Home Blog Page 21

Are UPI payments going to be taxed? No, the left-liberal ecosystem and the Opposition are manipulating you

Aditi
-
0
Are UPI payments going to be taxed? No, the left-liberal ecosystem and the Opposition are manipulating you

Over the past few days, opposition leaders and left-liberals have been peddling a rumour that the Modi government has introduced a law to levy a fee on UPI (Unified Payments Interface) transactions, which have been free so far. Several mainstream media platforms have also been publishing misleading and speculative headlines to leverage the stir created by the rumours regarding the law.

The Parliament recently passed the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, after which the false claims regarding the taxing of UPI transactions started to float. The opposition as well as the left-liberal gang became active and started targeting the Modi government, alleging that it was acting under US pressure.

Congress MP Jairam Ramesh wrote a long message on X, claiming that ordinary people will now have to bear the cost of using UPI transactions. The MP claimed that the Modi government has passed the law to tax the UPI transactions under the pressure of his “good friend Donald Trump”.

“Indeed, the real reason why this amendment is being introduced is perhaps more concerning. It follows the U.S. Trade Representative’s 2026 report, which criticises UPI and RuPay for being free and accuses them of having driven out American payment platforms like Visa and MasterCard. Is the Prime Minister seeking to dilute UPI and open the digital payments sector to American businesses under pressure from his good friend Donald Trump?” Ramesh wrote on X.

Commenting on the Congress MP’s post, founding Editor of leftist propaganda portal The Wire, MK Venu, also further pushed the lie and tried to portray the government as anti-poor. Venu claimed that PM Modi has decided to tax the UPI transactions being used by “poor Indians” under his “fraand’s coercion”, which obviously refers to US President Trump.

Several mainstream media portals have also been publishing articles with misleading headlines insinuating that the government was indeed going to tax UPI transactions. Reuters published an article after the bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha titled “India paves way for return of merchant fees on digital payments”. The headline of the article suggests a tax on UPI transactions will soon be a reality.

Screenshot via Reuters

Similarly, The Telegraph published an article after the law was passed in the Lok Sabha, with the headline “Lok Sabha approves bill to allow banks, service providers to levy UPI transaction charges”.

Screenshot via The Telegraph

Some media portals claimed that UPI payments only up to ₹2000 will be free and any transaction above that amount will attract a tax.

The social media posts and media reports created panic among ordinary people, who were misled by the headlines and the posts. The misleading headlines and posts not only peddled misinformation about digital payments but also cast suspicions on the government by alleging US pressure behind the decision. The real picture, however, is far from what is being conveyed by the left-liberal propagandists as well as the media.

Does the new law levy a tax on UPI transactions?

The Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was introduced by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in the Lok Sabha on August 4, 2026. The bill was passed on August 6, 2026, amid opposition protests over unrelated issued. The amends certain existing laws such as the Income Tax Act of 2025, the Finance Act of 2026, and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, which is at the centre of the controversy.

The bill removes Section 10A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act., which legally barred banks and payment service providers from charging any Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) on transactions made through government-notified digital payment modes, including UPI and RuPay debit cards. MDR is essentially a fee paid by a merchant for processing a digital payment. The provision had so far shielded UPI payments from processing fees.

However, the removal of the provision does not mean that digital payments will now automatically be taxed. The elimination of the provision has conferred on the central government a discretionary power to decide which digital payment methods will be taxed and which digital payments will not be taxed. Essentially, the bill itself does not levy any tax on digital payments; it merely removes a legal prohibition on levying such tax. This means that if the government decides to tax certain digital transactions in future, it can do so through a notification.

Why was the amendment needed?

As part of the government’s plan to boost digital payments across the country, it had waived the MDR on UPI and RuPay transactions. However, these digital transactions incur costs, which the government bears through subsidies or incentives to banks and payment companies.

As a result, UPI transaction volumes registered significant growth over the past few years. Notably, the financial assistance (subsidy) provided by the government is available only for small merchants and small-value transactions of up to ₹2,000. Meanwhile, banks and payment companies face constantly rising costs associated with maintaining servers, ensuring online security (cybersecurity), and keeping the entire payment system running smoothly.

A parliamentary committee noted that sustaining the entire UPI system financially is becoming difficult without MDR, as government subsidies cover only a small fraction of the industry’s actual costs. RBI Governor Sanjay Malhotra also clearly stated that it is not feasible to operate such a massive UPI system entirely free of charge indefinitely, as funds are required to ensure its security and expand the network. However, he also noted that it would be premature to speculate on charges at this stage; the situation will become clear only after the government issues an official notification.

Even if the government decides to implement MDR in future, it will not likely affect the general public or small traders. The speculations that digital transactions above ₹2000 may be taxed emerge from a proposal floated by the Payment Council of India (PCI, a trade body representing non-banking payment players. The PCI urged the government last year to reconsider its zero-MDR policy. The body said that the annual subsidy provided by the government, which amounts to ₹1,500 crore, covers only a fraction of the cost of running and expanding the UPI ecosystem, which it estimated at around ₹10,000 crore.

The PCI requested the government to levy MDR only on large merchants with an annual turnover exceeding ₹50 crore, specifically on transactions above ₹2,000, at a rate ranging from 0.3% to 0.5%. So if a transaction exceeding ₹2000 is made at a large retail chain or e-commerce platform, the large merchant might have to pay a nominal transaction fee (MDR) to the bank for advanced system processing. However, the proposal remains to be implemented by the government.

Therefore, at this stage, all the digital transactions which have been happening free of cost will remain so unless a change is notified by the government. Besides, it is clear from the information provided above that the changes introduced by the government in the law are not due to the US or some other external pressure. They are economic and fiscal measures, not a payments-policy overhaul, and the UPI-related provision is part of a much larger package.

Sexual harassment allegations against Newslaundry? As people recount their whitewashing of rapist Tarun Tejpal, former employees speak up

Dibakar Dutta
-
0
Sexual harassment allegations against Newslaundry? As people recount their whitewashing of rapist Tarun Tejpal, former employees speak up

Newslaundry and its co-founder Abhinandan Sekhri are in the public limelight, not just for their blatant rape apologist behaviour but also for fostering a culture of sexual harassment in the workplace.

This week, the law finally caught up with one of their own. Tehalka founder Tarun Tejpal, who had raped his colleague in 2013, was convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. He is the same sexual predator that Abhinandan Sekhri had interviewed back in 2012.

Of course, one might argue that rape charges were not brought against him in that year and hence the idea of platforming Tejpal of all people was somehow harmless. However, there is evidence to the contrary that the top guns in the media industry knew about his conduct all along.

They did not just remain a mute spectator to his actions but actively rationalised, justified and intellectualised his predatory behaviour with new jargon and terminologies. The most infamous was ‘journalist’ Vinod Mehta’s description of sexual harassment by Tejpal as ‘non-consensual carnal favour.’

If this was not enough, in 2014, Newslaundry co-founder Abhinandan Sekhri’s sister Nirupama came up with a brazen defence of then rape-accused (now convict) Tarun Tejpal. She did not stop there and went one step ahead to vilify and character-assassinate the victim.

These were her golden words: “To begin with, I would like to establish quite clearly that I do not see you as a victim, unless it is of bubblegum feminism which I will speak in detail of later.”

But the ease with which an ‘organisation’ rushes to the defence of a rape-accused gives you a sneak peek into the culture that enables such behaviour.

The fact that Newslaundry published the despicable rape apologist article, did not feel sorry for the trauma caused to the victim and dared to later remove it with a standard ‘self-reflection’ note highlighted how the rot ran deep into the system.

And that Pandora’s box opened with the conviction of Tarun Tejpal. Former female employees, who worked at Newslaundry, hinted at the culture of sexual harassment that openly exists within the company. The matter was first highlighted by journalist Saikiran Kannan.

Screengrab of the tweet by Sumedha Mittal

Sumedha Mittal, a former senior correspondent at Newslaundry, tweeted, “I also hope the day comes when they reflect just as seriously on the sexual harassment complaints within their own newsroom.“

Screengrab of the X profile of Sumedha Mittal

Mittal was reacting to the removal of the rape apologist story penned by Abhinandan Sekhri’s sister in 2014. An ex-employee speaking up about inaction against POSH complaints within Newslaundry raises a serious concern.

How many such sexual harassment complaints have been made within the organisation? And what has been the course of action on those complaints? Did the Newslaundry management brush them under the carpet and shield one of their own, ‘Tarun Tejpal’?

Screengrab of the X profile of Priyanka Ishwari
Screengrab of the tweet by Priyanka Ishwari

Another former Newslaundry employee, Priyanka Ishwari wrote, “Also hope they train senior journos not to scream at women editors and threaten them saying “Kabse dekha raha hun mein tereko” over work calls. Training male reporters to behave professionally around female colleagues and not make the office a boy’s lockeroom maybe too much to ask?“

It is evident from the testimonies of these female employees that a misogynistic and toxic male chauvinistic culture exists within the four walls of Newslaundry.

Another interesting point to note is that many seasoned predators and rape apologists manage to secure employment at this organisation. Take the example of #MeToo accused Vikram Kilpady, who, just like Tarun Tejpal, worked at Tehelka.’

Screengrab of the article

A female journalist named Lamat R Hasan had narrated how she was ‘almost’ raped by Vikram in 2005. She narrated, “He turned violent—pulled my hair, grabbed my wrists, held me against a wall and then pushed me on the bed. My attempts to break free failed. I started crying. He let me go. That’s the closest I have come to being raped.“

The same man worked at Newslaundry as per their own disclosure.

If my memory serves me well, then I can recount one instance of Newslaundry’s Editor-in-Chief Raman Kirpal downplaying the rape of a minor girl in Nainital by a 65-year-old Muhammad Usman as an ‘affair’ and ‘small incident.’

Screengrab of the tweet by Newslaundry

Raman Kirpal, who was previously convicted of criminal defamation, grudgingly put out a token apology. Even Newslaundry had to issue a clarification. When the talk is unscripted, people often blurt out what is exactly on their mind.

For Kirpal to say what he did about the rape of a minor child, while serving as Editor-in-Chief of Newslaundry, gives us a clear idea about what is ‘normal’ in that particular organisation.

The selective champion of women’s rights and feminism couldn’t fix their own homes in all these years. But they are ready to mouth platitudes and virtue signal to others about everything under the sun.

Maybe Abhinandan Sekhri and his team can start by taking accountability. I know it’s kryptonite for the left-liberal ecosystem, but he can give it a try (for a change).

‘Attack on one, attack on all’: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye sign Mecca Joint Defence Pact — What it means for India?

विवेकानंद मिश्र
-
0
‘Attack on one, attack on all’: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye sign Mecca Joint Defence Pact — What it means for India?

Amid the ongoing war and worsening security situation in the Middle East, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye have signed a significant defence pact called the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement.

Under the agreement, an armed attack on any one of the three countries will be treated as an attack on all three. The pact aims to strengthen collective security, enhance defence cooperation and promote regional stability at a time when West Asia continues to face conflicts, missile attacks and rising geopolitical tensions.

Key trilateral summit held in Mecca

The agreement was signed during a high-level summit held in the holy city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The meeting was attended by Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

Shehbaz Sharif arrived in Saudi Arabia on a three-day official visit accompanied by a high-level delegation, which also included Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir.

The three leaders held detailed discussions on regional security, defence cooperation, economic relations and future strategic partnership.

During the summit, they formally signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, which is being viewed as a major step towards strengthening collective security among the three nations.

What are the key provisions of the agreement?

According to Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the primary objective of the agreement is to strengthen collective deterrence against any form of aggression.

Its most significant provision states that if any one of the three member countries comes under an armed attack, it will be considered an attack against all three countries.

The agreement also seeks to strengthen cooperation across all areas of defence. This could potentially include joint military exercises, troop training, defence technology cooperation and intelligence sharing, although the detailed operational framework has not yet been made public.

According to the official statement, the agreement is intended to promote peace, security and stability in the region and has not been presented as an alliance directed against any particular country.

Why is this agreement considered significant now?

The Middle East has witnessed persistent instability over the past few years. Developments involving Iran, Israel, Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen have significantly affected the region’s security environment.

Saudi Arabia has also faced repeated drone and missile attacks targeting its oil facilities and critical infrastructure. Against this backdrop, Riyadh is looking to expand its security partnerships beyond its traditional allies and develop new defence cooperation frameworks.

Regional conflicts have also disrupted maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz, impacting global energy supplies and international markets.

As a result, the new trilateral defence agreement is being viewed as a significant development in the evolving regional security architecture.

What strengths do the three countries bring?

One of the defining features of this new defence partnership is that each participating country contributes distinct strategic strengths.

Saudi Arabia is among the world’s largest oil producers and possesses considerable economic influence. It also holds significant religious and regional importance as the custodian of Islam’s two holiest sites.

Türkiye is a NATO member and has NATO’s second-largest military. In recent years, it has made notable advances in defence manufacturing, drone technology and its domestic military industry.

Pakistan, meanwhile, remains the world’s only nuclear-armed Muslim-majority country and has long played an important strategic military role.

However, experts note that Pakistan’s nuclear capability is not formally part of this agreement, and its nuclear deterrence continues to remain primarily India-focused.

An expansion of earlier defence cooperation

The agreement is not entirely new but is widely seen as an expansion of the bilateral defence pact signed between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia last year.

That agreement also stated that an attack on one country would be treated as an attack on the other. Türkiye has now been added, creating a trilateral security framework.

The three countries have already maintained defence cooperation for years. Pakistan has long provided military training and technical assistance to Saudi Arabia, while Türkiye and Pakistan have collaborated on defence equipment, warships and military training aircraft.

In 2023, Saudi Arabia also signed a major agreement to purchase drones from Türkiye.

India and the international community are watching closely

India is also closely monitoring the development. Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said that India is keeping a close watch on the agreement and that further information will be shared as appropriate.

Experts believe that if this trilateral partnership evolves into a more institutionalised framework and expands into regular joint military activities, it could play a significant role in shaping the security dynamics of both West Asia and South Asia.

For now, however, the agreement has been officially described as a framework focused on collective security and defence cooperation rather than a military alliance directed against any specific country.

US court slaps Meta with $567 million penalty over child safety failures, orders major platform reforms: Details

सौम्या सिंह
-
0
US court slaps Meta with $567 million penalty over child safety failures, orders major platform reforms: Details

Social media apps are having a profound impact on the minds of children and youth today. Meta, which operates major apps like Facebook and Instagram, is currently facing legal cases and government investigations around the world.

From US courts to European agencies and child safety issues in India, Meta is accused of harming the safety and well-being of children for its own gain and profit. Recently, a New Mexico court imposed a massive fine of 567 million (approx 4,700 crore rupees) on Meta.

This decision is a major lesson regarding the way tech companies function, their algorithms, AI chatbots and their failure to prevent child sexual exploitation. Features are deliberately introduced inside apps that keep children glued to their phones for hours.

This is leading to cases of stress, sleeplessness, depression, and suicide among children. The New Mexico court found Meta guilty of causing a ‘public nuisance,’ meaning that these flaws in social media are no longer just an individual’s problem, but have become a threat to society as a whole.

Along with this, in a country like India, where crores of children use the internet, the issue of online child sexual abuse and safety has assumed a very serious form. From all these cases and court decisions, it has become clear that governments and courts around the world are no longer in the mood to quietly tolerate the high-handedness of tech companies.

New Mexico Court Order and 567 Million Penalty

Taking a strict stance against Meta, a court in Santa Fe, New Mexico, US, ordered the company to deposit a massive sum of 567 million (over 4,700 crore rupees) into a Teen Mental Health Fund.

Along with this, Judge Bryan Biedscheid directed Meta to make changes in the fundamental operations of its platforms to protect underage users. In its findings, the court clearly stated that Meta is fully responsible for harming the health and safety of children and teenagers through its platforms.

This entire legal action was initiated by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who alleged that the company designed its products in a way that would make youth addicted to them. Furthermore, the company completely failed to implement basic mechanisms to protect children on its platforms from sexual harassment, online grooming, and exploitation.

This 567 million judgment by the court came after the second phase of hearings in the case. Just five months before this, in the first phase of the same lawsuit, a New Mexico jury had ordered Meta to pay 375 million.

The jury concluded in its findings that Meta directly and severely violated consumer protection laws by making false and misleading claims about the safety of Facebook and Instagram. As part of its judgment, the court also issued a strict decree that will remain in effect for five years.

Under this, Meta will have to set a fixed monthly time limit for the usage of Facebook and Instagram by teenagers in New Mexico, impose strict restrictions on repeated notifications, block avenues for unknown adults to directly contact minors, enforce strict safety rules on AI chatbots and conduct extremely thorough reviews of reports related to child sexual abuse material.

What is Public Nuisance Law and What Arguments Did Meta Give in Its Defence?

The main focus of the three-week bench trial held in this New Mexico court was to determine whether Meta’s platforms created a public nuisance under state law. In the US judicial system, public nuisance law has historically been used against activities that harm the health, safety, or public property of the general public, such as blocking major roadways or spreading toxic waste in rivers and air.

However, in recent years, US states have begun widely using this law to hold tobacco companies, opioid drug manufacturers, climate change cases, e-cigarette companies and now AI and social media giants accountable.

In his written judgment, Judge Bryan Biedscheid drew a very compelling comparison, writing that just as toxic smoke emitted from a factory pollutes the surrounding environment and the public right to clean air, similarly, the harmful effects of Meta’s platforms are not limited to phone screens or the internet.

These harmful effects spill out of the digital world into the real world, placing a massive social burden and crisis on affected children, their families, schools, hospitals and the entire law enforcement system.

On the other hand, Meta argued in its defence during the trial that it did not create any public nuisance because it did not directly obstruct any public property like air or water.

Meta’s lawyers also argued that the youth of New Mexico do not exclusively use their apps, but also run digital apps from other companies, so it is wrong to blame Meta alone for this situation.

Opposing the restrictions and protective measures sought by the court, the company stated in court filings that many of these changes are technically impossible or extremely difficult, and these rules might force the company to wrap up its services from the entire state altogether.

Additionally, Meta claimed legal immunity under Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which generally protects internet platforms from liability for content posted by their users.

However, Judge Biedscheid completely rejected this Section 230defencee. The court clarified that the state here is not holding Meta guilty for content posted by third parties, but is instead challenging the platform features designed by the company itself, its addictive mechanisms and its own internal operational structure.

Sexually Explicit Conversations by AI Chatbots and the Serious Threat to Child Safety

Internal reports presented to the court during the trial revealed that Meta’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots were becoming a new and grave threat to child safety. Reports proved that the company’s AI chatbots could engage in romantic, sensual and sexually explicit conversations with young children.

Amid investigations into earnings generated through fraud and the sale of restricted goods via ads on the platform, the misuse of this AI feature further heightened the court’s concern.

In his order, Judge Biedscheid directed Meta to build solid technical guardrails to prevent any child in New Mexico from engaging in any form of romantic, sensual, or sexual conversation with Meta’s AI chatbots.

The court also ordered measures to ensure that no adult user could use Meta’s chatbots to hold explicit conversations with a child. This issue is not limited to AI chatbots alone, but is directly linked to child sexual abuse material spreading on the platform and pedophiles targeting children.

The State Attorney General presented solid evidence alleging that Facebook and Instagram had such severe security flaws that adults with malicious intent were getting open opportunities to reach and exploit minor children.

In its order, the court directed Meta to strengthen and expedite its review process for complaints and reports related to child sexual abuse on its platforms.

However, in its official statement released after the decision, Meta stated that it would file an appeal against this judgment in a higher court.

Meta claims that it is constantly working to make its platforms safer. The company states that it is confident in its record regarding teen safety and will continue to defend its facts in court, but the facts revealed in the court’s judgment expose these claims.

European Commission’s Strict Probe and Growing Pressure from Global Government Agencies

Apart from these ongoing lawsuits in the US, regulatory scrutiny against Meta in the European Union (EU) is also continuously tightening. The European Commission has officially announced that it is opening an investigation against Meta’s two major social media platforms, Facebook and Instagram, under its new and strict Digital Services Act (DSA).

This probe primarily focuses on serious risks related to child safety and the company’s disregard for its statutory obligations. This landmark EU law makes it mandatory for tech companies to take immediate and concrete steps to remove illegal, explicit and harmful content from their platforms.

Simultaneously, they must ensure the highest level of privacy and protection for minors. If a company is found violating these rules, a financial penalty of up to 6 per cent of its global total turnover can be imposed.

EU regulators believe that several features of Facebook and Instagram are designed in a way that promotes app addiction and undesirable behaviour in children, causing a deep negative impact on their mental development and mental health.

Additionally, the European Commission is investigating whether Meta possesses a reliable mechanism to verify the correct age of users, and whether its algorithms are pushing young children toward dangerous or inappropriate content without their consent.

The impact of this continuously growing global pressure is clearly visible on Meta’s commercial future as well. The company has formally warned its shareholders and investors that these legal cases and regulatory restrictions in the US and the EU regarding youth social media usage and child safety could severely affect its business.

Impact on Mental Health and Legal Action over Teenage Deaths

This issue of social media companies putting the mental health of youth at stake for their financial gain is no longer limited to government agencies or state lawsuits, but its most horrific aspect is visible in the stories of ordinary families who have lost their children.

Recently, in the Delaware Superior Court in the US, the families of four minor children filed a major lawsuit. This case was filed jointly against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat and Google’s parent company, Alphabet.

The petition alleges that due to the severe mental risks arising from years of regular and excessive use of these platforms, those four children took the horrific step of suicide.

This lawsuit was filed on behalf of the families of children from four different states- Levi Castro (13 years), Reeve Kelleher (14 years), Nathaniel Chambers (17 years) and Dawson Holden (18 years)- who lost their lives within a short 14-month period between July 2024 and September 2025.

Matthew Bergman, founder attorney of the ‘Social Media Victims LaCentreer’ representing the victim families, explicitly stated that despite all the hollow claims and false assurances by high-ranking company executives, these apps are taking children’s lives.

According to the complaint filed in court, these four teenagers faced horrific mental conditions such as severe social media addiction, extreme sleep deprivation, deep depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

Attorneys General from more than 33 US states have jointly filed a common lawsuit against Meta in a California federal court. This group of 33 states alleged that Meta knew that the ‘like’ system and continuous scroll design on its platforms capture and control the minds of teenagers.

In 2021, internal secret documents leaked by former company employee Frances Haugen revealed to Parliament and the entire world that Instagram was instilling body image insecurity in teenage girls, and despite having full knowledge of this, the company concealed it for profit.

Child Sexual Abuse, Legal Framework and Digital Safety Status in India

This crisis of child safety and sexual abuse on social media platforms is not limited to developed countries like the U.S. or Europe, but presents a major challenge for a country with a massive digital market like India.

In India today, crores of young children and teenagers actively use Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp daily. Due to a lack of digital literacy and adequate supervision, Indian children easily fall victim to online cyberbullying, online grooming and child sexual abuse material.

However, a strict legal framework exists in India to deal with such crimes, primarily including the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.

Under Indian law, viewing, searching, downloading, storing on a phone or computer, or transmitting Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) to anyone else is a non-bailable, serious offence. The mere storage or consumption of such material is a punishable offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act.

Furthermore, under the Government of India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, tech companies (intermediaries) like Meta are under a strict legal obligation to immediately remove and block access to any child sexual abuse material within 24 hours of receiving a complaint or government direction.

The investigating agency, CBI, has also launched nationwide crackdowns and conducted large-scale raids under drives like ‘Operation Megh Chakra’ to bust online child sexual abuse rackets.

How Congress, which gave birth to FCRA, is now targeting the BJP govt for stopping illegal foreign funding to NGOs

OpIndia Staff
-
0
How Congress, which gave birth to FCRA, is now targeting the BJP govt for stopping illegal foreign funding to NGOs

Today, the Congress party accuses the Modi government of weaponising the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) to strangle civil society groups and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Listening to the claims of the top leaders, one might be misled into believing that the scrutiny over foreign donations was PM Modi’s invention to curb ‘political dissent’.

This could not be further from the truth. The foundation stone of the FCRA was laid by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during the height of the Emergency in 1976. The objective was to regulate the inflow and utilisation of foreign funds.

Its structural reinforcement was carried out by her son Rajiv Gandhi in the mid-1980s. FCRA’s most sweeping transformation into a far more lethal weapon took place under Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram.

This reflects Indian political governance in many ways. When in Opposition, Congress champions the freedom of civil society groups, but when in power, it views foreign-funded NGOs as potential instruments of foreign influence.

Indira Gandhi and the FCRA

To understand the roots of the FCRA, one must travel back to 1976. India was in the grip of the Internal Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Civil liberties were suspended, opposition leaders were imprisoned under MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act), and the press was heavily censored. It was during this period of centralisation that the original Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 was rushed through Parliament.

The text of the 1976 Act explicitly banned foreign hospitality and foreign donations for:

  • (a) candidate for election,
  • (b) correspondent, columnist, cartoonist, editor, owner, printer or publisher of a registered newspaper,
  • (c) [Judge], Government servant or employee of any corporation,
  • (d) member of any legislature,
  • (e) political party or office-bearer thereof.

The inclusion of journalists in a statutory blacklist highlighted the intent of Indira Gandhi. The motive was to prevent political dissidents, satire-writers, independent journalists and civil rights groups from receiving external financial backing. In that way, she ensured that the government retained a monopoly over financial survival in public life during the Emergency.

Amendments by Rajiv Gandhi

Following the end of the Emergency and the brief tenure of the Janata Party government, the Congress returned to power. By 1984, under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the State turned to the FCRA to expand executive authority.

In 1985, the Rajiv Gandhi administration amended the FCRA and introduced major structural shifts. Earlier, associations could accept foreign contributions subject to prior information or general authorisation. The 1985 amendment made formal registration with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) mandatory for any organisation seeking foreign funds.

This amendment shifted the FCRA into a permanent, bureaucratised regulatory regime over NGOs.

What happened during the UPA era

In 2010, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, headed by Dr. Manmohan Singh with P. Chidambaram holding the Home Portfolio, introduced a new, far more restrictive version of the statute: The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.

The UPA repealed the 1976 Act entirely, replacing it with a framework designed to give the government greater discretionary control over NGOs.

FCRA 1976 (Old Law)FCRA 2010 (UPA Version)
Permanent Registration (Life-long validity)5-Year Expiration & Renewal mandatory
Focus on Electoral /Political CandidatesFocus shifted to Organizations of a Political Nature
Uncapped Administrative ExpenditureMandatory 50% Cap on Administrative Spending
Deemed Permission after 90 daysExecutive discretion; no automatic deemed approval

Under the 1976 Act, an FCRA registration, once granted, was permanent unless explicitly revoked. The UPA’s 2010 Act abolished permanent registration. Instead, it made registrations valid for only 5 years. This single modification gave the bureaucracy a mechanism to pause, delay or decline the licenses of NGOs without explicitly proving illegal activity.

Section 5 of the UPA’s 2010 Act introduced a category dubbed ‘Organisations of a Political Nature.’ The UPA gave executive agencies sweeping power to disallow foreign funds for groups organising public demonstrations against state policies, infrastructure projects etc.

Section 8 of the 2010 Act introduced a statutory cap, limiting the use of received foreign funds for “administrative expenses” to a maximum of 50%. In this way, the government obtained financial leverage over the operational budgets, salaries, and research overheads of non-profit entities.

The Kudankulam Clash: When the UPA Cracked Down on NGOs

The legislative provisions of the 2010 Act were put to use during the second term of the UPA government. Between 2011 and 2013, the Manmohan Singh administration faced public opposition to major industrial, infrastructure, and energy projects, including the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu and field trials for Genetically Modified (GM) crops.

The grassroots anti-nuclear protests at Kudankulam, led by the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), delayed the commissioning of the Russian-built nuclear reactors. Frustrated by the delays, the highest levels of the UPA government publicly blamed foreign funds for orchestrating the protests.

In an interview, Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh explicitly targeted foreign-funded non-profits:

“You know what’s happening in Koodankulam…The atomic energy programme has gone into difficulties because these NGOs [non-governmental organisations], mostly I think based in the United States, don’t appreciate the need for our country to increase the energy supply…There are NGOs, often funded from the United States and the Scandinavian countries, which are not fully appreciative of the development challenges that our country faces”

The UPA Home Ministry revoked or cancelled the FCRA registrations of nearly 4,000 NGOs. The Home Ministry ordered bank account freezes and financial audits of groups accused of funding the Kudankulam agitations.

Several foreign nationals associated with environmental groups were deported or denied entry visas because they were violating visa conditions by participating in local anti-development protests.

Even ex-Home Minister P. Chidambaram had made similar statements during the Kudankulam anti-nuclear protests:“Investigation reveals that there appears to be diversion of funds. Therefore, under the Foreign Contribution Act, we have decided to register cases.”

Conclusion

The statutory tools used today to audit, suspend, restrict, or cancel FCRA licenses were built brick-by-brick across decades. The framing by the Congress party suggests that it is a recent invention.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) legislation and its subsequent amendments introduced under the BJP government (including major overhauls in 2020 and 2026) were designed to prevent foreign governments and organisations from using financial leverage to influence domestic politics, policy decisions or social movements.

Enhanced tracking helps ensure foreign funds are not diverted toward destabilising activities, such as promoting extremism, funding illegal religious conversions or financing radical outfits within India.

While Congress is today opposed to the FCRA Amendment Bill, it has conveniently forgotten how the legislation came into existence in the first place and underwent major changes during its rule.

Battle of Colachel: How Travancore king Marthanda Varma crushed Dutch colonial power

Rukma Rathore
-
0
Battle of Colachel: How Travancore king Marthanda Varma crushed Dutch colonial power

More than 160 years before Japan’s victory over Russia was celebrated as an Asian power defeating a European empire, the Kingdom of Travancore had already defeated the Dutch East India Company at Colachel in 1741. The battle emerged from Marthanda Varma’s expansion of Travancore and his challenge to the Dutch monopoly over the lucrative Malabar pepper trade.

After earlier clashes, the Dutch launched another offensive in November 1740. They blockaded Travancore’s coast, occupied settlements including Thengapattanam, Midalam and Kadiapattinam, and advanced towards Padmanabhapuram. But their position depended heavily on supplies and reinforcements from Ceylon and Batavia, while the Java War prevented the VOC from sending the manpower it needed.

Marthanda Varma responded by strengthening his army and using diplomacy to avoid fighting on multiple fronts. Local Mukkuvar fishermen also played an important role, serving as scouts, misleading Dutch forces and, according to local accounts, disrupting their ships. Under Varma and his dewan Ramayyan Dalawa, Travancore gradually cut Dutch access to Colachel by land and sea, leaving the garrison increasingly isolated.

The decisive moment came in August 1741. A Travancore cannon shot struck a Dutch gunpowder store, triggering an explosion that destroyed food and ammunition. Travancore then launched its assault. Around 400 Dutch troops, including about 150 Europeans, faced a vastly larger Travancore force. Their defences eventually collapsed, forcing them to surrender. Senior Dutch officers, including Eustachius De Lannoy, were captured.

Rather than simply imprison De Lannoy, Varma employed him to modernise Travancore’s army. He introduced European-style military discipline, firearms training, artillery and improved fortifications, eventually rising to become commander-in-chief. These reforms strengthened Travancore as it expanded northwards and absorbed several neighbouring kingdoms.

Colachel did not immediately remove the Dutch from Kerala, but it permanently weakened their political and military position. The 1753 Treaty of Mavelikkara forced the Dutch to stop interfering with Varma’s expansion and sell Travancore arms and ammunition. By the later eighteenth century, the VOC had been reduced largely to the role of a trader, while Travancore controlled important pepper-producing territories, ports and trade routes.

Read the full article on Chapter One Magazine.

From Newslaundry to Javed Akhtar: How the left-liberal ecosystem whitewashed and shielded ‘Tehelka’ rapist Tarun Tejpal

Aditi
-
0
From Newslaundry to Javed Akhtar: How the left-liberal ecosystem whitewashed and shielded ‘Tehelka’ rapist Tarun Tejpal

Recently, the Bombay High Court overturned Tehelka founder-editor Tarun Tejpal’s acquittal and convicted him of rape and related offences, granting him 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The High Court convicted him under Sections 376(2)(f), 354(a) and 354(b) of the Indian Penal Code, which relate to rape by a person in a position of trust or authority, sexual harassment, and use of criminal force with the intent to disrobe a woman. The court verdict that put an end to the case that went on for over a decade contrasts with the narrative pushed by Tejpal and his coterie to suggest that he had been the victim of a political vendetta and a victim of a media trial.

The case goes back to November 2013, when Tejpal was accused of sexually assaulting a junior colleague inside a hotel elevator in Goa. The allegations grabbed nationwide attention, and the case emerged as one of the most polarising media stories. While the case went on in court, a parallel case was being manufactured by people from within the media establishment, who were trying to downplay the allegations against him and whitewash his public image. Here is an account of how the entire left-liberal ecosystem openly came out in support of Tejpal and made all possible efforts to shield him.

Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap and the “CCTV footage” claim

Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap was among the prominent public figures who brazenly defended Tejpal while the case against him was sub judice. Kashyap made a striking claim in a Facebook post where he said that he saw the CCTV footage of the hotel and that the allegations made by “the girl” were true. “And I have seen the CCTV footage too, and none of what the girl says about Tarun Tejpal is true,” Kashyap wrote in the post.

At a time when the case was out in public and was being tried in the court, Kashyap tried to delegitimise the victim’s claims and influence public opinion about Tejpal and the case. Kashyap’s claim was one among many similar claims made by his friends and colleagues, who claimed to have seen pieces of evidence which were not in public. Through their bogus claims, they tried to prove Tejpal innocent much before the court made any legal determination.

Tarun Tejpal: Javed Akhtar’s “man of impeccable values”

Veteran Lyricist and screenwriter Javed Akhtar also made statements to defend Tejp’al. Akhtar found himself at the centre of controversies after he described the (then) sexual assault accused as a “man of impeccable values”. “It is a shame that someone with such impeccable values has committed such an act, but unlike some, he has the guts to accept and repent,” these were the words uttered by Akhtar about Tejpal. In his statement, Akhtar not only diminished the serious allegations levelled against Tejpal but also praised him for having the courage to accept and express remorse for his acts.

Akhtar is known to have a personal association with Tejpal. He is someone who expresses his opinions about various social issues. Following his remarks about Tejpal, Akhtar received major backlash on X (formerly Twitter). People on X, including several journalists and feminists, slammed Akhtar, arguing that a ‘public intellectual’ of his stature was making remarks which amounted to downplaying the acts committed by him.

The Newslaundry letter casting suspicion on the victim

News and opinion website Newslaundry also jumped to support Tejpal by casting suspicions on the victim. In February 2014, Newslaundry published an open letter addressed to “Ms Tehelka-Assault-Victim,” written by Nirupama Sekhri, sister of Newslaundry’s founder Abhinandan Sekhri.

In the letter, devoid of all sensitivity, Nirupama Sekhri explicitly stated that she refused to see the complainant as a victim and described it as what she referred to as a case of “bubblegum feminism.”

Casting aspersions on the victim, Sekhri called her “irresponsible” and accused her of ripping Tejpal’s reputation apart. Laden with an accusatory tone, the letter dissected the victim’s conduct and questioned why she even chose to travel with Tejpal in the elevator. She also questioned the delay on the part of the victim in filing a complaint against Tejpal, which is not unusual in cases of sexual assault, where things like social stigma, shame and shock weigh on the victim’s mind.

In a sheer display of apathy for the victim, Sekhri suggested that Tejpal was being unfairly targeted. She questioned the victim’s own choices and credibility, effectively shifting scrutiny away from the accused and onto the woman who had accused him.

Senior journalist Seema Mustafa said that the victim did not look “raped”

Like Anurag Kashyap, Senior Journalist Seema Mustafa also delegitimised the victim’s testimony based on her reading of the CCTV footage. In an article, Mustafa outrightly claimed, “What happened around the lift does not bear any similarity to what the alleged victim claims had happened.” She concluded based on the appearance of the victim in the footage that she did not look like she was raped. “…the images do not show visible signs of agitation on her part,” Mustafa wrote.

Mustafa faced huge backlash for her misogynistic article, after which she reportedly removed her byline from it a few days after publishing it.

Vinod Mehta defended Tejpal’s “manic libido”

An equally damaging defence came from Vinod Mehta, Tejpal’s former editor at Outlook. In his memoir Editor Unplugged: Media, Magnates, Netas and Me, Mehta tried to dilute Tejpal’s heinous act by referring to it as “presumably non-consensual carnal favour”. Mehta wrote that Tejpal had a reputation for having “some difficulty in keeping his trousers zipped up”.

Mehta defended Tejpal’s “manic libido” by quoting the author William Dalrymple as having said that Tejpal possessed an “excessively charming sexual aura which women find difficult to resist.” Apparently, Dalrymple denied having made the statement in a Twitter post later.

The abovementioned remarks expose how the high and mighty, elite sections of society tried to defend Tejpal by downplaying a serious crime like sexual harassment in the workplace. From giving Tejpal the benefit of the doubt to questioning the credibility of the victim, the left-liberal ecosystem tried every trick in the book to whitewash his acts.

The victims that Punjab politics chose to forget

Anurag
-
0
The victims that Punjab politics chose to forget

Punjab’s insurgency remains part of public debate, but many of those killed during the violence have gradually disappeared from popular memory. While terrorists, political leaders and major events retain detailed narratives, ordinary passengers, journalists, Sikh opponents of Khalistan and lower-ranking policemen often survive only as names in old reports, FIRs, memorials or casualty figures.

The 1987 Lalru bus massacre illustrates this imbalance. Thirty-eight people were killed, yet most victims remain largely anonymous. One was 28-year-old Savitri Devi, who shielded her husband and five-month-old daughter with her body and died while both survived. Abohar presents a different example, where residents continue commemorating those killed in the 1990 market massacre through a local memorial.

Sikhs who rejected Khalistani terrorism also became targets. Harchand Singh Longowal was assassinated after signing the Punjab Accord, while editor Sumit Singh and communist activist Baldev Singh Mann were murdered for opposing extremism. Their stories challenge attempts to reduce the insurgency to a Hindu-Sikh conflict.

Journalists and broadcasters faced similar violence. ML Manchanda was abducted and beheaded after Babbar Khalsa attempted to dictate broadcasting language, while AIR Chandigarh director Rajinder Kumar Talib was killed amid disputes over terminology. Newspaper agents and hawkers were targeted as terrorists sought to control the entire information network.

Punjab Police later began documenting 1,784 personnel killed during the terrorism period, yet many constables, guards, Home Guards and Special Police Officers remain little more than short departmental entries. At the same time, remembering victims of Khalistani terrorism cannot erase fake encounters, disappearances, illegal detention or the anti-Sikh violence of 1984. A complete history has room for every category of victim.

The challenge now is preservation. Punjab’s record remains scattered across police websites, newspaper archives, court documents, memorials and family collections. As survivors and relatives age, details that were never formally recorded risk disappearing permanently.

Read the full article on Chapter One Magazine.

How Punjab Police dismantled Khalistani terror networks

Anurag
-
0
How Punjab Police dismantled Khalistani terror networks

The Punjab Police that eventually dismantled organised Khalistani terrorism did not begin the insurgency as a dominant force. Terrorists assassinated officers, attacked police posts, killed suspected informers and operated across district boundaries using safe houses and automatic weapons. By the time Julio Ribeiro and later KPS Gill took command, conventional policing had become inadequate for an armed campaign that had weakened both state authority and local intelligence networks.

Ribeiro, who became Punjab Police chief in 1986, focused first on restoring morale and convincing personnel that the force would fight back. The phrase “bullet for bullet” became associated with him, although Ribeiro later said those were not his precise words. Police stations were fortified, weapons and vehicles improved, and commanders received greater operational freedom. Ribeiro himself narrowly survived a terrorist attack on the Punjab Armed Police headquarters in Jalandhar in October 1986.

Under Gill, the transformation became systematic. Punjab Police moved personnel away from static pickets towards mobile patrols, expanded from roughly 35,000 to around 60,000 personnel and increasingly relied on intelligence-led operations. “Focal point patrolling” and later “Operation Night Dominance” were designed to increase mobility, reclaim areas after dark and make it harder for terrorist groups to move, reorganise or intimidate villagers.

Local intelligence became the centre of the strategy. Punjab Police knew village geography, family networks, transport routes and local relationships in ways outside forces could not quickly replicate. Informers, spotters, surrendered cadres and joint interrogation teams helped identify commanders, couriers, safe houses and weapons routes. Intelligence was increasingly shared across districts and with agencies including the IB, R&AW, CBI and central security forces.

Gill’s model targeted not only individual gunmen but the ecosystem that allowed terrorist organisations to function: leadership, financiers, extortion networks, couriers, shelter providers and arms routes. Sustained pressure, factionalism, leadership losses, declining civilian cooperation with terrorists and the restoration of elections gradually produced what the article describes as organisational suffocation.

The campaign was effective in restoring state control, but its legacy remains contested. Allegations of torture, disappearances and staged encounters cannot be dismissed, and courts have convicted police personnel in specific cases. At the same time, those crimes do not establish that every encounter was fabricated. Punjab’s counterterrorism model emerged from an extraordinary security crisis, succeeded in destroying the organisational strength of Khalistani terrorism, and left behind difficult questions about effectiveness, legality and accountability.

Read the full article on Chapter One Magazine.

The coordinated drumbeat: Tracing the foreign funding targeting India’s Data Centres

Divyansh Tiwari
-
0
The coordinated drumbeat: Tracing the foreign funding targeting India’s Data Centres

Why do so many water crisis and land rights stories about Indian infrastructure seem to break at exactly the moment investors are deciding whether to commit? This final piece in the series argues that’s not a coincidence, it’s a pattern.

Imagine rumours about your new store’s water use and noise pop up right before opening day, and you later find the same person spread identical rumours about the store next door last year. That’s how the media coverage of India’s data centre boom, a $180 billion investment wave that’s tripled the country’s capacity since 2020, looks like.

The centerpiece is a 2024 investigation called ‘Dirty Data,’ published by the Environmental Reporting Collective and carried by outlets like Mongabay. The article traces its funding back to the Pulitzer Center’s Rainforest Journalism Fund, and from there to bigger funders, the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, and Pierre Omidyar’s Omidyar Network, all of which have publicly documented histories of funding environmental and civil-society journalism in India. The argument isn’t that editors are taking orders, it’s that when grant money consistently rewards stories about infrastructure’s downsides rather than its trade offs, that’s simply the kind of journalism that gets pitched, funded, and published.

The article traces the familiar pattern through earlier similar incidents: the Sterlite copper plant shutdown in Thoothukudi, the collapse of POSCO’s $12 billion steel project in Odisha, the Niyamgiri bauxite mining dispute, and years of delay on Kerala’s Vizhinjam port. In each case, it argues, real local grievances existed, but they were, in its telling, picked up and amplified by international networks in ways that similar projects in other countries never experienced.

Then comes the timing argument: a Mongabay water-scarcity story right as the Google-Adani Vizag data centre deal was taking shape, a BBC water-stress piece in November 2025 just as global capital was weighing India’s next investment wave, and a burst of critical coverage during the exact window India was finalising its 2026-27 budget tax incentives. It calls for a public MeitY portal tracking real water and cooling data across data centres, a 48 hour rapid response fact check unit for major international stories, and formal disclosure of who funds the outlets covering Indian infrastructure.

The full article can be read in Chapter One Mag.

1...202122...7,651Page 21 of 7,651