Home Blog Page 186

Did you know: Jawaharlal Nehru signed the controversial Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan without parliament approval, and despite protests by some Congress MPs

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Did you know: Jawaharlal Nehru signed the controversial Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan without parliament approval, and despite protests by some Congress MPs

Independent India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru will be remembered forever, among other things, for the countless blunders he made during his tenure. His blunders continue to harm and haunt India to this day. One such blunder was the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960. 

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in his Indepenedence Day speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort, the now-scrapped Indus Waters Treaty signed between India and Pakistan, was “unjust and one-sided” as it inflicted monumental harm to the Indian farmers while benefitting the Pakistanis. Notably, just five years later, Pakistan waged a war against India, only to lose though.

However, not only the terms of the treaty were unjust, Prime Minister Nehru agreeing to it was against the will of the India and its parliament.

The Indus Waters Treaty was signed in Karachi on 19th September 1960. The issue was then brought up for debate in the Indian parliament on 30th November 1960. With most of the MPs, even those from Congress, against this treaty for its provisions favouring Pakistan in a one-sided manner. 

The parliamentary debate on IWT was held a month after its signing. This debate was allotted a two hours time. Yes, for a treaty signed without taking the elected representatives of the country into confidence, the treaty that essentially decided the destiny of Indian farmers, the treaty that decided India’s control or a lack of it on its own waters, mere two hours were allotted for discussion. PM Nehru did not even care to take the parliament or opposition leaders into confidence before relinquishing India’s control over its own precious rivers and signing the Indus Water Treaty which was no less than a second partition.

Back then, Atal Vihari Vajpayee, the MP from Balrampur, launched a scathing and unforgettable attack on PM Nehru, calling the Indus Waters Treaty a dangerous concession to Pakistan.

Vajpayee drew attention to the fact that the government had previously declared that water would be cut off to Pakistan by 1962, but was now granting permanent rights.  Vajpayee declared, “This treaty is wrong, or that announcement was wrong.”

Vajpayee cited Pakistani President Ayub Khan as saying that India had agreed to share river control: Vajpayee cautioned, “Joint control comprehends joint possession. When such agreements are made, Parliament is not taken into confidence,” he stated.

Similarly, Pali MP Harish Chandra Mathur had also fiercely criticised Nehru’s blunder calling the Indus Waters Treaty was “all to the disadvantage of this country.”

“…unfortunately, the facts of the case as they are before us give us an inevitable feeling that this treaty is all to the disadvantage of this country. It is all to the advantage of Pakistan. I shall convey through you (speaker) to the Government that the general feeling, at least in my part of the country, particularly in Rajasthan, is that Rajasthan has been very badly let down in this treaty. Not only that. I think I am quite right when I say that this is the general feeling all over the country. If you were to look at the newspaper comments, you will find that when facts of the treaty were made known to this country, all the leading newspapers of this country made adverse comments,” Mathur said.

He further read out the headlines of the leading newspapers which aptly captured the unfairness of the Indus Waters Treaty and nation’s anger over the same. He issued a warning that his home state of Rajasthan will suffer ongoing annual losses of Rs 70–80 crore as a result of five million acre-feet of lost water.  

“There is another point where we are severely affected. Through the treaty we are losing 5 million acre-feet of water. There is such a great potential in Rajasthan. Let the Minister deny that we cannot possibly draw 5 million acre-feet of water from Chenab and that will not help the country perpetually. This will mean another perpetual loss to the country to the extent of about Rs. 70 crore to Rs. 80 crores per year. This is the implication of this treaty,” Mathur told the Parliament.

MP Mathur went on to say that India had surrendered step by step since 1948, and while Pakistan kept raising its demands, India yielded under pressure. 

“I could have understood all these sacrifices if we had, through this treaty, solved also the Kashmir problem. The only trouble about Kashmir was, because the rivers flow from Kashmir and through this country, Pakistan was in a difficult position. So, if they are assured of water, Kashmir should cease to be a problem,” Mathur said, criticising Nehru for not linking the water settlement to the treaty.  “Is Kashmir no longer a problem?” he questioned.

Congress MP Ashok Mehta also sharply criticised Prime Minister Nehru. In his historic speech in the parliament, Ashok Mehta equated the World Bank-mediated Indus Waters Treaty to India’s “second paritition”. 

Calling this treaty a second paritition at that time was significant as the wounds of partition and Pakistan’s betrayal in 1948 were fresh, however, Nehru failed to read through the deceit of Pakistan.

“We are reopening all the wounds of 1947…this is being done again with the signature of our Prime Minister,” Mehta said, adding that after 12 years of talks, India had settled on terms “which cannot be justified as fair”.

Mehta stated that, in contrast to the previous 75:25 proposal, the treaty handed Pakistan 80% of the waters and India only 20%.

“Now we are faced with this new problem that the Kashmir dispute, instead of getting settled, instead of the solution of the canal waters problem leading us, helping Us towards the easing of the tentions in that area, have really aggravated the situation,” he said and also expressed surprise over the absence of PM Nehru in the parliament.

Meanwhile, MP AC Guha also highlighted the economic aspects of the historical mistake Nehru travelled all the way to Karachi to make. Guha said that India had 26 million acres in the Indus basin, however, only 19% irrigated, while Pakistan’s 39 million acres were 54% irrigated.

“By land share, India should have received 40% of waters. Instead, it got only 20%. Pakistan received Rs 400+ crore in grants, India just Rs 27 crore in loans,” Guha said. He added that “the more regrettable thing is that waters which India would need badly would be allowed to flow into the sea unutilised and yet we shall be denied the opportunity of developing our own land with that water,” the Congress MP said.

K.T.K. Tangamani, the Communist party MP, raised question over why the parliament was not run till 9th September 1960 so that the MPs could be taken into confidence as the treaty was signed on 19th September. 

“I would like to say that the Parliament here was in session till the 9th September, 1960. This treaty was entered into on the 19th September, 1960. Surely, it would have been possible for Government to place before us at least the main purport of this treaty. They could have at least indicated certain provisions and taken into confidence the State Goverrunents concerned, and also the Members of this House as to how it is going to affect us. Assuming that this House could not be taken into confidence, at least, the leaders of the recognised all-India parties could have been consulted, before such a treaty was entered into. I do not say that the Government of India have no right to enter into a treaty with a foreign country and ratify it even without referring it to Parliament. But I submit that in future, the practice that I have suggested would be a very salutary one,” he said.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s unconvincing and nonchalant defence of the Indus Waters Treaty

At last, Prime Minister Nehru rose to address the parliament. Nehru, though sounded depressed, yet was resolute in calling the Indus Waters Treaty a “good treaty for India”.

Nehru defended his decision of not consulting the parliament or taking the MPs into confidence before signing the Indus Waters Treaty, let alone expressing any remorse over the blunder that he made. He essentially said that he does not need to  take parliament’s permission before signing such complicated agreements.

“About this argument about consulting Parliament at every step; I should like the House to consider what that means and what that would lead to. I do not think it is possible for any kind of these complicated agreements to be dealt with, when we have to refer to Parliament. There must have been, I suppose, in this particular matter, dozens of approaches, dozens of plans, discussed, ultimately rejected and something happened. Are we to come at every step and ask Parliament?” Nehru asked.

He dismissed the “second partition” argument made by the MPs and called it  “loose, meaningless language”. PM Nehru went on to ask a audacious question “Partition of what? A pailful of water?”

“Coming to the actual merits of this, I confess that, reading the notes my colleagues took about the points raised, I have a feeling of extreme depression that any honourable or respected Member of this House should say what has been said. It represents a complete absence of any perspective approach to this problem, any future approach Or any benefits as a whole which we derive. It represents an exceedingly narrow-minded approach which may, perhaps, injure the other party, but certainly would injure our own interests also at the same time. In such matters, there has to be give and take,” Nehru said,

“One honourable Member said, this is the second partition of India. I stand amazed and astounded that anybody should Use such loose language, which has no meaning, which is really a perversion of the facts. Partition of what? Of an inch of territory? Partition of a pailful of water?” he continued.

As if these outrageous remarks were not enough, PM Nehru went on to defend the Rs 80 crore per year payments to Pakistan. 

“We have given a crore or two more or some money more. You may say that we have allowed them water for another two or three years, which we should not have allowed. Those are presumably the two main things. How, I should like to know, is this House now to judge of the quantum of supply of water or the quantum of money to be given. I confess I cannot judge it off hand. Of course, I can say that Rs. 70 crores is less than Rs. 80 crores. That is a question of arithmetic and one could say: If I could give Rs. 70 crores why should I give Rs. 80 crores, whatever the figure might be. But about the relative rightness of the figure, nobody can say. When you deal in this matter it is a balance struck after a hundred factors are taken into consideration; it is a balance struck after ten year of long and bitter argument. Something is done because it is considered, in the balance, that is desirable,” Nehru said.

PM Nehru claimed to have purchased peace, and even boasted that Pakistan had initially demanded Rs 300 crore, however, India had settled for Rs 83 crore. Basically, giving in to Pakistan’s demands and intransigence at a lesser cost was described as an achievement by PM Nehru. 

Source: World Bank

Notably, India paid $174 million ($1.6 billion today) to Pakistan even before the treaty was signed.

The debate ended with no significant result as no voting took place and the treaty was already signed. Nehru left the parliament to meet Japan’s Crown Prince who was on a visit to India. The flow of India’s waters was decided in Pakistan’s favour. A parliamentary debate was held weeks after the IWT’s signing, and yet countless questions remained unanswered. 

Indus Waters Treaty: What is was and why the Modi government decided to do away with it?

It all started in 1948, when India temporarily cut off the Indus water to Pakistan but reopened it later. Pakistan, however, approached the United Nations (UN) in 1951, alleging that India had cut off water to numerous Pakistani villages. Eventually, the Indus water agreement was prepared in 1954 by the World Bank based on the recommendations of the United Nations. After years of discussions, India and Pakistan agreed on shared ownership of six rivers. Pakistan was the lower riparian state at the time of India’s independence in 1947, since the border between the two countries was defined across the Indus Basin.

Signed on 19th September 1960 in Karachi, the Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan was brokered by the World Bank. This water-sharing agreement governs the use of the Indus River system by India and Pakistan. Signed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan Field Marshal Ayyub Khan, this treaty allocates the waters of six rivers originating in the Himalayas, broadly divided into two categories: the eastern rivers and the western rivers. The eastern rivers Ravi (origin in Himachal Pradesh), Beas (flows through Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, and Sutlej (originates in Tibet, flows through India into Pakistan) were allocated to India, while Indus, Chenab and Jhelum were allocated to Pakistan.

India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan’s Field Marshal Ayyub Khan signing the Indus Water Treaty in Karachi in 1960 (Source: TheHindu)

India effectively utilises the waters of eastern rivers for hydropower, irrigation and other purposes. Meanwhile, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab are essential for Pakistan’s hydropower, irrigation and other needs, with Indus being nothing short of Pakistan’s lifeline.

While the signing of IWT was touted as a historic step towards mutual cooperation and peace, this treaty was not essentially balanced; in fact, it actually benefited Pakistan more due to the higher water flow in its assigned rivers, the western rivers.

Notably, under this arrangement, India controls around 20 per cent of the total water flow, which translates into 33 million acre-feet or 41 billion cubic meters annually, and Pakistan gets 80 per cent, which is approximately 135 million acre-feet or 99 billion cubic meters. This agreement allowed limited non-consumptive uses of the western rivers, such as hydropower generation, however, it restricted blocking or dramatically altering water flow into Pakistan.  

In addition, the treaty also gave Pakistan the right to object to the designs of Indian hydropower projects on western rivers. Under the IWT, the commissioners of India and Pakistan are supposed to meet once a year, alternatively in India and Pakistan.

“The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, being equally desirous of attaining the most complete and satisfactory utilisation of the waters of the Indus system of rivers and recognising the need, therefore, of fixing and delimiting, in a spirit of goodwill and friendship, the rights and obligations of each in relation to the other concerning the use of these waters and of making provision for the settlement, in a cooperative spirit, of all such questions as may hereafter arise in regard to the interpretation or application of the provisions agreed upon herein, have resolved to conclude a Treaty in furtherance of these objectives, and for this purpose have named as their plenipotentiaries…” the Preamble of the Indus Water Treaty reads.

Call it humanitarian grounds or lack of political will, in the last 60 years, India never considered scrapping the Indus Waters Treaty, silently suffered the injustice this treaty did to lakhs of Indians, even as Pakistan continued to inflict one wound after the other on Bharat. From violating the 1972 Shimla Agreement to betraying the 1999 Lahore Declaration, carrying out countless terror attacks on innocent Indian citizens, starting conventional wars only to lose, to attempting to destabilise through proxy wars and cross-border terrorism and internationalise the Kashmir issue while illegally occupying PoJK, Pakistan proved to be a hostile neighbour with its army and governments, regardless of which party is in power.

It took over six decades, the many Islamic jihadist terror attacks sponsored by Pakistan, with the Pahalgam terror attack of April 2025 being the final trigger, and the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, that the wretched Indus Waters Treaty was relegated to the veritable dustbin it belonged to. 

Discontinuing the one-sided ‘Aman ki asha’, the Modi government took a strong stand and decided that blood and water cannot flow together adding that no bilateral talks can be held with Pakistan until it stops sponsoring Jihadi terrorism against India. Pakistani establishment’s support to Islamic terrorism once again in Pahalgam, however, confirms that they are not ready to shun their intransigence. 

Pakistan has repeatedly cited the IWT to lay claim over the waters of the Indus river system. Pakistani politicians and its rogue jihadist military leadership continues to threaten to stop India’s breath if the IWT is not restored. Pakistan even approach the international court-of-arbitration to force India into resuming the treaty. But the Modi government remains undeterred even in the face of nuclear attack threats. 

This situation, however, had never arose had PM Nehru decided against signing the Indus Waters Treaty on Pakistan’s terms. His Himalayan blunder has been undone by the Modi government for good. 

Gauhati HC’s ‘extraordinary’ remark for 3,000-bigha land in Assam, fake Adani spin by CPIM, and more: Exposing gap between judicial perception and economic reality

Jinit Jain
-
0
Gauhati HC’s ‘extraordinary’ remark for 3,000-bigha land in Assam, fake Adani spin by CPIM, and more: Exposing gap between judicial perception and economic reality

The Gauhati High Court, in its hearing last week, made scathing remarks over the allotment of 3,000 bighas of land (roughly 4 square kilometres) in Dima Hasao district to Mahabal Cement Private Limited for the establishment of a cement factory. The court, while hearing two petitions related to the allotment, including one by locals alleging eviction from their land, expressed strong disapproval over what it termed as an “extraordinary” grant of land in a Sixth Schedule tribal region.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, reacting to the disclosure by the company’s counsel that 3,000 bighas had been allotted, was visibly incredulous.

“3,000 bighas! What is going on? 3,000 bighas allotted to a private company? What kind of decision is this? Is this some kind of joke or what?” he observed in open court.

The bench directed the state to furnish the policy under which such a large allotment had been made and sought the records of the process followed by the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC) and the state revenue department.

The court went further to emphasise the unique constitutional and environmental sensitivities of the region. Dima Hasao, being under the Sixth Schedule, enjoys special protections intended to safeguard the land and rights of tribal communities. Additionally, the Umrangso area, where the land is located, is widely known as an ecological hotspot, featuring hot springs, migratory bird stopovers, and rich biodiversity.

The order explicitly noted that any industrial activity in such an area must be weighed against the rights of indigenous inhabitants and the need to preserve fragile ecosystems.

The bench also reminded the state government of the extraordinary size of the allotment, demanding to know whether such a decision was consistent with established policy. While counsel for Mahabal Cement argued that the allotment was made pursuant to a mining lease under a tender process, the court maintained that the sheer scale of 3,000 bighas warranted closer scrutiny.

On the face of it, the concerns raised by the court appear grounded in constitutional protections, environmental responsibility, and the principle of safeguarding tribal interests. However, a closer look at industrial norms and the economic context suggests that the High Court’s assessment is alarmist, even misplaced. By focusing narrowly on the figure of 3,000 bighas, the judgment risks ignoring both precedent and the realities of large-scale industrial projects.

Why 3,000 bighas is not “extraordinary”

At first glance, 3,000 bighas, around 4 sq km, may sound like a massive tract of land. But when placed in context, the scale becomes entirely ordinary for the cement industry. Cement plants are uniquely land-intensive because they rely on captive limestone mines. Unlike a factory that can operate on a few acres of industrial estate, cement plants require secure and sustained access to limestone deposits, which means that leases for hundreds of hectares are the industry norm.

A comparison helps. In Himachal Pradesh, the state government allotted a limestone mining lease of 324.479 hectares, equivalent to nearly 2,500 bighas, for 50 years to a cement company. That project produces around 5,000 metric tonnes of cement per day. Mahabal Cement’s project in Assam, by contrast, is backed by a proposed investment of ₹11,000 crore. Such a scale of investment naturally requires even larger raw material reserves to ensure viability over decades.

Seen this way, the 3,000 bighas allotted in Dima Hasao is not extraordinary but entirely consistent with industry requirements. Without sufficient limestone reserves secured through land allotments of this size, a cement plant of such scale would be economically unfeasible.

Less than 0.1% of district land

The court’s shock also misses a crucial geographical reality. Dima Hasao district spans 4,900 sq km. The 4 sq km allotted to Mahabal Cement is less than 0.1% of the district’s area. It is implausible to suggest that such a fractional allotment fundamentally undermines either the land rights of tribals or the ecological balance of the region.

Even if we focus narrowly on Umrangso, the region already hosts multiple quarrying and cement activities. Limestone and coal mining are well-established industries there, with existing cement factories operating for years. The allotment to Mahabal Cement must be seen as a continuation of that industrial base, not as some unprecedented diversion of land.

Precedents of larger allotments

Historical precedents show that governments across India have routinely granted even larger parcels of land for mining leases connected to cement production. Mining leases of 300–400 hectares (upwards of 2,500 bighas) are standard practice, as the Himachal Pradesh example illustrates. In Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh, land allotments for limestone mines connected to cement plants have often exceeded these numbers.

By singling out the 3,000 bigha allotment as “extraordinary,” the Gauhati High Court risks creating an impression of arbitrariness that does not align with industrial realities. Such impressions can be damaging, particularly when Assam has been aggressively courting investors through summits like Advantage Assam 2.0. If projects promised during such platforms are later subjected to judicial ridicule, it undermines investor confidence and discourages future capital inflows.

Economic stakes of the project

Mahabal Cement signed an MoU earlier this year pledging an ₹11,000 crore investment in Assam, and the implications of this go far beyond the headline number. A project of this scale promises multi-dimensional benefits for the state and local communities. Cement plants are major employers, both directly and indirectly, and this one is expected to create thousands of jobs spanning mining operations, plant management, logistics, and ancillary services. The revenue impact is equally significant, with lease payments, mineral royalties, GST, and corporate taxes flowing into both the state exchequer and the autonomous council, strengthening public finances. 

Such a large plant will also necessitate supporting infrastructure in the form of roads, power supply, and housing, which will have lasting benefits for surrounding communities. In addition, ancillary industries, small businesses, and service providers inevitably emerge around such projects, triggering a multiplier effect across the local economy. To jeopardize such a transformative investment over the perception that 3,000 bighas is “too much” land is to overlook the enormous developmental gains it could bring.

Addressing the court’s concerns

None of this is to suggest that tribal rights or environmental considerations should be ignored. The Sixth Schedule is a constitutional safeguard, and ecological preservation is vital. But these are not mutually exclusive with industrial development. What is required is a framework of safeguards to ensure that the project is implemented responsibly. The state should make the allotment process fully transparent, if the lease was indeed granted through a competitive tender, the details must be placed in the public domain to dispel any doubts. 

For local residents who may be displaced, proper rehabilitation and compensation must be guaranteed, alongside priority in employment opportunities at the plant itself. Environmental safeguards, too, must be non-negotiable, with strict compliance under the Environment Protection Act and regular audits to monitor ecological impact.

Fact-Check: No, Gauhati HC’s remarks don’t concern Adani Group

The High Court’s remarks have also sparked a storm of misinformation online. Some Congress-supporting social media handles, such as @Tarunspeakss, claimed, “Himanta is literally bulldozing Muslim colonies in the name of illegal encroachment but has 3000 bighas to give to Adani. Even the judge is shocked.”

Source: X

The official handle of CPI(M) alleged, “3,000 bighas handed to Adani – 14,000 tribal families face displacement! ‘Na khauga, na khane dunga’ is nothing but Adani raj!”

Source: X

In fact, social media is rife with claims that the Gauhati HC has rebuked the Assam government for allotting the land to the Adani Group, with the Congress ecosystem working overtime to mislead users into believing it was the Adani Group that had gotten the 3,000 bighas of land in Assam.

However, these claims are patently false. The company in question is Mahabal Cement Private Limited, a Kolkata-registered firm. It has no ownership link, stake, or connection whatsoever to the Adani Group.

Adani Group issues statement rubbishing malicious rumours

The Adani Group itself issued a statement clarifying: “It has come to our notice that certain news reports, social media posts and clips from court hearings are being circulated, claiming that the Assam Government has allotted 3000 bighas in Dima Hasao to the Adani Group for a cement plant. We categorically state that these reports and references are baseless, false and misleading.”

“Linking the Adani name to Mahabal Cement is mischievous. Mahabal Cement is not related to, owned by or connected with the Adani Group in any manner whatsoever. We strongly urge members of the media, digital platforms and the public to verify facts before making or sharing such claims,” the statement further said.

Gauhati HC’s critical remarks misplaced, 3000 bighas of land for mining less than industry norms

The Gauhati High Court’s critical remarks stem from a legitimate concern for tribal rights and environmental protection. Yet, in branding the 3,000 bigha allotment as “extraordinary” and questioning whether it is “some kind of joke,” the court risks missing the larger picture. For a project of ₹11,000 crore involving cement production, such a land size is neither unusual nor excessive; it is the industry norm.

More importantly, the land in question represents less than 0.1% of Dima Hasao’s total area. Previous allotments for cement mining leases in India have been of comparable or larger magnitude. The potential benefits in terms of jobs, infrastructure, and revenue are immense.

The real challenge is not the number “3,000 bighas” but how the state ensures that this industrial push respects local communities and ecological balance. By framing the debate around sensational numbers, the court risks undermining investment sentiment and turning a developmental opportunity into a needless controversy.

And as the fact-check makes clear, dragging unrelated corporate names into the debate only adds to public confusion. The focus should remain where it belongs: on balancing development with safeguards, not on fuelling misinformation.

Gujarat Samachar redefines journalism by translating and republishing editorial of a Hindi newspaper without giving any credit

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Gujarat Samachar redefines journalism by translating and republishing editorial of a Hindi newspaper without giving any credit

Editorials are often described as the “soul” of a newspaper. For decades, they have been the space where editors set the tone for public debate, shape opinions, and comment on the issues of the day. But gradually, their significance has waned.

Readers nowadays skim them, and even authors do not seem to give their heart to them anymore like before. Nevertheless, all serious papers still have editorials, because there is tradition involved.

In this context, a recent editorial published in the Gujarati daily ‘Gujarat Samachar’ has sparked a debate in the state. Known for its fiery journalism in the past, sometimes rattling even leaders like Narendra Modi or Donald Trump, the paper published an editorial on 18th August titled “Challenges Before the Nation.” 

At first glance, the headline promised a scathing criticism of the administration. Since the paper is known for its journalistic integrity, people expected an article with a lot of nuance but alas.

What the readers got was an average write-up presented in the dry and impersonal style of editorials everywhere.

What’s in the editorial

The editorial started by mentioning the Independence Day celebrations last month. It had noted that there was no dearth of reasons to celebrate. In spite of its several differences and internal conflicts, India had continued to become a stronger nation, the editorial said.

The article cited Operation Sindoor, discussed national integration, and indicated that the nation’s achievement as one of the world’s fastest-growing economies was a fact. It even pointed out that poverty has reduced.

In the second half, the article addressed the issues of the future. It mentioned global politics, such as the United States and the issue of trade tariffs, very briefly, and emphasized the value of strong institutions and a rules-based order.

The final paragraph, though, brought in a political twist. It contended that at times a parliamentary majority acts like a flock of sheep. Referring to BJP-governed states, it said lawmakers were handed a list of pre-approved questions to be asked in assemblies, rendering them incapable of raising the actual issues of their constituencies.

The underlined part is not in the original Hindi editorial

This, the editorial noted, undermined democracy. The article also questioned the Election Commission, pointing out that opposition parties had questioned its impartiality in the open, something, it asserted, was never previously done. An impartial and equitable Election Commission, the article contended, formed the cornerstone of Indian democracy.

Similar editorial published in Business Standard’s Hindi edition earlier

It appeared to be just another ordinary editorial at first glance. On closer inspection, however, a strange thing became evident. Pratically the same article had been published four days earlier, on 14th August, in the Hindi edition of Business Standard.

That one had been published with the title, “On the 79th Independence Day: India’s Achievements and Challenges, the Need for Strong Institutions.”

The parallels were remarkable. Right from the introductory paragraph to the composition of the arguments, almost everything was the same. The only variation was that the Business Standard news item was in Hindi and Gujarat Samachar editorial was in Gujarati. 

With the exception of the concluding anti-BJP observations, which were not included in the Business Standard version, the two editorials were more or less the same. Paragraphs, words, phrasing: everything was word-for-word.

In the world of journalism, it is not uncommon for the content of one newspaper to be carried by another. Lots of Indian papers have no qualms about reproducing reports or opinion pieces from foreign newspapers, particularly The New York Times or The Washington Post. But this is done on formal terms and always with acknowledgement. The reader is informed that the piece originally appeared elsewhere.

Editorials are distinct. They are the voice of a newspaper. It is rare to the point of impossibility for them to be duplicated, or “borrowed”—from another newspaper. When such a situation does occur, the source will normally be credited.

Gujarat Samachar did not provide any such explanation in this instance. The editorial was presented in the form of the paper’s voice, with no reference to Business Standard.

No collaboration between the two newspapers

When OpIndia contacted Business Standard to seek clarification, the response was clear: There is no understanding whatsoever between the two newspapers. Neither the English newspaper nor its Hindi counterpart has licensed Gujarat Samachar to reprint its content.

This makes the issue all the more strange. In the absence of a syndication arrangement or a mention, reprinting another newspaper’s editorial, practically word-for-word raises grave doubts.

According to sources, the matter is being examined by Business Standard. The management is considering the issue and will take a decision regarding further action after ascertaining facts.

Blaming EVMs to claims of “vote chori” and campaign against Bihar SIR drive: Congress-led opposition’s relentless assault on electoral process for over a decade

Rukma Rathore
-
0
Blaming EVMs to claims of “vote chori” and campaign against Bihar SIR drive: Congress-led opposition’s relentless assault on electoral process for over a decade

The controversy regarding elections, which was initially triggered by the disgruntled I.N.D.I. Alliance unable to come to terms with its humiliating defeats in repeated elections and blaming EVMs, has once again taken center stage. However, it is now entering a fresh chapter, while still echoing the same old rhetoric of election manipulation, this time it is labeled as “stolen elections.”

This is a quintessential case of rebranding an obsolete product in a new format to trick the populace. However, as predicted and similar to before, the Election Commission is their target just because people aren’t voting for them.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) was accused of “criminal fraud” by Rahul Gandhi in the recent attack. He alleged that more than 1 lakh bogus votes were cast in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment of the Bangalore Central Lok Sabha constituency to guarantee the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) victory in the general election of 2024.

Rahul Gandhi specified five distinct methods of “vote chori” including the use of Form 6 improperly, duplicate voters, bulk votes at a single address, phoney and incorrect addresses as well as invalid pictures.

“The Congress won all the Vidhan Sabha (six out of seven) except Mahadevapura, where the BJP swept and secured a victory margin of 1,14,046 votes. This seat significantly contributed to their election win and the Lok Sabha result went in their favour on that seat,” the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha said.

The remark explicitly demonstrated his irritation with yet another loss in the general election which the Congress leaders celebrated as an exceptional victory with 99 seats. However, it seemed that the party eventually realized that it was indeed a failure, culminating in the current frustration.

The Karnataka Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) treated the accusations with gravity and requested that he submit his evidence under oath. “I am a politician, what I say to the people is my word. I am saying it to the people publicly, take it as an oath. Interestingly, they haven’t denied the information,” the Rae Bareli MP responded conveniently.

This serves as a prime illustration of political hit-and-run tactics aced by the opposition where they make critical allegations without accepting any accountability or presenting proof. The same was evident in the Pegasus affair, the Rafale deal and various other instances where the even Supreme Court had to reprimand Rahul Gandhi for disseminating lies.

“Using words like vote chori to mislead people is a disrespect to the Constitution,” the Election Commission also lashed out at the opposition. A period of 45 days following the elections is allocated for candidates to challenge any election results in the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, no such matters were brought up at that time.

“It is an insult to the Indian Constitution if election petitions are not filed within 45 days but allegations of vote chori are raised,” the Election Commission emphasised. It added, “During that period, no candidate or political party finds any irregularity, then today, after so many days, the voters and people of the country understand the intention behind making such baseless allegations.”

“The machine-readable voter list is prohibited. This decision of the Election Commission is after the judgment of the Supreme Court and is from 2019,” it replied after Congress alleged that the Election Commission gave electoral rolls in formats intended to evade examination, such as digital files that were locked as non-machine-readable PDFs and reams of printed paper piled “seven feet high.”

Opposition hits out at SIR drive, wants to bring impeachment motion against CEC

The opposition is reportedly contemplating about filing an impeachment motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar amid the growing hostility between the Election Commission and the opposition. Leading the assault, Rahul Gandhi charged that the Election Commission conspired with the BJP to steal elections in the entire country and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drive in Bihar is the “latest conspiracy” to replicate the same.

He launched a 16-day 1300 kilometre “Voter Adhikar Yatra” (right to vote march) from Sasaram with his Mahagathbandhan partner and Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Tejashwi Yadav and argued that he was directed to provide an affidavit following his “vote chori” charges, however, no similar demand was issued to BJP leaders after their presser.

“In the whole country, assembly and Lok Sabha elections are being stolen and their latest conspiracy is to delete and add voters through SIR to steal the elections in Bihar. We have come here to tell you that we will not let them steal the election in Bihar. People of Bihar will not let them steal elections. The poor only have the power of vote and we will not let them steal polls,” he insisted.

“The entire country knows what the election commission is doing. Earlier, the country did not know how votes were being stolen. But we made it clear in the press conference how votes are being stolen,” the Gandhi scion stressed. He added, “Wherever this theft is happening, be it Bihar, Maharashtra, Assam, West Bengal, we will catch their theft and put it before the people.”

Mallikarjun Kharge, the president of the Congress accused the Election Commission of serving as a “agent” of the “dangerous” Modi government at the centre which he described as a “threat” to the Constitution and the right of the people to vote, at the yatra’s launch. “Modi government decided to have a union minister in the selection committee for the Election Commission, ignoring the Supreme Court’s advice that the Chief Justice of India be included,” he added.

The apex court pronounced that Election Commissioners is going to be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India, in 2023. However, it highlighted that the order would only hold merit “until a law is made by Parliament.” Notably, Kharge disregarded to mention the fundamental part of the judgment.

Likewise, Rahul Gandhi has initiated an offensive against the SIR program which is genuinely aimed at curbing fake voters and exclusively facilitate voting for legitimate citizens, strengthening the democractic exercise. Ironically, he has taken issue with the Elections Commission, which is proactively working to address the voter fraud concerns he repeatedly articulated.

More importantly, the matter was not only brought to attention by the constitutional body but also research papers from the distinguished IIM institutes which have pointed out that Bihar and West Bengal are rife with a significant number of fraudulent voters. The campaign also showcased the presence of illegal foreign nationals including Bangladeshis with Indian documents like Aadhar Card.

The claims of “disenfranchisement” and “voter fraud” by the Mahagathbandhan alongside threats to boycott elections were also dismissed by the Supreme Court. It stated that the Aadhaar Card is not definitive evidence of citizenship and backed the Election Commission. The latter’s authority to add or remove citizens and non-citizens from the voter list was also recognised by the highest court.

“But something will be needed to see whether they are resident or not,” the bench conveyed, refuting the assertions of the petitioners as a “sweeping argument.” It added, “There are family registers, pension cards, etc, a very sweeping argument to say that people do not have these documents.”

Notably, the members of all political parties have been an integral part of the SIR drive at all stages. The Booth Level Agents (BLAs) have exhibited their complete trust in the transparency of the entire process and no official complaint has been submitted by any political party to the Election Commission regarding the campaign.

Nevertheless, the rhetoric has only been intensified ignoring the ground realities as most of the fraudulent voters were supporters of the Congress-led coalition, in an attempt to provoke the general public.

Old playbook at work again

The Congress-led bloc’s penchant for ludicrous accusations concerning EVMs is neither new nor novel. This is a strategy that has been proven ineffective on several occasions in the past but it continues to be employed repeatedly in the hope that the Indian populace will accept their preposterous statements and rally behind them.

Casting doubts on the electoral process began with the attacking the EVMs not only during the Lok Sabha elections but also during state assembly elections. The victory of the BJP in the state assembly elections last year led to a renewed wave of allegations from Congress and ecosystem. Notably, in a manner reminiscent of past events, the controversy only arose when the BJP won.

For example, the reliability of the EVMs came under scrutiny in Haryana and Maharashtra assembly polls but not in Jharkhand or Jammu and Kashmir, where Congress partners Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and Jammu & Kashmir National Conference were successful, respectively. This striking selectivity renders the truth behind the claims and the intentions rather apparent.

The grand old party’s stalwarts Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera declared that the BJP triumphed in EVMs with a battery charge of 99% while the Congress did in those with a charge of 60% to 70%, following Haryana assembly elections.

The outrageous remarks were soon rebuffed by Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar who affirmed, “The public answers the questions by participating in the voting. As far as EVMs are concerned, they are 100% secure and foolproof.” The body underlined that even though EVMs are pre-installed with fully charged batteries, the charge level decreases as they are used for counting, mock polls and actual voting.

The assertions made by a suspended police officer were similarly magnified by the Congress ecosystem regarding EVM tampering in Maharashtra assembly polls which were promptly countered by the Election Commission. A man named Syed Shuja also announced that he could rig the results in 281 of the 288 seats in the state.

He added that EVMs could be managed by “frequency isolation.” Notably, electronic voting machines are incapable of wireless communication. Additionally, Syed claimed that he could pre-program EVMs to favour a particular political party and operate the voting machines using “specific apps” for Rs 52-53 crores.

The Congress ecosystem latched onto the video as the one and only truth and designated it as “empirical evidence.” However, the Election Commission had disproved the falsehood in 2019. The Delhi Police were even instructed by the nodal election body to file a complaint against him for spreading conspiracy theories and eroding faith of the voters in the voting equipment.

Syed Shuja initially gained notoriety in January 2019 after contending that the 2014 elections had been “rigged” to ensure BJP’s vitory. If his statement contained even a semblance of truth, it would imply that the United Progressive Alliance, headed by the Congress, was so inept that an opposition party managed to manipulate the elections while those in authority remained passive spectators.

He added that the EVMs were vulnerable to hacking during a Skype press conference in London. The scammer made a number of preposterous allegations on “rigged elections” in India. He even suggested that Gopinath Munde was killed as a result of finding out about the EVM tampering. Kapil Sibal also participated in the event, however, the party later tried to distance itself from the same.

“The charges made are very serious. I cannot vouch for them or deny them, as they have not been investigated. But they certainly need investigation. These should be looked into with an open mind by the Election Commission,” Abhishek Manu Singhvi had stressed attributing credibility to the claims.

He added that to reassure the nation about the reliability of electronic voting machines, the Congress and other parties demand a system in place to verify 50% of voter verifiable paper audit trails (VVPAT).

Congress and its allies consistently overlook an essential feature of Indian elections: since EVMs are constantly monitored by security forces and agents of the candidates, tampering with them is impossible. The EVMs are stored in secure rooms, where candidates and their designated representatives are permitted to watch over them around-the-clock until the day of the result.

The agents have access to live CCTV footage from within the strong room while they remain in a camp outside of it. Any dubious movement could lead to an alarm and provoke complaints. However, no such official complaints have been mabe by any candidate of the opposition.

Lies fall flat after Election Commission’s challenge, observations of courts

Various courts across the nation have rejected the allegations that EVMs could be compromised. Madras High Court, the Kerala High Court, the Karnataka High Court, the Bombay High Court, the Uttarakhand High Court and the Supreme Court, all of which have considered petitions on this subject and upheld the integrity of the EVMs.

“Prima facie, it is evident from a combined reading of the entire press release of ECI that this system is safe. The EVMs are not hackable. There cannot be any manipulation at the manufacturing stage. The results cannot be altered by activating a Trojan Horse through a sequence of key presses. The ECI-EVMs cannot be physically tampered with,” the Uttarakhand High Court highlighted.

The Bombay High Court stated, “The Bombay High Court ordered a detailed forensic examination of the EVMs from Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) Hyderabad for checking any manipulation etc. The CFSL report clearly ruled out any tampering, alteration or manipulation in the EVMs. The said report was accepted by high court and the petition was dismissed.”

The Karnataka High Court conveyed, “This invention (EVMs) is undoubtedly a great achievement in the electronic and computer technology and a national pride.”

A petition requesting 100% matching between the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) and the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) during the vote-counting on 23rd May 2019, was termed as “nonsense” and junked by the Supreme Court. “We won’t entertain such a plea over and over again. Can’t come in the way of people electing their representatives. Let country elect its government,” it pronounced.

The Election Commission, in 2017, had already challenged all parties, especially the Opposition, to hack the EVM amid repeated accusations by Congress, Left and the Aam Aadmi Party of rigging to benefit the saffron party. Nevertheless, in spite of the intense reactions regarding the alleged tampering, no political parties, scientists or technical experts stepped forward to substantiate their claims, even when given a prime opportunity.

Conclusion

The issue is straightforward and clear-cut. It is not about EVMs or anything else but power. Congress never imagined that Chief Minister Narendra Modi would become the prime minister and the BJP would govern the country not merely for five years but for 15 or maybe more.

“I promise you in 21st Century Narendra Modi will never become the Prime Minister of the country. But if he wants to distribute tea here, we will find a place for him,” Mani Shankar Iyer’s derogatory remarks during an All India Congress Committee (AICC) event exposed their bigoted mindset and overconfidence.

This comment later returned to haunt the party dramatically and now they fear that they might have to remain in opposition for the unforeseeable future. As a result, conspiracy theories have been circulated and every nonsensical claim is projected as truth in an effort to bring down the government by any means possible.

The attack on EVMs, the election commission and the SIR is a continuation of this. Congress has an entitled mentality, convinced that it is the only party fit to rule India, and that democracy functions properly only when they are in control. Once they are removed from power, they begin to point fingers at everything, from the Election Commission to the judiciary.

It is also evident from the facts that such issues are only raised when the BJP succeeds and not otherwise. If Congress or the opposition were truly earnest then their concerns would not be restricted solely to the victory of their rival. The dismissal of their claims by the courts coupled with their failure to respond to the challenge from the Election Commission to support their allegations, indicates the same.

It is nothing but noise without any real substance or proof for the last decade and the opposition thinks that the people of this country will somehow be persuaded by it and stand with them.

OpIndia Exclusive: Self-styled ‘dog lovers’ attack MCD officials, damage van during Supreme Court-ordered stray dog removal drive in Delhi’s Rohini

Anurag
-
0
OpIndia Exclusive: Self-styled ‘dog lovers’ attack MCD officials, damage van during Supreme Court-ordered stray dog removal drive in Delhi’s Rohini

On 18th August, self-styled “dog lovers” attacked Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) officials who were out to pick aggressive dogs following the Supreme Court’s 11th August orders in the suo motu case on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR. OpIndia received several videos from multiple sources showing MCD officials being attacked in the Rohini area of Delhi.

The attackers were heard threatening officials with dire consequences. In three of the videos, the so-called dog lovers damaged the MCD van, creating a hostile environment for those engaged in court-mandated duty.

OpIndia talked to its sources about the incident. It was revealed during the conversation that, following the apex court’s order, several Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) across Delhi sent requests to MCD to remove dogs with a biting history and those deemed dangerous. The request was in sync with the Supreme Court’s detailed order of 11th August that made it clear that MCD authorities were required to actively act on complaints regarding aggressive strays, emphasising that citizens’ rights to safety cannot be violated by forced re-release of biting dogs under the ABC Rules, 2023. The court also underlined that such dogs must be removed immediately to prevent further attacks.

Despite the clarity in the order and no immediate stay on the apex court’s judgment by the larger bench, so-called “dog lovers” opposed the removal attempt and obstructed the officials by resorting to intimidation and violence. It has to be noted that the Supreme Court, in its order, made it clear that any such obstruction will be seen as contempt of court and will be dealt with strictly. However, it appears that these self-styled dog lovers have no respect for the order of the apex court or for the safety of the general public, which is facing severe trauma on a daily basis because of the uncontrolled population of stray dogs on Indian streets.

Upon further investigation, OpIndia came across several Instagram pages and handles that actively shared these videos as their “victory” against MCD. In one of the videos, they forced an MCD official to issue a statement asking other MCD officials not to pick dogs if they wanted to save themselves from being beaten.

The vandalism of government property and threats issued against workers underscore how sections of “dog lovers” have resorted to terrorising those tasked with upholding the law and protecting public safety.

It is important to note that the officials were not carrying out indiscriminate removals but were following clear court directions and citizen complaints. Obstructing them undermines the judiciary’s authority and puts ordinary citizens at risk. If civic staff cannot act without fear, implementation of the court’s order will be paralysed, leaving residents vulnerable to dog attacks.

The incident has raised urgent questions about how far certain groups will go in shielding aggressive strays, even at the cost of human safety.

During Operation Sindoor, Pakistan’s Navy ran away and hid its ships in commercial docks and near Iran border

OpIndia Staff
-
0
During Operation Sindoor, Pakistan’s Navy ran away and hid its ships in commercial docks and near Iran border

For the first time, satellite images have come out that show Pakistan’s Navy pulling back during India’s attack as part of Operation Sindoor in May. According to a report by India Today, these images provide rare proof of how Islamabad was forced to reposition its naval fleet after India’s strikes.

The pictures reveal that several Pakistani warships were shifted from their main naval bases. Some were moved to Karachi’s commercial docks, while others were pushed further west, closer to the Iran border. The retreat was significant, as it happened right when India was carrying out precision strikes against the terror state between 7th and 10th May.

This new evidence directly challenges Pakistan’s earlier claims of giving a “strong response” to India. The images suggest that Islamabad had to retreat to even protect its naval assets. On 8th May, just a day after India’s strikes, key warships were found missing from their usual berths. Instead, three were spotted together at Karachi’s commercial port, while another had been relocated separately.

Notably, on the intervening night of 7th and 8th May, India carried out a major retaliatory strike following the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people. The operation was a joint effort by the Indian Army and the Air Force.

Within a span of 25 minutes, between 1:05 am and 1:30 am, Indian forces conducted 24 precision missile attacks on nine terror locations within Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Targets included Muridke and Bahawalpur—locations that are the centers of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

New Delhi said clearly that the action was a “measured” step, meant to punish those responsible for the Pahalgam attack, not to escalate tensions further.

The satellite imagery, however, speaks for itself. They amply illustrate how Pakistan’s navy had to relocate its frontline warships almost 100 km away from Karachi to Gwadar on the Iranian border. For Islamabad, which had proclaimed resilience, this withdrawal is an abject acknowledgment of just how forcefully India’s Operation Sindoor rattled its defenses.

US brings bizarre excuse for China to justify tariff on India, White House adviser accuses India of ‘funding Putin’s war machine’, 2 days after his own President meets Putin

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
US brings bizarre excuse for China to justify tariff on India, White House adviser accuses India of ‘funding Putin’s war machine’, 2 days after his own President meets Putin

The American hypocrisy knows no bounds. US President Donald Trump has since late July launched a tirade against India, imposing 50 per cent tariffs citing India’s oil and defence trade with Russia. Now, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has not only admitted to having double standards regarding China and India, but also justified Washington’s hypocrisy.

Recently, Trump had alleged that India, being the second-largest buyer of Russian oil, is “fuelling the Russian war machine” against Ukraine. However, despite China being the top Russian oil buyer, purchasing about 2 million barrels per day, the US keeps it exempt from tariffs.

Justifying China’s exemption from Trump tariffs, Marco Rubio said on 17th August, unlike India, the majority of Russian oil that China is purchasing is being refined and then sold in the global marketplace. He further argued that imposing sanctions on Beijing could result in global prices surging dramatically.

“Well, if you look at the oil that’s going to China and being refined, a lot of that is then being sold back into Europe. Europe’s also buying natural gas still. Now, there are countries trying to wean themselves off it, but there’s more Europe can do with regard to their own sanctions,” Rubio said in an interview with Fox Business.

Further defending America’s inaction against China for buying Russian crude oil, Rubio said, “If you put secondary sanctions on a country – let’s say you were to go after the oil sales of Russian oil to China – well, China just refines that oil. That oil is then sold into the global marketplace, and anyone who’s buying that oil would be paying more for it or, if it doesn’t exist, would have to find an alternative source for it.”

Rubio also said that European nations which purchase Russian oil from China have expressed ‘unease’ over taking punitive measures against China.

“We have heard, when you talk about the Senate bill that was being proposed – where there was a hundred per cent tariff on China and India – we did hear from a number of European countries – not in press releases, but we heard from them – some concern about what that could mean,” Rubio said.

China buys Russian oil, Europe buys Russian oil sold by China, the US continues trade ties with Russia, but India is fuelling the Russian war machine: The great American hypocrisy

Basically, the US will not impose sanctions or secondary tariffs on China for buying Russian oil because European consumers are not in favour of doing so. The US will not penalise European nations still buying Russian oil and gas directly since Washington does not want to indulge in a tit-for-tat with Europe.

Convenient much! No additional tariffs on China because Europe would be upset. No sanctions against Europe because the US cannot afford to be at loggerheads with the EU. So, China and Europe can buy, sell and consume Russian oil, but somehow India is the sole villain and is ‘fuelling the Russian war machine’.

Who would have thought that even a ‘dead economy’, as Trump calls India’s, can fuel another country’s ‘war machine’?

After Trump, Rubio, now White House trade adviser Peter Navarro has also jumped on the bandwagon to put the sole blame of the Russia-Ukraine war on India, while giving a clean chit to China, Europe and the US itself.

In an opinion piece published in the Financial Times, Navarro alleged that India’s purchases of Russian crude oil were funding Moscow’s war against Russia and that New Delhi needs to stop this. He asserted that India needs to stop cosying up to Russia and China if it wants to be treated as the US’s strategic partner.

Navarro decided to sermonise to India on how it should act to be treated as the US’s strategic partner; however, the White House advisor did not give any advice to Washington on what it should do to make India feel equal in this partnership. For starters, the US should stop cosying up to the state sponsor of anti-India cross-border Jihadi terrorism, Pakistan.

“India acts as a global clearinghouse for Russian oil, converting embargoed crude into high-value exports while giving Moscow the dollars it needs,” the Financial Times article headlined “India’s oil lobby is funding Putin’s war machine — that has to stop”, reads.

The White House trade and manufacturing advisor further laments that, backed by India, Russia continues to hammer Ukraine, and in turn, American and European taxpayers are “forced to spend tens of billions more to help Ukraine’s defence.”

“More than 300,000 soldiers and civilians have been killed, while NATO’s eastern flank grows more exposed and the West foots the bill for India’s oil laundering,” Navarro writes.

Even India sells refined petroleum products to Europe, as much as USD 15 billion

It seems that there is a common sense crisis in Washington. Much like China, even India sells Russian oil to Europe in the form of refined petroleum products. Ever since the Russia-Ukraine war erupted in 2022, India’s petroleum products export to the European Union increased to USD 15 billion during this period. India is not benefiting from a crisis. India is ensuring that even as there is a crisis, global energy supplies are not disrupted, and New Delhi’s domestic needs are also covered.

If Europe and the US are so keen on bringing Russia to its knees, they themselves should do a total boycott of Russian crude oil. But they don’t. In fact, they continue to purchase Russian oil and gas via indirect routes while imposing sanctions after sanctions on Moscow to cripple the Russian economy.

While the US may have cut its Russian crude oil imports from Russia due to sanctions, it continues to trade with Russia in various sectors. Even three years after Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States has not fully cut off its trade ties with Moscow. The US has imported more than $24.5 billion worth of Russian goods since January 2022. This year alone, it bought $1.27 billion worth of fertilisers, $624 million in uranium and plutonium, and nearly $878 million in palladium.

Import of non-ferrous metals such as palladium and aluminium was valued at $876.5 million for the period January to November in 2024. Inorganic chemicals made up $683 million, followed by power-generating machinery at $79 million and cork and wood manufacturers at approximately $64 million.

Other commodities included nuclear reactors and machinery worth $80.81 million, prepared animal feed, iron and steel, and oil seeds, although these contributed smaller shares to the overall imports. The US government’s own data indicates that U.S. exports of goods to Russia fell to $528.3 million in 2024, while imports were worth an amount phenomenally higher. In the year 2023,  the U.S. exports to Russia stood at around $598.8 million. Despite Russia enjoying a massive surplus and being involved in a war with Ukraine, there was never really a hiatus in the Russia-US trade.

Meanwhile,  the European Union had bilateral trade of Euro 67.5 billion in goods with Russia in the year 2024 alone. Furthermore, trade in services between the EU and Russia in 2023 stood at around Euro 17.2 billion. In 2024, EU imports of LNG reached a record 16.5 million tonnes, up from 15.21 million tonnes in 2022 when the conflict started. Europe and Russia not only trade in energy but also fertilisers, mining products, chemicals, iron and steel, and machinery and transport equipment.

Refined crude is no longed ‘Russian’, as per EU Council’s own regulations

Deliberate ignorance or common sense crisis, but the Trump administration needs to understand that once refined by Indian refineries, Russian oil is no longer “Russian” as per EU Council regulations. In 2023, Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar had cited European Union Council Regulation 833/2014 while replying to a media query about the remark made by Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell, who wanted the EU to act against India for selling refined “Russian oil”.

In response to Trump’s attacks on India for buying Russian oil, the Indian Foreign Affairs Ministry on 4th August, pointed out that India started importing oil from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. At that time, the United States actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening the stability of global energy markets.

Clearly, it seems that the sudden villainisation of India by America is not due to the continued purchases of Russian crude oil but a consequence of Trump’s bruised ego. Donald Trump expected India to behave like the failed state of Pakistan, heap praises on him for his imaginary role in brokering a ceasefire understanding between India and Pakistan in May, and nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

However, India did not indulge in any such absurd sycophancy, not even for the ‘trade deal’ Trump claimed to have used as leverage to convince India to stop attacks on Pakistani terror and military establishments. No Trump flattery, no Nobel Peace Prize nomination and no opening of Indian dairy and agriculture markets for the US, has collectively enraged and perhaps traumatised Trump to such an extent that now Washington is hell bent on blaming India for the Russia-Ukraine war.

OpIndia reported earlier how the European Union capitulated before Trump in the US-EU trade deal and compromised the EU’s interests. Apparently, the EU’s capitulation had emboldened Trump, who thought that his tariff tactics would work against any country; however, India shattered his delusion.

Interestingly, the Trump administration is busy painting India as the financier of Russia’s military action against a NATO-backed Ukraine. However, during his meeting with the US President in Alaska on 16th August, Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed that US-Russia bilateral trade had expanded by over 20 per cent in the past few months, exposing Trump’s persistent claims that the US has been pressuring Moscow to end its war in Ukraine.

Perhaps Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Peter Navarro or at least Lindsay Graham can explain how the US is not ‘fuelling Russian war machine’ by expanding bilateral trade with Moscow by 20 per cent. Or, the Russian war machine is fuelled only when New Delhi imports a few barrels of Russian crude for domestic needs and exports to Europe? It’s high time the US either shuns this hypocrisy and punishes itself for funding the Russian war machine or stops vilifying India for not turning its back on affordable Russian oil.

Donald Trump, who during his presidential campaign made tall claims of ending the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours of assuming office, has failed to secure even a temporary ceasefire between the two warring nations even after eight months. India is in no way obliged to burden itself with the blame for Trump’s failures, whims and hypocrisy.

“There is no god but Allah, and none is worthy of worship except Him”: Ghaziabad cop Sohail Khan’s video inside a temple sparks outrage, faces inquiry

OpIndia Staff
-
0
“There is no god but Allah, and none is worthy of worship except Him”: Ghaziabad cop Sohail Khan’s video inside a temple sparks outrage, faces inquiry

A constable of police in Ghaziabad district of Uttar Pradesh has landed in trouble after a video of his WhatsApp status went viral and sparked protests by Hindu groups. The Ghaziabad Police opened an investigation into the matter after public outcry on social media and then benched the constable.

As per media reports, the constable, Sohail Khan, who was stationed at Madhuban Bapudham police station, had visited a temple on Janmashtami. There, he clicked a selfie and upload it as his WhatsApp status. 

The picture itself wasn’t that of concern, but the background song he used for it led to outrage. The track had the line which stated that “no one except Allah is worthy of worship.”

Within days of the status going viral online, it was widely shared and criticised, particularly by some Hindu organisations. Numerous activists asserted that Khan’s status was an effort to defame religious sentiments. 

President of Hindu Raksha Dal Pinky Chaudhary went so far as to state on X (formerly Twitter) that the constable was employing his police attire to spread Islam and provoke religious conversions.

As the outrage grew, several users mentioned the Ghaziabad Police on social media, calling for stringent action. When reacting to the outrage, the police confirmed that the issue was being investigated.

Further CP Alok Priyadarshi later added that the inquiry was entrusted with the ACP of Kavinagar. According to findings, Constable Khan was benched (shifted from active duty), and a departmental inquiry has also been ordered.

The event has again pointed out how individual social media messages by uniformed men can make huge controversies, particularly if they are associated with religious sensitivities.

Alwar shocker: Woman and her lover slit her husband’s throat, stash body in a blue drum, flee with 3 children

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Alwar shocker: Woman and her lover slit her husband’s throat, stash body in a blue drum, flee with 3 children

A young man’s body was discovered in a blue drum in Adarsh Colony, situated in the Khairthal-Tijara region of Alwar district, Rajasthan. This is reminiscent of the infamous Meerut case, where a woman and her lover conspired to murder her husband and stored his corpse in a similar drum. The recent incident was revealed on 17th August when Mithlesh Devi (60) went to the terrace. Her 35-year-old son Jitendra is also an accused in the case.

The deceased, Hansram alias Suraj, who was about 30 years old, originally hailed from Uttar Pradesh and had moved in with his family into a rented home around one and a half months prior. He was employed as a laborer at a local brick kiln. He stayed in Adarsh Colony of Kishangarh Bas with his spouse Lakshmi Devi alias Sunita and their three children who have been missing since 16th August along with Jitnedra.

“Seven to eight days ago, she visited me and requested a blue drum. She claimed that water would be coming in three days and she needed it for storage. I had several drums available in my house so I gave one to her. I was completely unaware that a murder conspiracy was being plotted in my home,” Mithlesh Devi disclosed, reported Dainik Bhaskar.

According to Deputy Superintendent of Police Rajendra Singh Nirvan, the remains of Hansram known as Suraj from Navadiya Nawazpur in the Shahjahanpur district of Uttar Pradesh have been found. On 17th August, Mithlesh Devi, the wife of Rajesh Sharma who is the homeowner, called the police when a foul odor was detected from the roof. The authorities spotted a blue drum on the roof upon their arrival and the body was uncovered inside it. Hansram’s throat had been slashed with a sharp weapon, according to the post-mortem report.

The initial investigation disclosed that salt and a certain amount of water were placed in the drum to dissolve the body. The victim was known to be an alcoholic, having shared many drinking sessions with Jitendra whose wife had already passed away.

Background of the case

Mithlesh Devi stated, “We had our own brick kiln in Pur village in Kotkasim town which is 27 kilimetre from the Khairthal-Tijara district. My husband managed the kiln, but it has been closed for many years. There were numerous drums used for water storage and we kept 10-15 at our residence after it shut down. Sunita wanted one and I handed it over without knowing her intentions.”

She further conveyed, “My son and Suraj were employed at a brick kiln located in Bhindusi village, approximately 35 kilometers from Khairthal-Tijara. Jitendra served as the accountant while he and his wife worked as laborers. The two men shared a friendship. They often enjoyed meals and drinks together and occasionally consumed alcohol.”

“The brick kiln’s operations were interrupted by rain in June. Therefore, my son invited them to stay at the house as tenants. They resided in a room on the roof and payed a rent of Rs 1500 per month,” the woman added. She mentioned that Sunita would often express her concerns about her husband’s alcohol addiction and complained that he had destroyed everything.

Afterward, the former told them to leave their house and the family was on the verge of vacating it, however, the shocking instance transpired prior to that.

The police’s disclosures

According to police sources, Jitendra brought the family to his residence for rent one and a half months ago. He lied to his father about their names. He referred to Hansram as Suraj and his wife Laksmi as Sunita. During the investigation, the police recovered Hansram’s Aadhaar Card which unveiled the truth.

As per police accounts, Jitendra and Laksmi were engaged in an affair during their time at the brick kiln. He gained Hansram’s friendship using alcohol. The two often drank together in the evenings. This allowed Jitendra to meet Lakshmi without any obstacles. When work at the kiln ceased, Hansram began preparations to return to Uttar Pradesh. However, Jitendra convinced Lakshmi to rent a room in his home to keep her close. He promised Hansram that he would find him another job shortly, but in reality, he was plotting to dispose of him.

Nirvana reported that Mithlesh Devi and her 14-year-old grandson were found inside the house. She indicated that Jitendra’s wife had died 12 years ago. Rajesh Sharma, works as a property dealer and comes home every 2 to 3 days. On 16th August, she went to the market for Janmashtami shopping and did not find Sunita or her children when she returned. Jitendra had also not come back by evening. She approched the police after noticing the revolting smell.

The authorities have initiated a search for Jitendra and Lakshmi. Four specialized teams have been established to probe the case, conducting raids across various locations in Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Nirvana highlighted that preliminary findings suggested this case might involve a love affair. “We are exploring multiple other angles and the arrest of the suspects is anticipated soon which will expose everything.” he assured.

Lakshmi’s kids could also be involved in the killing. The drums also questioned the drums manufacturing companies since it appeared to be in pristine condition. Although no arrests have been made so far, police sources declared that they are in the process of tracking the locations of the perpetrators.

Indian Oil Corporation to produce Sustainable Aviation Fuel from used cooking oil: All you need to know

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Indian Oil Corporation to produce Sustainable Aviation Fuel from used cooking oil: All you need to know

Who would have thought that used cooking oil, often discarded after frying samosas, pooris and pakoras, could be used as a reliable Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)? However, after US, Indonesia, China, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, and various European nations, India is set to produce SAF using used cooking oil (UCO) at a commercial scale.

Recently, India’s largest refiner and fuel retailer, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) became the first in the country to receive the prestigious ISCC CORSIA Certification for Sustainable Aviation Fuel production at its Panipat Refinery. 

What is Sustainable Aviation Fuel

Similar in chemical composition to traditional aviation turbine fuel (ATF) or jet fuel, which is made from crude oil, SAF is a biofuel made from sustainable feedstocks. This implies that the SAF-ATF blend is easily compatible with current aviation engines.

Depending on the efficiency and sustainability of the feedstock and production process, SAF can reduce carbon emissions—one of the harmful greenhouse gases—by up to 80% over the course of a conventional jet fuel’s lifecycle.

Various studies have found that commercial aviation produces 2.5% of the world’s CO2 emissions. According to an Air Transport Action Group report, in 2023 alone, commercial aviation’s contribution to CO2 emissions wasat roughly 882 million tonnes. This makes it imperative to switch from traditional to more sustainable fossil fuels to bring down carbon emissions to optimal level and protect the environment.

Interestingly, the aviation industry estimates that more than 60% of the global aviation sector’s decarbonisation efforts will likely come from SAF alone.

What is ISCC CORSIA certification

The ISCC CORSIA certification, i.e., International Sustainability & Carbon Certification (ISCC), developed under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), validates that SAF meets the highest international sustainability and lifecycle carbon emission standards.

SAF produced at Indian Oil’s Panipat Refinery has undergone rigorous assessment for lifecycle carbon emissions and traceability, creating a clear pathway for Indian airlines to integrate certified SAF into their operations. The certification also sets a benchmark for other domestic refiners and industry players to scale up SAF production. This is in line with the government’s vision of achieving net-zero emissions by 2070.

Earlier this month, Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu Kinjarapu announced that Indian Oil’s Panipat Refinery has been certified as the country’s first Sustainable Aviation Fuel producer.

IOC’s Panipat Refinery to start SAF biofuel production at commercial scale

IOC has said that by end of this calendar year, its Panipat Refinery will start producing SAF from used cooking oil at a commercial scale. By December 2025, IOC will have the capacity to produce 35,000 tonnes per year of SAF from used cooking oil. This used cooking oil will be sourced from large hotel chains, restaurants, and sweets and snacks companies like Haldiram’s. While these companies normally discard cooking oil after single use since it becomes unhealthy, now the same oil will be used to produce sustainable aviation fuel.

Speaking about the significance of producing SAF and used cooking oil collected for the same, IOC’s Chairman Arvind Sawhney said, “The capacity (35,000 tonnes per year) will be sufficient to meet the country’s 1 per cent SAF blending requirement (for international flights) by 2027… For feedstock (used cooking oil), we will be engaging aggregators to collect it from big hotel chains and restaurants. There is a large amount of such oil available in the country. The only challenge is collection. While it is easy to collect from large hotel chains, a solution needs to be found for collection from small users, including households.”

SAF production, however, comes with its own challenges as despite offering a lower carbon footprint, SAF made from used cooking oil is currently three to four times more expensive than conventional fuel due to its higher production costs, which are caused by issues including feedstock constraints and evolving production technology.

1...185186187...7,596Page 186 of 7,596