupta said the caller referred to Dhruv Rathee as “hamare Rathee bhai”, which he interpreted as a signal of alignment, though no formal identity was disclosed.
Gupta told OpIndia that while he does not have an audio recording of the call, he has preserved a screenshot of the call log showing the international number from which the call was received. He said he is willing to share this material to establish the timing and source of the call.
On the question of legal action, Gupta remarked that police action should ideally be taken against individuals who attempt to silence critics through intimidation. However, he said that after consulting a lawyer, he was advised that little could be done at this stage since the call originated from an international number.
Asked about his message to other creators and journalists who face similar pressure, Gupta said such threats should not be feared. He described those making such calls as online ‘gundas’ who rely on intimidation and are incapable of doing anything in real life.
Responding to a question on whether he had any message for Dhruv Rathee, Gupta said Rathee should clearly explain for what purpose AI Fiesta is storing public data, especially in light of the privacy concerns raised in the expose video.
What Anubhav Gupta has exposed about AI Fiesta
In his 22nd December video, Gupta said that AI Fiesta stores user prompts as well as AI generated responses. He stated that this practice could potentially include deeply personal, political, and sensitive information entered by the users. Notably, it is a general practice for users not to read the privacy policy, terms and conditions, and other documentation of the websites and apps they use. They usually agree to them and move on without realising the consequences.
Gupta said that this data retention is explicitly mentioned in the privacy policy statement of the app and raises serious questions about user safety and informed consent. OpIndia checked and confirmed that the AI Fiesta privacy policy says exactly what Gupta has alleged in his video.
Source: AI Fiesta
Gupta further stated that the app collects IP addresses and broadly worded “device information”, a term he argues is deliberately vague and capable of enabling extensive behavioural and geographical tracking of users. He pointed out that such data, if compromised, could expose users to phishing, profiling, or targeted manipulation.
Allegations of misleading hype and fake credibility
Another major allegation raised by Gupta in the video concerns AI Fiesta’s marketing claims. Gupta said that the app promoted a “3 million ARR in 36 hours” figure to manufacture hype and create the impression of massive commercial success. He argued that the claim is misleading and designed to attract paying users in a market where several AI tools are already available free of cost.
He also stated that AI Fiesta relied on bot generated or purchased reviews on the Google Play Store. He pointed to repeated phrases, identical sentence structures, and common keywords across multiple 5-star reviews as indicators of inauthentic feedback. He said such feedback is bought to mislead potential customers.
Source: Google Play Store
OpIndia crosschecked the claims laid by Gupta and found them to be true, as suggested in the screenshots added here. Both screenshot sets have three 5-star reviews with similar language used.
Source: Google Play Store
Privacy advocate versus data collector
At the centre of the expose was what Gupta described as the hypocrisy of Dhruv Rathee. Gupta pointed out that Rathee has built a public persona around warning people about data misuse, surveillance, and privacy violations. However, his app AI Fiesta’s own policies allow storage of user data, collection of IP addresses, and broad device level information.
Source: AI Fiesta
He further alleged that the app’s terms include disclaimers stating that no system is fully secure, which he argues effectively shields the company from responsibility in the case of a data breach.
Questions over accountability and jurisdiction
Gupta also raised concerns about the app’s corporate structure. He stated that AI Fiesta is registered in Delaware in the United States and argued that branding it as “the country’s biggest AI platform” is misleading when its registration, data infrastructure, and leadership are not based in India.
Source: Ai Fiesta
This is not the first time Dhruv Rathee has been accused of intimidating someone for exposing him. In September 2023, YouTuber Karolina Goswami and her husband had accused Rathee’s “supporters” of attacking them in Europe for fact-checking him.
Anubhav Gupta responded to our questions and this report has been updated accordingly.
In the United Kingdom, a massive row has erupted over the new Islamophobia definition that the Labour government is set to propose. The leaders of the British Hindu and Sikh communities have raised concerns that the new definition of what it calls “anti-Muslim hatred” will have a “significant chilling effect” on freedom of speech.
The proposed Islamophobia definition that has sparked debate in the UK
In December 2025, the BBC reported on the draft definition of anti-Muslim hatred or ‘Islamophobia’. The BBC reported that the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia has submitted its draft for adoption. While the draft excluded the term ‘Islamophobia’, the definition itself came under fire for leaving a window for its weaponisation.
The Working Group formed in February 2025 submitted its draft in October. The Group is chaired by Dominic Grieve KC, Professor Javed Khan, Baroness Shaista Gohir, Akeela Ahmed, and Asha Affi.
In a statement issued on 15th December 2025, Shaista Gohir confirmed that the new Islamophobia definition BBC reported is the same as the one submitted by the Working Group to the government in October. Gohir also urged the Labour government to adopt the definition “if it cares about the safety of Muslims.”
My statement on the Islamophobia definition which is not called Islamophobia – I urge the govt to adopt it if it cares about the safety of Muslims. pic.twitter.com/0AeiWQjrun
The Group states that the definition will be non-statutory, meaning that it will not be legally binding but will provide guidance to government and other bodies about what actions constitute Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred.
The draft definition reads, “Anti-Muslim hostility is engaging in or encouraging criminal acts, including acts of violence, vandalism of property, and harassment and intimidation, whether physical, verbal, written or electronically communicated, which is directed at Muslims or those perceived to be Muslims because of their religion, ethnicity or appearance.”
It adds, “It is also the prejudicial stereotyping and racialisation of Muslims, as part of a collective group with set characteristics, to stir up hatred against them, irrespective of their actual opinions, beliefs or actions as individuals.”
“It is engaging in prohibited discrimination where the relevant conduct – including the creation or use of practices and biases within institutions – is intended to disadvantage Muslims in public and economic life,” the definition further includes.
Hindu Council UK calls out the many problematic aspects of the new Islamophobia definition
On 29th December, the Hindu Council UK wrote a letter to Communities Secretary Steve Reed, cautioning that the draft definition of Islamophobia is deeply flawed and will have serious consequences if it ends up being adopted officially.
In the letter signed by Dipen Rajyaguru, Director of Equality and Inclusion, the Hindu Council UK said, “…having carefully reviewed the proposed definition, and drawing on concerns raised by our community Hindu Council UK, other organisations and commentators as well as extensive criticism of the earlier APPG definition of Islamophobia we believe the current proposal is deeply flawed and risks serious unintended consequences.”
In a pointwise fashion, the Council detailed why it believes the draft Islamophobia definition is problematic. Under the first point, “Lack of Clarity and Overly Broad Language”, the Hindu Council said that the new definition introduces vague and undefined concepts like “prejudicial stereotyping”, racialisation of Muslims”, “collective group with set characteristics”, “stir up hatred”, “practices and biases within institutions”.
Asserting that these terms lack clear legal meaning, the Council said, “From a Hindu perspective, this ambiguity is dangerous. It leaves interpretation open to subjective perception rather than objective legal standards, making the definition vulnerable to inconsistent application and politicisation.”
Under the second point, “Conflation of People with Beliefs and Ideas,” the Hindu Council stresses a concern shared by not only Hindu but Sikh, Christian, secular, and free-speech organisations that the new definition “fails to clearly distinguish between hostility towards Muslims as people and criticism of Islam as a belief system.”
The Council pointed out that by referring to “racialisation” and “collective characteristics”, the definition “risks treating a religion and its associated ideas, doctrines, and practices as if they were immune from critique.”
The Council said that Hindu intellectuals often indulge in discussions of theological differences between dharmic traditions and Islam, historical events involving Islamic rule in South Asia, contemporary issues such as extremism, apostasy laws, or treatment of minorities and Women in Muslim-majority societies like Bangladesh.
However, the proposed definition, the Hindu Council asserted, risks such discussions getting characterised as “prejudicial stereotyping” or “stirring up hatred”, regardless of factual basis or intent.
Under the third point, the Council raised concern that the new Islamophobia definition could result in infringement of freedom of expression.
The Council expressed apprehension that, despite claiming that the definition targets hostility rather than debate, “its breadth creates a significant chilling effect on free speech.”
“For minority communities such as Hindus and other Dharmic Traditions, this presents a serious risk. Narratives about historical persecution under Islamic empires, or discussion of contemporary Islamist ideology, could be suppressed out of fear of breaching a poorly defined standard of “anti-Muslim hostility.”
Another important concern raised by the Hindu Council is the de facto reintroduction of blasphemy laws. The Council stated that the new definition risks “operating as a de facto blasphemy framework, even if this is not the Government’s intention.”
The Council said that the introduction of terms like “racialisation” and “collective stereotyping” in the new Islamophobia definition risks shielding Islamic beliefs and practices from scrutiny, “in practice, if not in law.”
“In summary, the Muslims we know who we estimate to be the 99% majority would not have inserted words like ‘hostility for hatred’ and the last paragraph, which attempts to protect any criticism of Islamist radicalisation, just as the old definition attempted to protect the Grooming Gangs with their Muslimness,” the Hindu Council stated.
Furthermore, the Hindu Council UK stated the new definition could result in the weaponisation of complaints, institutional overreach, two-tier protection of religions, and the embedding of the initially “non-statutory” wording into public policies eventually.
Excerpt from the Hindu Council UK’s letter.
Labour Party’s adoption of an outrageously biased ‘Islamophobia’ definition
This is not the first time that the Labour Party has resorted to blatant Muslim appeasement. While the Keir Starmer-led Labour government is now proceeding towards adopting an anti-Muslim hatred definition, years back, the Labour Party adopted a document that ‘broadened’ the definition of Islamophobia.
In 2019, the Labour Party adopted the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG) definition of Islamophobia. Back in 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims proposed that there should be a ‘legally binding’ definition of Islamophobia. While there already are laws covering religion-based hate crimes and discrimination, the definition sought to expand the scope of what was deemed criminal under the existing legal framework, particularly in the context of criticism directed towards Muslims.
Excerpt from Labour Party’s Islamophobia policy (Source: labour.org.uk)
“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness,” the definition proposed by the APPG on British Muslims, co-chaired by Anna Soubry and Wes Streeting, reads.
In their Foreword to the APPG report, Wes Streeting and Anna Soubry advocated for the definition of Islamophobia to be adopted by the government, statutory agencies, and civil society organisations. This would allow them to challenge Islamophobia through various channels such as politics, policymaking, media, society, and education.
The APPG’s reasoning behind expanding the scope of Islamophobia was highly outrageous and was steeped in pro-Muslim bias. The APPG asserted that criticising Islam amounts to anti-Muslim racism. It said that terms like ‘Asian grooming gangs’ or ‘Bin Laden’ (notice the inverted commas used by the APPG) are a modern-day iteration of “anti-Islam tropes”
Terms like “racialisation” found in the new draft definition of Islamophobia can be traced to the 2018 report of the APPG on Muslims.
“From the numerous victim forms we were able to collect, we found several themes that served to reinforce the evidence presented to us by academic experts and community activists. We found that the racialisation of Muslims has palpable consequences, with both Asian, Black and white convert Muslims being targeted for abuse on grounds of their Muslimness. We also found that age-old stereotypes and tropes about Islam, such as sexual profligacy and paedophilia or Islam and violence, and their modern-day iteration in the ‘Asian grooming gangs’ or ‘Bin Laden’ labels re-emerge in discourses and dispositions which heighten vulnerability of Muslims to hate crimes,” the propaganda report by APPG on British Muslims read.
The APPG, in its desperation to make Muslims and Islam sacrosanct to criticism of any form, deemed even accusing Muslims of exaggerating or inventing Islamophobia, genocide of Muslims, as an example of Islamophobia. In simple words, even Muslims play false victimhood, which they do in most cases, if not all, exaggerating isolated incidents of criticism or violence against a Muslim person or group as a targeted attack on the entire community. Others cannot call them out because if they do, they will be declared ‘Islamophobic’ and may face legal consequences.
.Interestingly, the APPG on British Muslims also asserted that “denying Muslim populations the right to self -determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour,” would also be Islamophobic.
The APPG on Muslims did not attempt to accommodate Islamic sentiments or protect the community against unwarranted criticism; rather, the UK’s parliamentary body ceded freedom of expression and common sense to legalise the weaponisation of Islamophobia.
Since the Labour Party adopted this deeply flawed definition of Islamophobia, the Labour government later also attempted to formally adopt this definition. In August 2024, it was reported that the Labour government was considering adopting the APPG for British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia.
The new draft Islamophobia definition proposed by the Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia Definition is evidently the old APPG product in a new packaging.
This is alarming. It must not be forgotten how the Labour government tried to suppress criticism of Pakistani-Muslim grooming gangs. It was seen how the fears of appearing Islamophobic and racially insensitive prevented UK authorities from effectively acting against Pakistani Muslim groomers/rapists for years, and now the Labour Party, which has adopted the flawed Islamophobia definition, is dismissing those criticising Muslim grooming gangs as “far-right” in an apparent attempt to make the Muslim community sacrosanct to criticism.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer earlier rejected a national inquiry into the Pakistani-Muslim grooming gangs, apparently, inspired by the Islamophobia definition his party adopted, to avoid coming across as an Islamophobe.
OpIndia reported earlier how, in many cases involving Pakistani-Muslim grooming/rape gangs, instead of arresting the rapists, the police ended up arresting the victims and their families. This was commonly due to a failure to probe the grooming part, in most cases a deliberate cover-up to avoid appearing Islamophobic, culturally insensitive and racially prejudiced, with young victims being treated as offenders for small violations while still in contact with their abusers.
For years, the fear of being labelled Islamophobic or indulging in ‘racial profiling’ prevented the police from taking decisive action against Muslim rape gangs in the UK. The Labour Party’s political perversion further worsened the situation.
It must be recalled how Sarah Champion, a Labour Party MP, had to apologise for an article published in The Sun in 2017 wherein she wrote that “Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls”.
In 2012, Keith Vaz, a Labour Party leader and Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, downplayed the grooming jihad crimes, calling them not racially motivated and emphasising that the entire community should not be ‘stigmatised’. His overemphasis on not singling out the identity of the grooming gang members reflected the Labour Party’s appeasement politics and downplayed the crimes of the grooming gangs involving men of Pakistani origin.
In 2011, former Home Secretary Jack Straw attributed the cultural practices of Pakistani men to their crimes against white girls. He said that Pakistani men see white girls as “easy meat.”
A Nottingham Crown Court judge who convicted two Pakistani men who groomed and raped several minor white girls downplayed the identity of the perpetrators by asserting that the race of both the victims and the abusers was ‘coincidental’.
The collective failure of the British governments and law enforcement authorities in bringing Muslim grooming/rape gangs, which targeted thousands of non-Muslim minor and adult girls for over two decades, stems from the idea of avoiding being ‘Islamophobic’. It must also not be forgotten that even the British media, for a long period of time, refrained from calling the Muslim rape gangs what they are, but chose the broader and rather vague term, “South Asian grooming gangs.” Such terminology is fundamentally flawed and dishonest, as grooming Jihad or rape jihad is not a racial crime committed by South Asians against other races but an Islamist crime against non-Muslims.
Islamophobia is used as an excuse to suppress dissent, and legitimising it is suicidal
Islamist takeover of the UK is ongoing in full swing, through demographic shifts and other means. Yes, instead of cracking down on Islamists, Labour is coddling them and legitimising the ‘Islamophobia’ shield Islamists use to silence the victims of Islamic terrorism and extremism of other forms, gaslight critical voices, and weaponise it against other religious groups, allowing Islamists to assert religious dominance.
It must not be forgotten how the 2022 anti-Hindu Leicester violence carried out by Muslim mobs was dubbed a ‘Hindutva’ inspired riot. And, how deliberately floated and amplified rumours of Hindus attacking Muslims and doing blasphemy against Islam triggered Muslims to attack Hindus. The government adopting any definition of Islamophobia which enables Muslims to arbitrarily accuse members of other religious communities of Islamophobia, would expose the latter to threats, stigma and villainisation.
If a formal definition that essentially makes Muslims and Islam sacrosanct from criticism, and leaves a window for Muslims to bring up false Islamophobia complaints against non-Muslims, then, despite its non-binding nature, the definition will influence policies in such a manner that non-Muslim communities will be relegated to the status of second-class citizens in the UK.
The Jama Masjid of Bharuch city has once again landed in controversy. Two days ago, saints from the Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti staged a protest, alleging that despite the mosque being protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), illegal construction had been carried out there in violation of archaeological regulations. Eventually, the police administration intervened and sought two months, assuring action. Trusting the police, the saints called off their protest. The matter now rests with the police.
While more details about the protest and the saints’ demands are available separately, this episode has revived an old debate: was the Jama Masjid in Bharuch built after demolishing a temple? Did Hindu-Jain temples exist there in the past? What does history say, and what do contemporary records and books written at the time reveal?
One of the most recent references appears in the book “Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them,” authored by Sitaram Goel. Although the book primarily focuses on the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, it also contains a separate section listing places across India where temples were demolished, and mosques or other religious structures were built in their place. These lists are organised state-wise and district-wise.
In the Gujarat section, when one looks at Bharuch, the very first entry is the Jama Masjid. It notes that the mosque was constructed in 1321 and that materials from Hindu-Jain temples were used in its construction.
The second volume of “Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them”, titled “The Islamic Evidence”, also mentions this mosque. Citing Mughal-era documents, it states that pillars from Hindu-Jain temples were used in the Jama Masjid of Bharuch.
Courtesy: Burgess’ book
Several historical records agree that the Bharuch Jama Masjid was built during the reign of Alauddin Khilji. Khilji was an invader who attacked Hindu religious sites in India and destroyed numerous temples, including Somnath.
Amir Khusrau writes that around 1300, Khilji targeted temples in Gujarat and sent Ulugh Khan for this purpose. Ulugh Khan first reached Somnath, where the temple was demolished and plundered, and then proceeded towards Khambhat. From there, he looted and destroyed temples in several coastal cities, Bharuch being one of them.
British archaeologist James Burgess, born in the UK in 1832, conducted extensive archaeological work in India. He served as the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India from 1886 to 1889 and earlier as Director of the Archaeological Survey, Western India. He documented what he observed during his travels across western India, later publishing several books.
In his work “On the Muhammadan Architecture of Bharoch (Bharuch), Cambay, Dholka, Champaner and Mahmudabad in Gujarat”, Burgess mentions the Bharuch Jama Masjid. While describing the site, he writes that invasions began in Bharuch around 1297 on Khilji’s orders. During these attacks, Hindu temples were targeted and demolished, and, as seen elsewhere, materials from destroyed Hindu and Jain temples were used to construct the Jama Masjid.
Courtesy: Burgess’ book
Burgess provides detailed plans and photographs of the mosque, offering further clarity. He notes that the spacing between the pillars is uneven, 8 feet in some places, 10 feet in others, and even 13 feet elsewhere, resulting in irregularities in the domes above. According to Burgess, this inconsistency exists because materials from Hindu temples were reused in construction. Parts of the roof were taken from smaller domes of older Jain and Hindu temples, and some pillars feature animal carvings, indicating their temple origin.
Burgess also points out that the mihrab (a semicircular niche in the wall) at the rear of the mosque is unlike typical mosques found in Gujarat, and its three mihrabs differ somewhat in architectural style. Regarding the courtyard, he writes that the marble gateway at its entrance is clearly from a Jain temple, with Jain figures still visible, though many have been defaced.
A document titled “Bharuch District Directory Report” records that the ancient city was attacked during the Khilji’s time, and a Jain derasara (temple) was seized and converted into a mosque. The same report mentions another Jain shrine called Shamaliya Vihar, which was also later demolished and turned into a mosque under Muslim rule.
The official website of the Bharuch District Collector likewise notes that the Jama Masjid was built using remnants of ancient Jain temples, largely from temple materials. It explicitly states that stones were taken from temples and that Hindu temple markers are visible in the mihrab.
Importantly, there are no contradictions across these documents; all accounts corroborate one another. Even official government records affirm these details.
References: – History of India as Told by Its Own Historians, H. M. Elliot – Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Volumes 1–2, Sitaram Goel – On the Muhammadan Architecture of Bharoch (Bharuch), Cambay, Dholka, Champaner and Mahmudabad in Gujarat, James Burgess
The United States of America, notorious for overthrowing governments, infringing upon the sovereignty of other nations and invading foreign lands to further national or strategic interests, commenced its journey by committing these very actions, as it eventually grew from 13 colonies to 50 states.
The Western power ruthlessly wielded its economic and military superiority in the name of “manifest destiny” to either push other countries into agreements or engage in warfare, while persistently expanding its landmass and global influence. Furthermore, this cold approach has been witnessed time and again, remarkably even to this day, from the Middle East to Venezuela and even Greenland.
The US buys Alaska for 2 cents per acre from Russia
Alaska, with a GDP of more than $55 billion, is presently the 49th state in the United States. However, it was once part of the Russian Empire, which was handed over in a deal known as the “Cessation of Alaska” or the “Alaska Purchase,” to the US. On 30th March 1867, the latter agreed to pay just $7.2 million or nearly two cents per acre for the 1,518,800 square kilometres of territory.
A map showing the area that Russia gave up to the United States. (Source: File Photo)
Russian Tsar Alexander II wanted to sell Alaska because he believed that it would be difficult to protect the land in the case of a war with his country’s main adversary, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Ottoman Empire’s setback served as the foundation for the decision. Russia chose to give up its area after losing over 12,000 soldiers and running out of resources.
The presentation to the House of Representatives. (Source: File Photo)
Interestingly, Russia and the US were on the same side at the time due to their shared dislike of the British Empire. Therefore, the move was made in spite of advice not to proceed further. US Secretary of State William Seward and Russian Minister Eduard de Stoeckl discussed the deal following the conclusion of the American Civil War. Afterwards, the US Senate approved the treaty on 9th April, 1867, and President Andrew Johnson signed the same in May.
Louisiana joins the U.S
In 1803, the United States made a similar land agreement known as the “Louisiana Purchase,” in which $15 million was paid to France for around 827,000 square miles of territory west of the Mississippi River. The sale not only added extensively to the size of the young country but also set it on a path of westward expansion across the continent. It also prevented further occupation of North Americbyof Spain and France.
Louisiana’s map by Aaron Arrowsmith (Source: monticello.org)
The region close to New Orleans was already desired by the United States. The main goal was to protect its ability to sail ships through Spanish territory down the Mississippi River and unload cargo at New Orleans for transportation to Europe and the Atlantic coast. Additionally, Louisiana’s strategic location at the mouth of the pivotal river and the presence of a large number of American immigrants and traders there made the US interested in owning the entire state.
After learning that Louisiana had been transferred from Spain to France, the United States dispatched its diplomat Robert Livingston to France in 1801 in an attempt to acquire New Orleans. Afterwards, President Thomas Jefferson sent James Monroe, one of the founding fathers, to negotiate a contract when Napoleon Bonaparte first rejected the proposal.
The Louisiana Purchase Treaty (Source: monticello.org)
However, he then offered not only New Orleans but all of Louisiana to the US in April 1803 in light of the financial problems and military setbacks. The change of heart happened a few days before Monroe was scheduled to arrive in Paris. The Marquis de Barbe-Marbois, minister of finance, mediated the conditions of the “Louisiana Purchase” with Livingston and Monroe. As a result, $11,250,000 was given by the US in exchnage Louisiana and $3,750,000 to settle claims of its own citizens against France.
Texas separates from Mexico and enters the US.
Texas was originally part of Mexico,o where a substantial population of Americans led by Stephen F. Austin moved close to the Brazos River. It was after Mexico invited foreigners to the barely inhabited area following its independence from Spain in the 1820s. However, the decision proved to be fatal, as it concluded in the separation of the entire region and its addition to the United States.
Image via Historical Maps/Facebook
The Mexican government’s attempts to govern over these semi-autonomous American enclaves by the 1830s sparked insurrection since the outsiders soon outnumbered the locals. As a result, Texas proclaimed its independence from Mexico in March 1836 during an armed confrontation with the government.
Sam Houston was elected president by the people of the Republic of Texas, who supported his region’s admission to the US for the sake of political and economic benefits. Therefore, it became the 28th state in the US on 28th December 1845. The action sparked the Mexican-American War and widened the irreconcilable divisions in the US on the subject of slavery. Texas had legalised slavery and broke away 15 years later to become the Confederate States of America before rejoining the union after civil war.
The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo
The Mexican W, ar which was fought between April 1846 and February 1848, contributed to the already broadening expanse of the US territory. The Army of the West entered New Mexico territory at the start of the War in 1846, taking control of Las Vegas on 15th August and Santa Fe three days later. The first American military fort in New Mexico, Fort Marcy, was built northeast of Santa Fe on 23rd August. Charles Bent was named governor, and a civil government was formed on 22nd September.
Image via Library of Congress
Afterwards, New Mexico, which included modern-day Arizona and other territories, was given to the United States by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the conclusion of the Mexican War in 1848. It received more than 525,000 square miles or 1,360,000 square kilometres of land, including Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah from Mexico for a payment of $15,000,000. The U, S in retu, rn agreed to settle the more than $3,000,000 in claims made by American citizens against Mexico.
The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (Source: prologue.blogs.archives.gov)
The treaty also laid down the border between the Gila River and the Rio Grande. With this, the seizure of New Mexico and California, alongside the acknowledgement of the Rio Grande as the southern border of Texas, had been accomplished by the US. The Organic Act of the Territory of New Mexico, a part of the “Compromise of 1850,” defined New Mexico as a territory and assigned it a civil territorial administration. Over time, these annexed regions soon became part of the union in the coming years.
The annexation of Hawaii
On one hand, the United States persisted in expanding its territory by paying minimal amounts to exploit the vulnerability of some nations waging wars and shaping treaties, while on the other hand, it used its military strength to subjugate nations under its flag. A similar situation occurred in Hawaii, in the Pacific, where American and British missionaries arrived with the intention of converting the locals to Christianity in the 1820s.
Afterwards, the independent kingdom’s economy initially became reliant on the US, after which military action took place for its annexation. The region started to attract corporate investors who purchased vast areas of land and established a plantation economy centred on capitalism in place of traditional Hawaiian agricultural methods. In the meantime, discussions over Hawaii’s potential annexation to the US started in the 1850s as its sugar and whale industries grew more dependent on the country’s trade.
Queen (at the time of this photograph, Crown Princess) Liliuokalani of Hawaii was forced to surrender. (Source: billofrightsinstitute.org)
The wicked plan came to fruition when the executive monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom was pressured to make a conditional surrender after US troops invaded the country without reason on 16th January 1893. “Committee of Safety,” led by Sanford B. Dole, overthrew the queen with the implicit assistance of the United States. On 1st February, Minister John Stevens declared Hawaii a US protectorate and acknowledged Dole’s new administration.
Image via inquirygroup.org
Dole presented the US Senate with an annexation treaty and declared independence when he was pressured to resign. President William McKinley formally supported Hawaiian annexation in his presidential platform when he assumed office in 1896. He also made a treaty with the Republic of Hawaii in 1897. Nevertheless, the independence was fleeting since Hawaii was designated a US territory and achieved statehood as the 50th state on 21st August 1959.
The Guano Islands Act
The United States even smelled the potential in bird excrement to enhance its resources and extend its territory. These feces known as Guano is an extraordinary fertiliser for farmlands. However, guano deposits were uncommon and geographically dispersed, consisting of small and isolated islands covered in layers of this waste that had accumulated over centuries or perhaps millennia.
Hence, the Guano Islands Act of 1856, which permitted any American citizen to claim a deserted island rich in guano on behalf of their nation, was passed by the US Congress out of a hunger for productivity and military advantage.
File Photo
Afterwards, Americans embarked on naval excursions to locate guano and declare it as their territory. The nation deployed a 22-gun warship to collect and assess guano in 1857 from the newly “owned” islands under this statute, as dozens of such places in the Pacific and Caribbean were grabbed.
Resources were taken from the islands as American flags were raised there. The United States claimed over a hundred islands under the act, but later vacated them after the guano ran out.
Expansionism and island hopping: US takes over Pacific islands
During the 19th century, the United States continued to press for a greater presence in and across the Pacific Ocean as part of its westward expansion, which extended beyond North America. Hence, it adopted a blend of 19th-century expansionism and the “island hopping” military tactic during World War II and gained control of Pacific islands.
US officials and individuals were initially encouraged to explore the Pacific region by the promise of gains from commerce with China. The United States swiftly broadened its footprint throughout the territory as a result of the China trade. They realised that travelling to the Asian land and developing a presence there entailed a network of ports spanning the Pacific Ocean.
Image via nationalww2museum.org
Moreover, the United States was engaged in combat on two fronts: the Pacific and Europe. Thus, the “island hopping” strategy was designed by Admiral Chester Nimitz and General Douglas MacArthur to travel across the ocean and get closer to Japan by winning wars on Pacific islands to confiscate military bases.
It involved avoiding well-fortified islands in favour of capturing weakly defended areas that can aid the following advance. Defenders were forced to suffer from malnutrition and illness when Japanese strongholds were cut off. The United States was able to leapfrog across the Pacific owing to this new scheme. Over the course of three years, this plan would bring American soldiers nearly all the way around the Pacific.
Image via studentsofhistory.com
Notably, the urge for an important centre of operations in the Pacific to aid American interests in China prompted the formation of the US base in Hawaii. The purchase of the Philippines from Spain in 1898 was the result of this maritime expansion as well, which transformed into a crucial goal for the US.
The country secured considerable commercial, political, and military interests as well as territorial possessions in the Pacific region by 1900, and turned into a prominent world power.
The foundation of US based on expansionism
The foundation of the United States is primarily based on brutal annexation and expansion, which has shaped its current shape and form, positioning it as the third-largest country worldwide. Each star on the “Old Glory” carries a distinct tale of how it came to be represented on the flag.
It is crucial to understand that the country has not only relied on this century-old strategy but has acted more aggressively and attacked different parts of the world for its interests, through direct invasions, regime changes and more.
The ouster of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh, the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the current targeting of exceptionally resource-rich Greenland by President Donald Trump illustrate the same.
According to the White House, Trump views Greenland as a top national security concern for the United States, given the increasing activities of China and Russia in the Arctic. “Acquiring Greenland is important to deter our adversaries in the Arctic,” the statement added.
Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a partner of the United States. Clearly, even allies are not immune to the schemes of Washington, which continuously adheres to the principle of “might is right” irrespective of who is seated in the Oval Office.
More importantly, as history indicates, the US never deviates from its imperialist ambitions without regard for the repercussions for others. Hence, what might deter them from pursuing a similar course in Greenland? International laws, diplomatic restrictions, the sanctity of sovereignty, or such ideals are pertinent to the country only for the purpose of imposing them on others and never for its own implementation.
