Home Blog Page 23

Tipu over Truth: SP MP’s ‘Tipu gave women the right to cover breasts’ remark during debate sparks a row. Read about the ‘Breast Tax’ myth and what the facts say

रामांशी
-
0
Tipu over Truth: SP MP’s ‘Tipu gave women the right to cover breasts’ remark during debate sparks a row. Read about the ‘Breast Tax’ myth and what the facts say

Samajwadi Party MP Toofani Saroj made a statement in the special session of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly on Thursday, 30th April, which once again made it clear that the sole objective of his party is to defame Hindu history and Hinduism.

Toofani Saroj said, “Tipu Sultan gave women the right to cover their breasts. There was a law against covering breasts. This hasn’t been the case since ancient times. You should check it out.”

This statement by the SP MP not only ignores historical facts but is also a part of a well-planned political strategy in which Muslim rulers are being presented before the public as ‘heroes’ by blaming Hindu kings and Hindu society.

Trying to tell the truth by shouting lies

Toofani Saroj’s claim is a half-truth presented in such a way that it becomes a complete lie. Yes, Tipu Sultan ordered women in Kerala to cover their breasts in public. But calling this a “right” is a historical dishonesty. It was a decree steeped in Sharia law, not an attempt at social reform.

In Kerala at that time, given its climate and cultural traditions, women, regardless of caste, did not wear upper garments. Even the 17th-century Dutch traveller William van Nieuhoff wrote in his memoirs that Queen Umayamma of Travancore herself only wore clothing below the waist, leaving the upper part uncovered.

This was a natural and accepted cultural tradition in the region. Tipu Sultan issued a decree, based on Islamic Sharia, to break this tradition. His intention was not to empower women, but rather, it was part of a policy.

Under this policy, he wanted to impose his Islamic values ​​in Malabar and Kodagu. Toofani Saroj misled the people by calling this decree a “grant of rights. “

Breast tax myths have been turned into political weapons

Behind this statement by Toofani Saroj and the Samajwadi Party lies the controversial history of the “breast tax,” or “Mulakkaram,” which has been repeatedly used as a weapon against the Travancore dynasty. Let’s understand the reality of this “tax.”

Mulakkaram literally means “breast tax,” but a large section of historians considers this name misleading. According to the renowned historian and author Manu Pillai, this tax was not related to women’s breasts, but rather to a gender-based census tax.

The tax on men was called “Talakkaram” (head tax), and the tax on women was called “Mulakkaram” (breast tax). This was merely a naming convention; the tax had no direct connection to breasts. It was a caste-based “poll tax” levied on communities such as Nadars and Ezhavas, along with other avarna (lower caste) communities.

The story of Nangeli is the most famous one regarding this tax. However, its historical authenticity remains in doubt. Several researchers have established that there is no contemporary historical documentation of Nangeli’s story. References to this story have emerged, particularly in the last two decades.

All sources in the Wikipedia article on Nangeli are recent, and there are no contemporary historical records. The person who popularised this story is a Malayali painter named ‘Chitrakaran’ T. Murali. His blog contains extremely negative views about Hindu gods and Hindu culture.

It is important to note that granting the right to wear upper garments and implementing Mulakkaram were two separate issues. They were conflated into a new narrative by propaganda media channels and politicians.

The Channar Rebellion (1813-1859) was for the right of Nadar women to wear upper garments, and Christian missionaries and the British government played a role in this struggle. It was a genuine social struggle.

Linking this to the story of ‘Breast Tax’ and calling the Hindu kings of Travancore villains is not history but the politics of leaders like Toofani Saroj of the Samajwadi Party.

Another fact that uproots this entire narrative is that in many tribes in Africa and the Indian subcontinent, women still do not wear upper garments. This is part of their cultural tradition, not evidence of any kind of oppression.

Kerala’s 18th- and 19th-century cultural traditions also fell into this category. Samajwadi Party leaders deliberately ignore this fact because their goal is not facts but anti-Hindu propaganda.

SP’s ‘hero’ Tipu Sultan is actually South India’s ‘villain’

Now let’s talk about Tipu Sultan, whom the Samajwadi Party and its leaders call a “great warrior.” Throughout South India, especially in Karnataka, Kerala, and Kodagu, a large community still remembers Tipu Sultan as a cruel and religious fanatic. 

The atrocities committed by Tipu Sultan against the Kodava tribe in Kodagu (Coorg) are recorded in history. In 1788, Tipu invaded Kodagu and burned entire villages.

According to his own court biographer, Mir Hussain Kirmani, many places were burned, including Kushalnagar, Talakaveri, and Madikeri. Tipu himself wrote in a letter to Ranmast Khan, the Nawab of Kurnool, that he had captured 40,000 Kodava people and converted them to Islam.

The Kodava Muslims who were forcibly converted are today known as “Kodava Mapplas,” and their surnames remain Hindu. This is the most telling evidence of the forced nature of their conversion.

Furthermore, Tipu’s army committed widespread atrocities against the Nair community in Malabar. Tipu ordered his army to burn every person in the district and forcibly convert them to Islam.

Nair temples were burned, Brahmin girls were abducted, and women were abused. Of the 30,000 Nair captives, only a few hundred returned alive.

Next, in Karnataka, the history of Melukote (Melukot) is the most poignant testimony to Tipu’s cruelty. On the day of Diwali, Tipu’s army surrounded 700 to 800 families of the Mandayam Iyengar Brahmin community.

When these people gathered at the temple for Diwali puja, Tipu’s soldiers massacred them. This included women and children. Melkote was devastated overnight and became a ghost town. Even today, 200 years later, the Mandayam Iyengar community does not celebrate Diwali. The grief of that massacre lives on.

Tipu Sultan’s atrocities didn’t stop at just Hindus. The Catholic Christians of Mangaluru also suffered his wrath. Father Paulinus, who lived in Kerala at the time, wrote in his book that Tipu’s army tied Hindus and Christians to the legs of elephants and dragged them, women were forcibly married to Muslims, and anyone who refused to convert to Islam was immediately executed.

Samajwadi Party’s agenda in question

SP MP Toofani Saroj forgot that Tipu Sultan implemented Sharia law in his kingdom. His government was called ‘Sarkar-e-Khudadad’. The question naturally arises: Does the Samajwadi Party advocate a similar regime in Uttar Pradesh?

Tipu Sultan, whom Akhilesh Yadav’s party is calling a ‘hero’, imposed Sharia on Hindus, forced conversions, and demolished temples. So, is this the ‘socialism’ that Akhilesh Yadav is dreaming of?

This is part of the SP’s tradition of turning every controversial issue in history into an anti-Hindu angle. Mulayam Singh Yadav has openly stated on several occasions that he ordered the firing on Ram devotees in Ayodhya, and that he is proud of it. This legacy is being carried forward by leaders like his son, Akhilesh Yadav and Toofani Saroj.

The Yogi government is exposing the double standards of the leftists

The Yogi government has attempted to uncover facts that leftist historians suppressed for decades. From the Ram Temple movement to the reassertion of Hindu cultural heritage, this government is honouring the history that parties like the Samajwadi Party seek to erase.

When a leader calls Tipu Sultan a “saviour of women” and, in the same breath, attempts to portray the Hindu kings of Travancore as oppressors, this isn’t just ignorance; it’s a well-planned political conspiracy. The Yogi government counters this conspiracy with facts.

The politics of false heroes must end

This character of the Samajwadi Party is nothing new. Whenever an issue arises, its leaders twist it into an attack on Hinduism and Hindu history. Akhilesh Yadav’s “socialist” politics consists solely of raising the controversial and unverified myth of the breast tax, portraying Tipu Sultan as a saviour, and demonising the Hindu kings of Travancore.

Whether Samajwadi Party leaders are educated or not, when they distort history and present it to the public, it impacts many sections of society. Therefore, it becomes essential to respond appropriately. The people of Uttar Pradesh are aware and recognise this false narrative.

Under the leadership of the Yogi government, Uttar Pradesh is on a path where history is respected, not false heroes, and this is the difference that is the real divide between the SP and the BJP.

(This article is a translation of the original article published on OpIndia Hindi.)

Allahabad HC rules that offering namaz on public land is not a religious right, gatherings on private property should be strictly private, not disruptive: Details

Rukma Rathore
-
0
Allahabad HC rules that offering namaz on public land is not a religious right, gatherings on private property should be strictly private, not disruptive: Details

On 6th April (Monday), Allahabad High Court noted that no individual or organisation can be allowed to utilise public land exclusively for large-scale religious gatherings, including namaz. It pointed out that public order, morality and health are tied to the fundamental right to freedom of religion.

“It is not an unlimited right. It cannot be exercised in a way that affects others or disturbs the normal functioning of public life. As is often said, one person’s freedom ends where it begins to affect someone else,” pronounced a division bench of Justices Garima Prasad and Saral Srivastava.

The court made these statements while rejecting a request for authorisation to perform namaz on land in the Sambhal district of Uttar Pradesh’s Ikona village in Pargana Rajpura of Gunnaur Tehsil. It dismissed the plea, which was filed by a man named Aseen, claiming the spot was his own property and demanded protection from authorities to execute Islamic prayers there.

The court highlighted that public property is governed by law and is intended for everyone. Hence, no one is entitled to employ it for routine religious events. “Such use affects movement, access and safety, and in appropriate situations, communal equilibrium; it must therefore be regulated. It is the state’s obligation to ensure equal access, civic order and nondiscriminatory administration,” the court observed.

The bench cited earlier judgements and referenced the Supreme Court’s emphasis on upholding social harmony, civic peace and the rule of law. It urged that courts must consider the practical implications of their decisions. “Where a claim to hold religious congregation on public land has the potential to create social tension, the constitutional court must ensure that the conditions necessary for peaceful coexistence are maintained,” the court mentioned.

The state is duty-bound to act

According to the verdict, it must be acknowledged that established legal procedures, long-standing agreements, or concessions given for particular or restricted purposes might stand independently, but no new or unilateral assertion could be predicated only on personal preference or religion. “The state is constitutionally entitled, and in appropriate cases duty bound, to prevent the use of public land without lawful authority,” the court further emphasised.

‘Private properties can be used for strictly private events, when they become congregational, it will be subject to law and order’

The judges declared that the context with regard to private property is distinct and expressed, “Private prayer, family worship and such limited devotional activity as remains genuinely internal to the premises ordinarily fall within the protected domain of Articles 25 and 26.” However, this protection is limited to truly private, infrequent and non-disruptive activities. It excludes converting any private space into a de facto public place of worship.

“Once the activity assumes such a congregational character, it is no longer merely a matter of inward faith. It begins to produce external consequences: it may draw repeated attendance, including persons beyond the immediate household, affect ingress and egress, create traffic and parking concerns, alter the character of the locality, generate noise, require policing, and in sensitive areas, create the possibility of inter-community tension,” the court stated.

It underscored that the activity then takes on a public or quasi-public aspect. Private property is not completely unprotected, rather, its use, to that extent, turns liable to reasonable control and is no longer solely private for constitutional considerations. “This position is consistent with the decisions relied upon by the petitioner,” the bench stressed.

‘No unequivocal right to repeatedly organise religious functions even on private property’

The court invoked previous rulings to convey that although bona fide religious practices on private grounds are protected and cannot be arbitrarily interfered with, it does not equate to “absolute carte blanche” for periodic or structured religious activities by a community.

It stated, “They recognise a limited protection, namely where prayer remains confined to a private, non-disruptive setting. Where the activity extends beyond that sphere and begins to affect the public domain, lawful regulation follows. These decisions do not confer a right to convert private premises into an unregulated congregational space.”

The order read that the authorities are not required by law to wait for an actual disruption to happen. The state has the right to take preventive steps when an activity has the potential to have an impact on public order. The examination is not the religious character, but its effects on society.

“This approach is consistent with the constitutional principle of secularism, which requires equal treatment of all religions and equal application of law. While the State must permit private worship, it is equally bound to regulate activities that affect public order, whether on public land or on private premises. Maintaining this balance is essential to the working of Articles 25 and 26 in a constitutional system,” the court highlighted.

The court calls out the flimsy submission

The court specified that the petitioner’s argument is not supported by the facts provided in the record. The writ petition’s contents are ambiguous and devoid of important details. It countered, “No specific incident, date, time or identifiable act attributable to any authority has been disclosed. The allegations of interference, threats and collusion with unnamed persons are general in nature and are not supported by any material.” According to Article 226 of the Constitution, such declarations do not satisfy the prerequisites necessary to seek the court’s jurisdiction.

This court determined that the land in dispute is marked as public land pursuant to the provided materials. The ownership claim relies entirely on an alleged gift deed that is centred exclusively on ambiguous border descriptions and lacks key land details like Gata or Khata numbers “Such a document does not establish any identifiable title and cannot displace the revenue record,” it added.

“Even otherwise, if the land is assumed to be private, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. The record shows that he is not protecting an existing practice, but seeking to introduce regular congregational gatherings, including persons from within and outside the village,” the bench and remarked that it has been accepted that in the past, namaz was only performed on special occasions like Eid. This extension outside of a narrow private domain is not protected and is vulnerable to oversight.

“In these circumstances, no enforceable legal right is made out. This court cannot grant relief on such a basis, particularly where the matter has implications for public order and social harmony. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs,” the judges concluded.

It is noteworthy that the Sambhal administration outright banned namaz on public highways and areas last year.

As EU votes to define rape and consent, read how sexual abuse of Gisele Pelicot and the revelation of chats discussing rape of drugged spouses led to the development

Rukma Rathore
-
0
As EU votes to define rape and consent, read how sexual abuse of Gisele Pelicot and the revelation of chats discussing rape of drugged spouses led to the development

The European Parliament has urged the European Union to develop a uniform consent-based definition of rape, describing it as a critical step toward correcting the complicated set of rules, including a few inadequate ones, that currently exist across the bloc. A report advocating for a single definition of rape centred on “only yes means yes” was approved by 447 of the 720 MEPs in the parliament on 28th April (Tuesday).

A vote took place after which the parliament declared, “Silence, lack of resistance, the absence of a ‘no’ previous consent, past sexual conduct or any current or previous relationship must not be interpreted as consent.” The action aims to alter the conventional “no means no” rule, which campaigners argue does not sufficiently protect victims, as it does not demand clear and affirmative agreement before participating in sexual activity.

The statement highlighted the “demand for adequate support and protection for victims and survivors across the EU.” It mentioned, “Consent must be assessed in context, including in cases involving violence, threats, the abuse of power, fear, intimidation, unconsciousness, intoxication, chemical submission, sleep, illness, disability or vulnerability.”

The official release conveyed that gender-based violence should be included in the list of crimes classified as EU crimes and added that trauma responses such as “freeze” or “fawn” must be represented in legislation and court practice.

It further pressed, “Only consent-based rape legislation can ensure access to justice,” and “EU needs an intersectional and victim-centred approach, including the provision of immediate medical care, sexual and reproductive healthcare, safe and legal abortion, trauma care, psychological support and legal assistance.”

An appeal was made for free specialised support services, including 24-hour emergency rooms that offer medical, psychological and legal aid. “The report calls for regular and tailored mandatory training for professionals likely to come into contact with rape victims, including law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, healthcare professionals and frontline workers,” the statement noted.

The commission is asked to present EU guidelines on comprehensive sexuality and relationship education, as well as measures to debunk rape myths, anti-gender content and incel propaganda on the internet, along with awareness drives on consent, relationships, sexual integrity, and bodily autonomy throughout the bloc.

The 27 EU nations failed to come to a settlement for decades over a specific definition of rape under criminal law. The European Commission was advised to redefine the legal ground for this by a cross-party attempt in the European Parliament. Presently, rape laws in Europe often follow one of two models: coercion-driven, which requires sexual activity to have occurred by force or consent-based, which views rape as a sexual deed without permission.

A commitment to decisively address the issue of rape and affirm consent

According to Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus, a Polish MEP (Member of the European Parliament) who was a key proponent of the effort, a uniform definition would encourage member states that continue to employ violence or force in their laws to conform to international norms.

She said, “We can’t have the meaning of rape change as we cross from one border to another. We can’t have a situation where a rapist who has raped a woman in Germany can go to Hungary and isn’t prosecuted because the law is different. And that’s what this report is about.” However, the resolution is only the beginning of the political process. It must now be put up as law for the vote of EU countries.

Consent-based definitions of rape have been incorporated into the criminal laws of most EU member states in recent years. 8 nations, from Italy to Hungary and Romania, are exceptions though and victims need to prove to a certain extent that they were coerced, vocally resisted or resorted to fight physically.

European Council unveiled that over half of all women in the region had experienced sexual harassment at least once since turning 15. Afterwards, the EU enacted a variety of initiatives to shield women and girls from sexual assault in a stronger manner. It joined the Istanbul Convention, the most extensive set of guidelines for preventing gender-based violence in the world on 1st October 2023.

The bloc passed a law in 2024 that makes cyberstalking, workplace sexual harassment and the unapproved sharing of private photos illegal throughout that part of the world. Now, deepfakes, cyberviolence and digital violence against women are especially targeted under the new EU Gender Equality Strategy. Every year, European nations spend hundreds of millions of dollars on schemes focused on preventing violence and protecting victims.

What instigated the key development

The move appears to have its origins in a historic trial in which 50 men were charged with mass rape of Gisław Pelicot. Her former husband, Dominique Pelicot, drugged her and arranged the horrific torture with men he found online. After years of protest, France amended its criminal code in October 2025 to specifically define rape as any sexual conduct carried out without consent. The action came after a public reckoning following the case.

Scheuring-Wielgus stated, “The case of Gisele Pelicot has shaken the whole world”, and asserted that the event exposed the flaws in defining rape by relying just on force or resistance rather than consent. She added, “Her courage to speak out has opened the eyes of even the most conservative opponents of this change.”

Dominique drugged Gisele nightly for a period of ten years, from 2011 to 2020, and orchestrated her rape by several men. He also captured the cruel treatment of the woman, who was constantly under the influence of drugs and was unaware that she was being exploited. The two were married for more than 50 years and had three children.

Gisele suffered violations on 92 occasions by at least 72 men while she was unconscious due to the effects of drugs administered to her. 51 people, between the ages of 26 and 73 had been convicted in the case. Dominique added Lorazepam, an anti-anxiety medication, to his wife’s dinner, after which she would fall asleep. He then allowed the “guests” into their Mazan house to indulge in sexual activity. He recorded them and stored the videos on a USB drive in a file named “Abuses.”

The police discovered the tapes while investigating Dominique in September 2020, following reports that he had illegally filmed women in changing rooms of a shopping mall with hidden cameras. This earned him an 8-month suspended sentence. However, the authorities uncovered thousands of images and videos of his unconscious wife and her rape when they searched and seized his hard drive, laptop and phones.

A deviously constructed strategy

Dominique met the men on a secret online forum called “a son insu” (without him or her knowing), where participants talked about performing non-consensual sex with their drugged, ignorant partners. According to investigators, he took rigorous steps, such as prohibiting the use of perfume and tobacco, to keep his wife from being awakened by overpowering smells.

He also instructed the men to park their automobiles near a school and enter the house at night to avoid raising the suspicions of the neighbours. Likewise, he asked them to take off their clothes in the kitchen to avoid dropping garments in the lavatory and wash their hands in hot water to avert an abrupt shift in temperature.

According to Gisele’s testimony, she had no inkling of her circumstances, but routine sedation and sexual assault started to have a negative physical impact. The court filings mentioned that she talked about memory loss and pelvic pain during multiple doctor appointments with her husband.

Some offenders claimed that they did not realise Gisele was not taking part in the act of her own accord. “It’s his wife, he does what he likes with her,” a man argued, denying that it was rape. “I am a rapist, like everyone else in this courtroom. I recognise the facts in their totality. They all knew, they cannot say the contrary,” Dominique admitted during the trial.

“Today, I maintain that, with the obligations we all have, I am a rapist, like everyone in this room. They cannot say otherwise. I am accused of many things. We are not born perverts, we become them. Even if it is paradoxical, I have never considered my wife as an object,” he submitted.

15 people, including him, entered guilty pleas to rape, and others stated that they believed a husband’s approval was sufficient. Caroline Darian, the daughter of Dominique and Giselle, testified in court that her father was “one of the greatest sexual predators” in recent memory.

On 19th December 2024, all 51 men received sentences for their crimes. Dominique was thrown behind bars for 20 years over aggravated rape, while many others received shorter prison time than what the prosecution had requested. Some were even released with suspended sentences.

“For me, it is difficult to hear it. For 50 years, I lived with a man who I would never have imagined for a single second that he could do these acts. I had complete confidence in this man,” Gisele expressed after her husband’s confession. She suffered despair and had a severe emotional breakdown after discovering the existence of the videos. She then applied for divorce.

Dominique used an anonymous online platform to recruit rapists

Dominique regularly took part in the “without her knowledge” forum on Coco.fr, a website with multiple chatrooms that promote sexual violence. Men of many ages and backgrounds interacted with him, including firefighters, journalists and nurses. The couple’s home was less than 50 kilometres (31 miles) away from each of the men on trial in Avignon.

According to the police records, discussions migrated to Skype after the first contact was made on Coco. Dominique made introductory video conversations with the men, turning the camera to reveal his oblivious spouse. Additionally, he posted private images and videos of Gisele, some of which depicted her being sexually abused.

Several guys revealed their appreciation for Dominique and their wish to treat their partners the same way. He would ask the men to interact through text after their Skype conversation. Notably, a defendant on trial was found guilty of drugging and raping his own wife, but he was not charged with sexually attacking Gisele.

What is Coco.fr: The chat site used by Dominique

CNN unearthed a Telegram group in 2024 where almost 1,000 men discussed detailed plots on drugging and abusing their partners. This group was a part of a larger network of non-consensual image sharing. Dominique was able to openly discuss sexual violence and encourage his wife’s rapes on a purported dating website. They sent each other thousands of messages via text, Skype and chat rooms.

Coco was founded in 2003 and advertised as a dating site. According to Le Parisien, it had 778,000 monthly visitors at its height in 2023. The site’s completely unmoderated chat rooms fostered explicit conversations about generally prohibited subjects. Shortly, a sizable portion of Coco users started complaining they had been assaulted during get-togethers organised via the website.

The French media revealed that contacts booked on Coco were connected to at least two murders in the country. Michel Sollossi, a 55-year-old accountant, was fatally stabbed by a guy he met there. The incident happened in 2018, and prosecutors classified it as a homophobic hate crime. The Paris prosecutor stated that 480 victims lodged over 23,000 lawsuits against Coco between January 2021 and May 2024.

On the other hand, its domain was transferred from France to Guernsey in 2022 and the founder, Isaac Steidl, renounced his French citizenship and relocated to Bulgaria with his business. It is noteworthy that French non-governmental organisations (NGOs) had identified Coco as a cause for concern as early as 2013.

They had unsuccessfully persuaded the government and internet service providers to take it down. However, it was argued that the platforms themselves are responsible for regulating websites such as Coco and a court order or an injunction from French authorities is imperative to initiate action.

The French cybercrime unit finally launched a probe with the help of NGOs that had been monitoring the website for years in 2023. It was closed, and Steidl was questioned in Bulgaria’s capital, Sofia, the next year. However, no criminal charges were brought against him. NGOs and attorneys also warned that inadequate safeguards could allow other websites to replace it.

Similar and well-publicised cases of drug-induced sexual abuse (DFSA) have also surfaced throughout Europe. A German man was convicted in December of drugging, raping and recording his unconscious wife over a period of years. According to a 2014 study based on interviews with 42,000 women in the EU, 1 in 10 women had been sexually abused since they were 15 years old and 1 in 20 have been raped.

“1 in three women in the EU has experienced gender-based violence. 1 in twenty has been raped,” Scheuring-Wielgus voiced, highlighting, that “there are countless victims, many who will never see justice.” She explained the step as a bid to “actively improve” the status of women, extending beyond antiquated legislation to ensure that they have the same level of protection throughout the EU.

Muslim organisations oppose creation of 5 new districts in Ladakh: Read why the administrative restructuring was needed and how it will have no impact on elections

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Muslim organisations oppose creation of 5 new districts in Ladakh: Read why the administrative restructuring was needed and how it will have no impact on elections

The Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh, Vinai Kumar Saxena, notified the creation of five new administrative districts on 27th April 2026. The creation of districts, Nubra, Sham, Changthang, Zanskar, and Drass, has increased the Union Territory’s total from two districts, Leh and Kargil, to seven. This historic administrative overhaul, however, has irked local Muslim organisations and political parties, who have labelled the move ‘gerrymandering’ by the Central government to ‘weaken’ the statehood movement.

Before delving into the invocation of the Muslim victimhood bogey, it is pertinent to understand why Ladakh has been divided into five new districts.

From 2 districts to 7: Why Ladakh needed an administrative district division

On 27th April 2026, Ladakh L-G, Vinai Kumar Saxena, notified the creation of five new districts, “to meet the aspirations of the people of Ladakh and to fulfil their long-pending demand”. The Central government had approved the formation of these new districts back in August 2024.

Back then, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had said, “In pursuit of PM Shri @narendramodi Ji’s vision to build a developed and prosperous Ladakh, the MHA has decided to create five new districts in the union territory. The new districts, namely Zanskar, Drass, Sham, Nubra and Changthang, will take the benefits meant for the people to their doorsteps by bolstering governance in every nook and cranny.The Modi government is committed to creating abundant opportunities for the people of Ladakh.”

As per the new administrative division, the Leh district will have 44 revenue villages, while Nubra will have 30 revenue villages, and Changthang will have 24 revenue villages. Similarly, Kargil district will have 80 revenue villages, while Sham district will have 27 revenue villages, Zanskar will have 26 revenue villages, and Drass will have 19 revenue villages.

Now, the Buddhist-majority areas account for Leh with 151 villages, and the Shia Muslim-majority areas account for Kargil with 99 villages.

The Nubra, Sham, and Changthang districts were carved out of the existing Leh district, while Zanskar and Drass were formed out of the existing Kargil district.

This is the biggest administrative restructuring Ladakh has witnessed since it became a separate Union Territory in 2019.

Despite being India’s second-largest Union Territory by area, Ladakh is one of the most sparsely populated, with a population of over 2.74 lakh people as per the 2011 Census. The UT is projected to have over 3 lakh people at present. The Ladakhi populace is spread across vast, high-altitude terrain, with limited road connectivity, remote valleys and plateaus, and extreme weather. With the multi-faceted challenges, the two-district structure, with Leh covering Buddhist-majority areas and Kargil covering the Muslim-dominated areas, was becoming unwieldy for local day-to-day governance.

One of the most important reasons for the now-notified administrative division is decentralisation. The Central government aims to bring administration, development schemes, healthcare, education, and grievance redressal close to remote villages in places like Nubra Valley, Changthang Plateau, Zanskar Gorge, and Drass Sector. These areas earlier fell under distant district headquarters.

The creation of separate districts has been a longstanding demand of the local people in these sub-regions, to boost infrastructure, tourism, employment and economic opportunities.

With Ladakh divided into small districts, there will be a more focused district-level machinery including police, collectors, etc, for a region having its own set of challenges such as border sensitivities and fragile ecology.

Muslim organisations and political parties give the creation of five new districts in Ladakh a Muslim victimhood spin

It has become ritualistic for Islamist political parties to peddle Muslim victimhood propaganda regarding almost every policy decision taken by the Modi government. In this vein, the All-India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi describes the creation of five new districts in Ladakh as an attempt to “divide the unified statehood movement of Buddhists and Muslims.”

Citing the 2011 Census data, Owaisi argued that Muslims have been turned into a minority, having only 2 districts, while now there will be five Buddhist-majority districts. Highlighting that Ladakh has 46.40% Muslims and 39.65% Buddhist population out of the total population of 274289, and yet there will be only 2 Muslim-majority districts, Owaisi accused the Modi government of ‘gerrymandering’.

“The govt has created 5 new districts in Ladakh. There are now 7 instead of 2 districts. The govt wants to divide the unified statehood movement of Buddhists and Muslims. This is another gerrymandering in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. As per the 2011 Census, Ladakh has 46.40% Muslims and 39.65% Buddhist population out of the total population of 274289. Out of the 7 districts, 5 are Buddhist majority, only 2 are Muslim. Basically 5 districts for 39.65% population and only 2 districts for 46.40% population,” Owaisi wrote on X.

Meanwhile, Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) has called the creation of five new districts a “calculated attempt” to “divide the unified statehood movement of Buddhists and Muslims, who have been seeking full statehood for Ladakh and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, which guarantees tribal safeguards.

The KDA argues the new notification creates two Muslim-majority districts, Kargil and Drass, against five Buddhist-majority districts, Leh, Nubra, Sham, Changthang, and Zanskar, even as Muslims are slightly higher in population compared to Buddhists.

KDA’s Sajjad Kargili said, “This disproportionate distribution reflects a deeply skewed and discriminatory approach. The process has clearly ignored regional sensitivities, demographic realities, and principles of equitable representation.”

Similarly, Mohammad Jaffer Akhoon, Chairman and Chief Executive Councillor (CEC) of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council-Kargil (LAHDC-K) has called the Centre’s decision “an arbitrary and one-sided decision”.

“This is an arbitrary and one-sided decision which deepens the faultlines here. A Muslim majority UT has been administratively reduced to a minority. Areas like Sanku subdivision and Shakar Chiktan Shargole Sub-Division, with Muslim majority have been ignored and areas with much lower population have been given districts. This is unacceptable to us and we urge the Prime Minister and Home Minister to address our concerns and demands. One district with a Muslim population has 80 villages while another district has just around 40 or even less villages,” Akhoon said.

Regarding funds allocation for the new districts, Akhoon said, “Tomorrow, when funds will be allocated to districts or posts advertised, it would be heavily skewed in favour of a section of the population, which is unfair and unjust.”

Is Modi government trying to kill Ladakh statehood demand by ‘breaking’ the supposed Buddhist-Muslim unity for statehood demand?

Contrary to the narrative being pushed by Islamists and their political patrons, the new boundaries carved out strictly follow existing demographic and geographic realities of sub-regions. The Leh region has historically been Buddhist-dominated. Its sub-areas like Sham, Changthang, and Nubra are also overwhelmingly Buddhist. Kargil, on the other hand, is overall Muslim-majority, with only Zanskar being Buddhist-dominated, while Drass is Muslim. These religion-based pockets have already existed, and it is not the case that the Modi government has manufactured these pockets to separate both religious communities into distinct, designated areas.

Pertinently, district creation is not proportional representation, as is the case with assembly seats. District creation is essentially about efficient administration. Of course, population density is an unignorable factor, but not the sole decider. This process is not an election-related redraw. In fact, Ladakh does not even have an assembly, and the entire Ladakh is one Lok Sabha constituency. This means that no matter how many administrative districts are created, they have zero impact on elections, unlike in the case of the delimitation of constituencies. While Islamists in general and political opponents of the Central government continue to cast aspersions on their intentions, there is no communal engineering at play.

If we talk about Zanskar, which has been carved out of Kargil, the Buddhist residents have, for decades, demanded a separate district. In fact, when Ladakh was bifurcated into Leh and Kargil districts back in 1979, the local Buddhist population was kept under the Muslim-majority Kargil for ‘administrative convenience’. Was that not unfair? Over the years, allegations of developmental neglect, poor connectivity and discrimination from Kargil headquarters have emerged.

While the Muslim outfits in Ladakh are dubbing the creation of five new districts as some ‘anti-Muslim’  conspiracy and attempt to break Buddhist-Muslim unity, Zanskar Buddhist Association Youth Wing has welcomed the creation of the new districts, calling it a “landmark decision”.

“We all the executive members under the leadership of our Hon’ble President are writing to extend our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to central and UT leadership on the formal declaration of separate district status for Zanskar. This formal declaration of separate district of Zanskar has sparked a joy celebration amongst the people of Zanskar. As this landmark decision marks the fulfilment of a long-standing dream and a tireless struggle by the inhabitants of this trans-Himalayan region of Ladakh,” the group said.

“…The approval of this status brings us immense joy and satisfaction, and we are profoundly thankful to Hon’ble Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi Ji, Union Home Minister and Minister of Cooperation, Shri Amit Shah Ji, His Excellency, Lieutenant Governor Ladakh and all the members of the Council of Minister in the Union Government who have played a pivotal role making our dream a reality and thus in this achievement,” it added.

Similarly, the Buddhist-dominated sub-regions of Nubra, Sham, and Changthang in Leh have also been demanding better administrative management to ensure development and proper grievance redressal.

The allegations that the creation of five new districts will create fissures between Buddhists and Muslims who have joined forces to demand statehood for Ladakh are devoid of any factual merit since statehood is a political demand. The statehood demand remains untouched by the recent district creation process.

In recent weeks, ‘gerrymandering’ has become a catchword for politicians, particularly ahead of the tabling of the now-defeated Delimitation proposal.

Notably, the term gerrymandering means redrawing electoral boundaries to concentrate or dilute votes for political advantage. This term essentially has zero applicability in the case of the district creation process in Ladakh.

Ladakh is a Union Territory, directly under the Central government. It has no assembly and its parliamentary constituencies are not being altered. The newly created districts are purely administrative units.

In short, no elections or voting power is being manipulated, and thus, the term ‘gerrymandering’ makes no sense in Ladakh’s context.

The district creation process followed existing sub-divisional and geographic realities and did not come up with arbitrary lines to somehow ‘manufacture majorities’. Zanskar has always been a Buddhist valley, while Drass has for quite a long time been Muslim-dominated. Districts are not population-proportional political units. While the Muslim population is indeed slightly higher than that of Buddhists overall, Ladakh’s geography has always comprised compact Muslim-majority pockets in the west or the Kargil side and massive Buddhist-majority in the east, that is, the Leh side.

The fresh split only formalises the pre-existing sub-regional realities. It Muslims are upset that they are not getting additional Muslim-majority districts at their whims, the government cannot help them. Also, district creation is not done on the basis of religion.

Ladakhi Muslim organisations have constantly highlighted how “one district with a Muslim population has 80 villages while another district has just around 40 or even less villages”. However, what they don’t mention is that with 80 villages, Kargil alone has more villages than any of the five new districts or even the residual Leh district.

Leh, having a far larger area with scattered high-altitude settlements, is the government’s fault. While in recent days, the Modi government has been blamed even for the rising temperatures, it is in reality not capable of twisting geography in its favour.

Mohammad Jaffer Akhoon, Chairman and Chief Executive Councillor (CEC) of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council-Kargil (LAHDC-K) claimed that the Finance Commission rule says that “when new districts are formed, population should be the major criterion–90 percent. Here, everything has been ignored.”

The fact that Akhoon himself ignored is that the 15th Finance Commission (2021-26) uses population, among other factors, for tax devolution to UTs and States and for grants to local bodies. It does mention the 90:10 ratio wherein a weightage of 90 percent assigned to the population and 10 per cent to the areas of the States, but it does not lay down the criteria for the creation of new districts.

District formation is strictly an administrative power exercised by the appointed Lieutenant Governor for efficient governance.

Moreover, contrary to the claims that new districts will skew resource allocation, after the creation of new districts, they will receive dedicated district-level budgets and resources will not be skewed but decentralised to far-flung villages, be it the Buddhist majority Zanskar or the Muslim-dominated Drass.

Cherry-picking disparities to accuse the Central government of gerrymandering for religion-based electoral gains, that too in a region where there is no legislative assembly, no electoral constituencies, no voting wards, etc., is ridiculous.

From Jammu and Kashmir to Assam, Islamo-leftists have consistently been cherry-picking numbers and blending them with a Muslim victimhood narrative to villainise the Modi government and create panic. Apparently, the Islamists are pre-emptively establishing a narrative that the Modi government ‘fixed’ electoral outcomes with the creation of new districts in case the statehood demand is accepted in future and state assembly elections are held in Ladakh.

Social media ‘influencers’ join Rahul Gandhi in fearmongering over the Great Nicobar Project to undermine national security: Read the facts and how left-liberals are peddling lies

Rukma Rathore
-
0
Social media ‘influencers’ join Rahul Gandhi in fearmongering over the Great Nicobar Project to undermine national security: Read the facts and how left-liberals are peddling lies

The Great Nicobar Island (GNI) Project, initiated by NITI (National Institution for Transforming India) Aayog and introduced in 2021, has been in the spotlight as one of the most ambitious infrastructure proposals in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). It is essential for transforming the region into a global maritime centre while taking into account ecological considerations and the welfare of tribal communities.

Nonetheless, the usual suspects, particularly the Indian National Congress and its entire ecosystem, along with foreign propagandists, have resumed their efforts to peddle a deceiving narrative against the vital project, in line with their regular response to every major decision concerning the nation, aiming to manipulate public sentiment in their support and obstruct the nation’s progress.

A frantic effort by Congress to stall the project

The Congress, notorious for allegations revolving around a multitude of scams during its tenure, denounced the project as “the next big scam in the making” with an image of PM Modi and Adani suggesting that the two have been involved in similar activities in various regions of India.

Rahul Gandhi even travelled to the Andaman Islands to add a dramatic effect to his repeated accusations, contending that the project “is millions of trees marked for the axe. It is 160 square kilometres of rainforest condemned to die. It is communities that have been ignored while their homes have been snatched away. This is not development. This is destruction dressed in development’s language.”

The Raebareli MP also painted it as “one of the biggest scams and gravest crimes against this country’s natural and tribal heritage in our lifetime.” He demanded its termination, asking the people to align their voices with his disapproval.

While the party’s first family is occupied with unnecessary fearmongering, how can other leaders abstain from partaking in such antics? Therefore, Rajya Sabha MP and key aide to Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, defined the project as a “recipe for ecological disaster.”

Senior Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate also hopped on the bandwagon to characterise Gandhi as a leader of the people, stressing that his political focus is on “issues that touch people’s lives, protect our forests, safeguard biodiversity, and secure our climate future.” She conveyed, “It doesn’t gloss over environmental devastation in the name of reckless development to benefit a few crony capitalists,” in an obvious attack on PM Modi and Adani, conveniently overlooking the assignments awarded to the businessman by Congress governments.

Shrinate then tactfully shifted to her true intention of pleading with people to vote for the party and endorse Gandhi, alleging that he is against “the brand of politics which spreads communal poison, ignores the daily struggles of Indians, and pursues power by bending every institution and trampling people’s rights.”

“Caring about Great Nicobar means caring about the politics that defends it. It’s time to stand with Rahul Gandhi and his politics,” she added. Essentially, she exploited the issue to solicit voter support before the party’s political future is entirely relegated to obscurity.

Another Congress member asserted that PM Modi discusses development publicly while his true intention is destruction, in reference to the project.

Last year, former Congress supremo Sonia Gandhi even authored an editorial in The Hindu, critcising the project as a disaster. From the upper echelons of Congress leadership to ordinary supporters, all are working to demonise the highly pivotal venture.

After the grand old party spearheaded the misleading campaign, it was promptly embraced by its cabal, including “journalists” and “influencers” who ridiculed the project, deemed it pointless and unnecessary, and labelled it hazardous to the local environment and residents.

“Journalist” Swati Chaturvedi reiterated Rahul Gandhi’s unfounded objections to the crucial plan under the guise of “protecting fragile ecology.

Congress loyalist Mohit Chauhan wrote, “Millions of trees and a very dense forest will be wiped out. If you think this is being done for defence purposes, then the joke is on you.”

According to the Tribal Army, the project is “deeply concerning” due to its “risk to fragile ecosystems, biodiversity and survival,” arguing that it constitutes destruction instead of development. “When decisions come at the cost of nature and indigenous rights, they must be questioned,” the account insisted.

Another member of this group boasted that the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha was not on vacation but rather in the Andaman Islands to voice objections against “Gautam Adani’s ₹81,000 crore Great Nicobar project,” which would clear 130 square kilometres of rainforest, devastate wildlife sanctuaries and displace the indigenous populace.

The person referenced “The Ganga Expressway,” which links Meerut to Prayagraj and was primarily constructed by Adani Enterprises Limited, to allege corruption. He declared that Rahul Gandhi is “raising alarm” against the entrepreneur who is damaging a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) biosphere and accused PM Modi of “cutting the ribbon” to assist him in acquiring a revenue stream of thousands of crores in the name of development.

Meanwhile, a 6-month-old video featuring “comedian” Kunal Kamra, infamous for his anti-India rhetoric and Hindumisia, about the project has begun to surface on social media, with alarming comments designed to scandalise both the uninitiated and common citizens as well as attack the Modi government. The opposition’s ecosystem started posting the footage which was also retweeted by “journalist” Ravish Kumar.

The entire gang banded together in an orchestrated attempt to frame the project as a grave mistake that was solely intended to profit Adani at the expense of the environment and native people.

Great Nicobar Island Project: The reality and the propaganda

The project, which has been cleared by the National Green Tribunal, covers around 166 square kilometres and is close to Galathea Bay on Great Nicobar Island. The mega project, which is expected to cost between ₹72,000 and ₹92,000 crore, intends to transform the island into a significant economic and geopolitical powerhouse.

It entails the removal of around a million trees and the diversion of roughly 130 square kilometres of forest area. A 450-MVA gas and solar power plant, an integrated township, a dual-use civil and military airport, along with an international container transhipment terminal, are part of the endeavour.

The international greenfield airport would also have a 3,300-meter runway that can deal with wide-body aircraft. These dual-use military and public facilities will transform the Andaman and Nicobar tri-service command into a front-line strategic arm. The project has 4 stages. Phase 1 is expected to handle 4 million TEUs and is scheduled for completion by 2028. The capacity will likely increase to 16 million TEUs by 2058.

Great Nicobar is nearly as far away from Colombo, Port Klang and Singapore as it is from a main east-west shipping route. Currently, almost 40% of India’s transhipment business is handled by Colombo alone, while about 25% of the country’s cargo is delivered through foreign ports. With its natural depth of 18 to 20 metres, the government outlined that the Galathea Bay port can lessen this reliance and save thousands of crores a year in port revenue and associated economic activity.

Moreover, the project serves as the main attraction of India’s “Necklace of Diamonds” strategy, which strives to offset China’s “String of Pearls.” India would be able to monitor and, if needed, intercept shipping via one of the most important waterways in the world if it had a fully operational military and commercial base at Galathea Bay, which is situated at the entrance to the Strait of Malacca.

Furthermore, Iran has been offering an actual illustration of what it means to be adjacent to a vital strait with the ability to threaten, facilitate and weaponise international trade since February 2026.

On the other hand, Congress governments have previously obstructed airstrips, radar facilities and port expansions in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, claiming vulnerable ecosystems. As a result, the archipelago was left economically stagnant and tactically underutilised. Their approach hampered India’s infrastructural growth in critical regions while China efficiently transformed its own border areas and took policy decisions to further its influence.

Now, when the Modi government ultimately resolved to leverage the geological resources of India for both its benefit and greater utility, the party and the left-liberals have resorted to their longstanding anti-development position, trying to confine the nation within the detrimental cycle of inaction and disregard for future security in pursuit of their short-term political goals.

They object for the sake of their politics but never provide any constructive criticism or alternative recommendations. They solely desire for the project to stop, the status quo to persist and no improvements in these rapidly escalating and unpredictable times, where national interest must be prioritised above any political manoeuvring. However, it is too much to hope from the Indian opposition or its left-liberal brigade.

The Great Nicobar Project should have been done decades ago: Read how India has underutilised its maritime potential and neglected the blessings of geography

Sanghamitra
-
0
The Great Nicobar Project should have been done decades ago: Read how India has underutilised its maritime potential and neglected the blessings of geography

Soon after the events at Euromaidan, when Russian President Putin knew that Ukraine might soon be lost to a hostile government, one of his first moves was to annex Crimea. Kremlin cited historical, cultural and social reasons for the move. But anyone who has ever studied the geopolitics of the region can clearly see why annexing Crimea was crucial for Russia. Russia has gone to war for Crimea in the past, and it will do so again and again, whenever needed, because Crimea has Sevastopol.

Sevastopol is the critical, and in a way, the only major warm-water port for Russia. Technically, there can be others, but Novorossiysk on Russian territory is storm-prone and not that deep. Sevastopol is the focal point where Russian navy and commercial vessels access the Black Sea, without needing ice-breakers and risking winter-time limited operational status. Despite being the biggest nation on the planet, most other Russian ports are either on freezing waters, but Sevastopol is the exception.

Geography was the main character when Catherine the Great ruled in the 1700s, that fact hasn’t changed under Putin’s regime either. 

Civilisations have risen and fallen through ports. Empires are built through ports and maritime routes. Any nation that wants to be a global power needs to become a maritime power first. 

Alfred Thayer Mahan’s famous idea, that sea power determines the rise and fall of nations, was valid during the reign of ancient Rome, the advent of the Spanish and British empires in the Middle Ages, and the brutal history of colonisation in the last few centuries to this day. 

Land-locked or maritime-hesitant nations inevitably find themselves at the mercy of those who command the oceans. For India, blessed with one of the longest coastlines and a commanding position astride the Indian Ocean, the imperative is stark: it must fully realise its maritime potential or risk remaining a continental giant overshadowed by true blue-water powers.

India has underutilised its maritime potential for decades 

India is geographically one of the most blessed nations for maritime activities. With over 10,000 km of coastlines, a central position astride key Indian Ocean trade routes, numerous natural deep-water harbours, and favourable monsoon winds historically aiding navigation.

We have an entire Ocean named after us, but we are, ironically, not even using 50% of our maritime potential, letting our geographical blessings go unharnessed while our neighbours profit from our waters. For decades, we have been lagging behind other smaller or less advantageously placed nations like Singapore, the Netherlands, South Korea, or even China.

Criminal underutilisation of coastline, marine resources and capabilities

The neglect of naval power and maritime trade literally caused India years of occupation and colonial exploitation at the hands of global powers. Despite this, successive governments have learned no lessons even after Independence. India has, for decades, criminally underutilised its maritime capabilities and potential.

Shipbuilding

As of 2025–26, India holds less than 1% of the global shipbuilding market, ranking a distant 16th in a world dominated by China, South Korea and Japan who control over 92% of the shipbuilding market.

India’s annual output is tiny, around 40,000–47,000 Gross Tonnage per year on average, that too only in recent years, while global leaders produce millions of gross tonnage. 

The Modi government has rightfully identified and understood the lacuna. Policies have been brought to rectify those mistakes and the current government is willing to invest capital and willpower into shipbuilding. The NDA government is aiming for 5% global share in shipbuilding by 2030 and a global top 5 rank by 2047, both ambitious goals, but much-needed.

Merchant Fleet & Shipping Capabilities

Indian-flagged ships carry only 5–7% of the country’s export-import trade. Foreign vessels handle the remaining 93–95%, leading to significant forex outflow and dependency. The picture is even more concerning when we look at global tonnage capacity. Globally, India accounts for less than 1% of total world shipping tonnage. 

In 2025-26, a record performance, India’s merchant fleet and shipping capacity crossed 14.2 million Gross Tonnage, with the addition of 92 cargo ships, a roughly three-fold increase compared to 2024-25. But we are still far, far behind where we should be. India-owned and India-flagged vessels are currently around just 1500, keeping us at the 17th or 18th in the global cargo-carrying capacity rankings. This needs to improve a lot if we aspire to become a world leader.

Ports & Cargo Handling

Ports and Cargo Handling are the most concerning sector in the overall maritime capabilities debate for India. As discussed above, few other nations in the world have been blessed with a coastline and geographic maritime potential as we are, yet, we have preferred to live detached from the oceans for generations. 

“India’s proud maritime heritage is well known. We were always known for shipbuilding and coastal trade. We are the land of the Cholas and the Marathas, whose naval might, trading impact and strategic brilliance became pathways of progress and power. Their vision showed us how the oceans can serve as bridges of opportunity. However, a decade ago, when we assumed office, India’s maritime sector was filled with outdated laws and limited capacities. This was not acceptable to us”, PM Modi had written in October 2025.

India has over a dozen major ports, but only two of them, namely JNPA and Mundra, consistently rank in the worldwide top 40–50 by container throughput. In 2025-26, India’s major ports handled 915.17 million tonnes (MT) surpassing the target of 904 MT.

In the World Bank’s Container Port Performance Index (CPPI 2024, referenced in 2025–26 reports), JNPA ranked 23rd and Mundra 25th among the top 30 globally. Nine Indian ports (including non-major ones) feature in the global top 100. Giant ports like Shanghai (47+ million TEUs) and Singapore are dwarfing India’s ports by miles. Vessel turnaround times have improved, but still lag world-class benchmarks. Capacity utilisation often hovers around 50% for India. 

Why the Galathea Bay International Container Transhipment Port and the Great Nicobar Project is not just crucial, but an absolute national security necessity

The Strait of Malacca is a narrow chokepoint through which over 40% of global trade currently passes. Great Nicobar, located just 40 Nautical Miles from the Strait, sits at one of the most critical maritime arteries on the planet. And have just watched global trade pass us by. 

Image via Ministry of Ports Shipping and Waterways

Galathea Bay is a natural deep-water harbour on the southeastern coast of Great Nicobar Island. With its over 20 metres draft, this geological blessing sits right there on Indian territory, unutilised and ignored for decades while Singapore, Colombo flourished as global ports. 

The Bay can accommodate the largest container vessels without the limitations faced by many competing hubs. Galathea Bay International Container Transhipment Port (ICTP) is not just a peripheral port project; it is going to be India’s strategic anchor in the eastern Indian Ocean, transforming the Andaman & Nicobar archipelago from a remote outpost into a forward-operating springboard for both commerce and defence.

Commercially speaking, the ICTP will directly address India’s chronic vulnerability. Currently, around 75% of India’s containerised cargo is transshipped through foreign ports like Colombo and Singapore, causing not just a massive foreign exchange outflow, but a colossal logistical dependency. 

The proposed Galathea Bay ICTP will internalise this traffic, slash costs, boost export competitiveness, and position India as a major hub for Asia-Europe, Asia-Africa, and Asia-US trade routes. The larger Great Nicobar Project proposes a civil-military airport, 450 MVA renewable-heavy power plant, and an integrated township to complete the ecosystem, creating a self-sustaining maritime node.

The government has cited the Galathea Bay ICTP and Great Nicobar project as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier”, an ambitious but critical move that secures trade lifelines, projects naval power, counters encirclement, and cements India’s emergence as a true maritime superpower.

Even if the historical instances of key trade routes making and breaking empires were not sufficient, the ongoing hostilities in West Asia, where the closure of the Strait of Hormuz sent economic and logistical shockwaves through the entire world, should be enough to stress the criticality of a marine trade choke point. Galathea Bay is not just commercially prudent for India; it is a strategic military and commercial master move against China. 

As PM Modi had said earlier, this is not the era of war. But this is the era of technological advantage and consistent, relentless global competition for resources and power. India has lost not years or decades, but centuries due to political turmoil and colonisation by foreign powers. Geography has ordained us as the guardian of the Indian Ocean, it is high time we asume that role strategically and officially. That Ocean belongs to us, if we do not move to claim it, someone else will. 

From Punjab, not India: How Diljit Dosanjh’s response at ‘The Tonight Show’ feeds into problematic narratives and encourages Khalistani separatism

Jinit Jain
-
0
From Punjab, not India: How Diljit Dosanjh’s response at ‘The Tonight Show’ feeds into problematic narratives and encourages Khalistani separatism

The global stage is never just about performance; it is about projection. Identity, politics, and symbolism travel with every word, every pause, and every omission. When someone like Diljit Dosanjh appears on a platform as influential as The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, hosted by Jimmy Fallon, he is not merely entertaining, he is signaling.

And increasingly, those signals demand scrutiny. At first glance, Dosanjh’s articulation of Punjab; its music, its culture, its energy, appears harmless. No one disputes the legitimacy of regional pride.

India’s civilizational strength lies precisely in its layered identities. But what raises concern is not the celebration of Punjab. It is the systematic erasure of India from that celebration.

On one of the most watched platforms globally, Dosanjh introduced himself simply as “from Punjab.” Not India. Not even in passing. This is not an isolated lapse; it is a pattern repeated across global appearances, from Coachella to Western media interviews.

Patterns are rarely accidental.

Punjab is not a sovereign entity. It is a state within India, with a history, identity, and contribution deeply intertwined with the Indian nation. To repeatedly present it as a standalone identity on global platforms, without contextual anchoring, is not just incomplete, it is politically loaded. No American popstar or celebrity refers to themselves from their respective states. They proudly wear their American identity on their sleeves, instead of foregrounding their regional identities. But in India, there are some sections of society for whom regional chauvinism takes precedent over national allegiance. Though it might appear as frivolous, the issue is deeply problematic.

Because in today’s geopolitical reality, such framing does not exist in a vacuum.

The Khalistan movement is not about cultural assertion; it is an explicitly political project with terror roots that seeks the territorial dismemberment of India.

It constructs India as an adversary, calls for the balkanisation of the country, and has historically justified violent means to carve out a separate state. While marginal within India today, it continues to find resonance in pockets of the diaspora, where distance often amplifies distortion.
And this ecosystem does not operate alone.

There is a long-documented pattern of Pakistan, particularly through its intelligence apparatus like the ISI, seeking to exploit such fault lines to destabilize India. Cultural narratives, diaspora activism, and identity politics become instruments in that larger strategic play.

This is where Dosanjh’s messaging becomes more than just artistic choice.

By consistently foregrounding Punjab while omitting India, he is, whether consciously or not, contributing to a narrative architecture that separatist elements thrive on. His articulation aligns, uncomfortably, with the very framing that Khalistani groups have spent decades attempting to normalize: Punjab as distinct, detached, and politically separable from India. Not to mention Dosanjh has been accused of softballing Khalistani ideology, most notably with his support for the antisocial elements during the farmers’ protests and his spat with actor Kangana Ranaut back then.

Nevertheless, intent, at this point, becomes secondary to effect.

Defenders will argue that this is branding, that Dosanjh is simply globalizing “Punjab” as a cultural identity. But this argument collapses under scrutiny. Artists across the world do not erase their national belonging to amplify regional pride. They contextualize it. The sequence matters because it signals political belonging before cultural specificity.

Dosanjh reverses or entirely omits that sequence. Why? The answer likely lies in his audience.

His fandom is not limited to India. It spans a transnational Punjabi diaspora, including significant numbers of Pakistani-origin Punjabis who share linguistic and cultural ties but not Indian nationality. His concerts across the world routinely see participation from this cross-border demographic. By positioning himself as “Punjabi first,” Dosanjh taps into a market that transcends borders.

Commercially, it is astute. Politically, it is deeply irresponsible.

Because this very transnational Punjabi identity, detached from India, is a core ingredient in the Khalistani narrative mix. It blurs national boundaries, dilutes political belonging, and creates a cultural foundation upon which separatist ideology can be layered. What begins as branding can easily become ideological scaffolding.

And in that ecosystem, even silence becomes a statement.

But beyond the geopolitical implications lies an even more glaring contradiction, the intellectual dishonesty that underpins this entire posture.

Figures like Diljit Dosanjh and others in similar cultural circuits are often quick to indulge in virtue signalling when politicians in India appeal to cultural or religious identities. Such appeals are routinely dismissed as divisive, regressive, or majoritarian. The argument is that identity-based mobilisation is inherently dangerous to a plural society.

Yet, on international platforms, the same individuals unapologetically foreground a hyper-specific regional identity, Punjab, while erasing the national context altogether.

This is hypocrisy of the highest order.

If identity assertion is problematic in principle, it should remain so regardless of geography. If it is legitimate as cultural expression, then that legitimacy must apply consistently, including when Indians assert broader national or civilizational identities.

Instead, what we see is selective validation. When identity aligns with certain ideological comfort zones, it is celebrated. When it doesn’t, it is condemned. Domestic discourse demands abstraction; global branding thrives on specificity. The principles shift with the audience.

That is not consistency; it is calibration. And in a sensitive context like Punjab, this calibration is not without consequence. Because the repeated decoupling of Punjab from India feeds into a narrative space already occupied by separatist ideologies seeking legitimacy.

The contradiction, therefore, is not just rhetorical; it is structural.

You cannot decry identity politics at home while practicing a refined version of it abroad. You cannot dismiss civilizational assertion as regressive in India and then market regional exceptionalism as progressive on the global stage.

At some point, this ceases to be about expression and becomes a question of intellectual honesty.

None of this negates Dosanjh’s artistic success. He has undeniably taken Punjabi music to global audiences and broken barriers that few before him could. But influence is not a selective privilege. It comes with responsibility, especially when operating in a contested narrative environment.

Because on the world stage, identity is not just what you say.

It is also what you choose to omit, and who benefits from that omission.

And in Diljit Dosanjh’s case, that omission is beginning to align far too conveniently with narratives that seek not cultural celebration, but political fragmentation.

Bombay HC quashes FIRs against Shekhar Suman and Bharti Singh for the words “Ya Allah, Rasgulla, Dahi Bhalla”: Read what the court said about invoking criminal law

Aditi
-
0
Bombay HC quashes FIRs against Shekhar Suman and Bharti Singh for the words “Ya Allah, Rasgulla, Dahi Bhalla”: Read what the court said about invoking criminal law

The Bombay High Court recently quashed the FIRs filed against actor Shekhar Suman and comedian Bharti Singh for a joke made during a popular comedy show, “Comedy Circus Ka Jadoo”, aired on Sony TV in November 2010. The decision passed on Wednesday (29th April) came during the hearing on the petitions filed by Suman and Singh, seeking the quashing of the FIR filed against them.

A Bench of Justice Amit Borkar held that no offence was made out against the petitioners under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, as alleged in the FIR.

Notably, the FIRs were lodged in November 2010, under Section 295-A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, based on a complaint filed by one Mohd Imran Dadani Rasabi, owner of the Raza Academy, at the Pydhonie Police Station. The FIRs arose from Episode No.18 of the show, in which Bharti Singh performed a character styled as “Umrao Jaan”, inspired by the title character from the Hindi movie of the same name. Her co-performer enacted a character of a police officer inspired by a role from the Hindi film ‘Dabangg’.

During the performance, Singh uttered a joke containing the words “Ya Allah! Rasgulla! Dahi Bhalla!”. The use of the word ‘Allah’ irked the complainant, who submitted a complaint against Bharti Singh, along with Shekhar Suman, who was participating in the show as a judge.

Criminal law should not be invoked in a casual manner: HC

Bharti Singh and Shekhar Suman approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the validity of the FIRs. The High Court slashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the dual grounds of merit of the case and the legality of the criminal procedure. Criticising the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, the High Court cautioned that the criminal law should not be invoked in a “casual manner”.

“I am also mindful of the fact that criminal law should not be invoked in a casual manner against an artist or a programme judge merely because somebody feels insulted by a performance viewed out of context. There must be deliberate targeting of religious feeling. There must be a malicious object. There must be sufficient material to connect the petitioner with that object. On the present record, the connection is missing,” Justice Borkar remarked.

In arriving at the decision, the court examined the facts of the case to ascertain the nature of the television show, the intent of the artists in making the joke, and the presence of elements required for constituting the alleged offence. After hearing the submissions of the parties, the High Court concluded that the necessary elements of deliberate and malicious conduct required to constitute the offence were not present. The court also held that the manner in which the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners also suffered a legal flaw.

The joke was not made with malicious intent: HC

In the order quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioners, the High Court noted that the joke, containing the expressions “Ya Allah! Rasgulla! DahiBhalla!”, was made during a light entertainment programme and was not made with malicious intent. The court said that the words were uttered to rhyme and give a comic effect, and there was no premeditation.

“In the present case, from the complaint and from the episode as described, I do not find any material showing such deliberate or malicious intention on the part of either Petitioner. The performance appears to have been made in a theatrical manner, with the object of entertainment. That does not by itself create criminality,” the judge stated.

The High Court took notice of the fact that the show was telecast as a family entertainment programme and had been running for a considerable time. Examining the format of the case, the High Court also noted that performers and judges in such programmes are supposed to create laughter while following the script of the episode.

“The Petitioners say that the performers and judges in such a programme are meant to create laughter. I find this to be a relevant surrounding circumstance. A judge in a comedy show does not stand in the position of a speaker making a declaration against a religious group. A performing artist on such a stage also performs according to the script of the episode,” the court asserted.

The show is meant for humour, and the artists follow the script: HC

Accepting the petitioners’ submissions, the court agreed that the programme was a light-hearted show involving comic exchanges by performers meant to create humour. “The learned counsel submits that no reasonable reading of the episode would show a deliberate design to insult any religion or religious belief. This submission has substance. The Court cannot ignore the context of the programme. A comedy show is not judged by the same standards as a doctrinal speech or a political statement. A performance of this nature is to be read as a whole, and not by selecting stray expressions from it,” the court said.

Criminal proceedings initiated without mandatory sanction: HC

The High Court reminded that for taking cognisance of an offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, a previous sanction of the state government is mandatory under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. “The provision is mandatory. It is intended to prevent abuse of prosecution in matters of sensitive public expression. Here, the record as placed before me does not show that such a sanction was obtained before the matter was proceeded with in the manner in which it was done. This omission goes to the legality of the prosecution,” the court pointed out.

“When the complaint itself does not disclose the ingredients and when the mandatory sanction is not shown, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of process,” the Court noted, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

Former cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan challenges Gujarat High Court order declaring him encroacher of government land: Read details

Aditi
-
0
Former cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan challenges Gujarat High Court order declaring him encroacher of government land: Read details

Former Indian cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP, Yusuf Pathan, has reportedly filed an appeal challenging a Gujarat High Court single-judge Bench order declaring him an encroacher on government land. According to Ahmedabad Mirror, Pathan has also challenged a notice of the Gujarat government dated June 6, 2024, which rejected Vadodara Municipal Corporation’s (VMC) proposal to lease him a plot for 99 years without public auction.

The notice directed the VMC to remove the encroachment urgently. The High Court had rejected Pathan’s proposal to purchase the land he had been illegally occupying, holding that municipal land must be sold through auction. The court added that he can take part in the auction.

The Background of the Land-Grabbing Case against Pathan

In August 2025, Justice Mauna Bhatt dismissed a petition filed by Pathan challenging orders passed by the VMC and the state government asking him to vacate a piece of land illegally occupied by him. The matter relates to a piece of government-owned land in Vadodara, which, according to authorities, was encroached by Pathan. 

On March 30, 2012, the VMC’s standing committee had agreed to allot the encroached plot to Pathan at a rate of ₹57,270 per square metre after a valuation exercise. The decision was also approved by the general body of the corporation in June 2012. Since the allotment was to be made without an auction, a recommendation was sent to the state government seeking its approval for the same. The state government, however, rejected the proposal in June 2014, but Pathan continued to illegally occupy the piece of land. Subsequently, in 2024, the VMC Commissioner ordered him to vacate the land, prompting him to approach the High Court against the order.

Pathan claimed adverse possession over the land

In his petition, Pathan had argued for the implementation of the VMC’s 2012 proposal to allot him the land without auction. He contended that the VMC is an independent body under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and has full authority to lease property without requiring the state government’s approval. He invoked the 74th Constitutional Amendment, which grants autonomy to local bodies, and claimed that the state’s interference was unconstitutional.

He clarified that he did not object to the VMC seeking the approval of the state government because everything appeared positive to him. Pathan claimed that the lack of approval by the state government did not affect the power of the municipal corporation to allot the land to him. Additionally, he claimed adverse possession over the land, arguing that the VMC’s silence regarding the possession of land by him for 12 years implied that his occupation should be considered valid.

Pathan cited his cricket career and position as an MP before the court

Pathan also tried to win the favour of the High Court by pointing out that he was an international cricketer and a Member of Parliament. He said that he was willing to purchase the land at market price. The land in question lies right next to Pathan’s bungalow, and he cited personal and family security concerns to lay his claim on it.

The VMC and the state government opposed Pathan’s claims

The Counsel appearing for the corporation and the state government submitted that Pathan had no right to occupy government or municipal land without proper approval. He emphasised that if the land was to be allotted to him without auction, the approval of the state government was mandatory, but it was not given.

He highlighted that despite the state government’s rejection of the VMC’s proposal, Pathan fenced the plot and kept occupying it. The counsel informed the court had not paid the corporation a single rupee in the last 12 years, and that his current offer to pay market rates could not undo the illegality.

Dismissing Pathan’s claims regarding security concerns, the counsel said that Pathan never sought security from the state nor provided evidence of any threat. He argued that Pathan, being a public figure and people’s representative, is expected to follow the law even more strictly than ordinary citizens.

The High Court dismissed Pathan’s petition, citing a lack of a legal right

The High Court dismissed his petition, emphasising that he had no legal right to the land and that his possession constituted encroachment. The court said that holding land unlawfully for a long time does not create ownership rights. The court turned down Pathan’s request to acquire the land at market price, saying that allowing the request would set a dangerous precedent of regularising illegal occupation. The court clarified that prolonged illegal possession of government land does not give rise to title.

The court asserted that celebrities have a greater accountability as they serve as role models to many and wield an influence on public behaviour and social values. It added that showing leniency towards such persons would send out a wrong message. The High Court called out the VMC for not remaining vigilant and failing to take timely action against Pathan. It did not impose any fine on Pathan as the corporation delayed in taking action against him, but it did not accept Pathan’s plea.

Global propaganda against Great Nicobar project: From ‘rushed permissions’ to ‘Faustian bargain’ – GlobalAsia’s lies dismantled

Divyansh Tiwari
-
0
Global propaganda against Great Nicobar project: From ‘rushed permissions’ to ‘Faustian bargain’ – GlobalAsia’s lies dismantled

The article in GlobalAsia by Nirmal Ghosh is finely written, intensely felt, and practically pointless as a policy critique. He characterises the Great Nicobar project as a ‘Faustian bargain’ in which India sells its ecological soul in exchange for strategic benefits that he describes as ‘theoretically persuasive though tactically questionable.’ It’s a remarkable display that he dismisses environmental safeguards as insufficient in one breath and then questions whether the strategic rationale really makes sense in the next. He leaves the reader with an atmosphere rather than an argument, one of romantic environmental sadness that, no matter how deeply felt, cannot serve as the foundation for a country of 1.4 billion people making decisions about its sovereign development and territorial security.

Let’s take a careful and in-depth look at his real claims since they are worthy of more than a dismissal and because the facts as a whole provide a totally different story.

‘Rushed through safeguards’: A claim that cannot survive scrutiny

The project was ‘rushed through various safeguards,’ according to Ghosh’s worst claim. This is now the standard statement used by all project critics, and it is said so frequently that it is taken for granted. It isn’t.

On November 11, 2022, MoEF&CC granted the Environmental Clearance, which is a 30-page document with 42 specific conditions. These include conservation of leatherback sea turtles, protection of Nicobar Megapodes, coral translocation, management of saltwater crocodiles, mangrove restoration, tribal welfare for the Shompen, three independent monitoring committees, and a 30-year wildlife conservation program that is fully funded by the project proponent. Independent, long-term research tasks were given to the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), the Botanical Survey of India (BSI), and the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) until 2052, the project’s completion year. These exercises don’t include checking boxes. They are institutionally endorsed, financially protected, and legally bound.

As part of the mitigation efforts, three new wildlife sanctuaries were created. A leatherback turtle sanctuary on Little Nicobar Island, a Megapode Sanctuary on Menchal Island, and a Coral Sanctuary on Meroe Island. Water withdrawals from the Galathea River were strictly prohibited. Eight wildlife corridors were established along the east coast. A Special Medical Unit with a budget of ₹100 crore was established to protect tribal communities from invasive diseases.

Then, in February 2026, a six-person National Green Tribunal court led by Justice Prakash Shrivastava considered petitions contesting these very clearances and rejected them, concluding that there was no good ground for intervention. The NGT is not a rubber-stamp organisation; rather, its purpose is to resist when governments take shortcuts. It found no cut corners here. It discovered both substantive and procedural compliance to Indian environmental law. Referring to something as ‘rushed’ is not environmentalist. That’s revisionism.

The coral argument

Corals are a key component of Ghosh’s and his intellectual camp’s most sentimental exhibit. The optics are striking, coral reefs inspire colour, fragility, and irreplaceability. Again, however, the science is more complicated than the rhetoric.

The ZSI conducted its own investigation and discovered no substantial coral reef formations inside the proposed port building zone. There are dispersed coral colonies within 15 metres of the project area, totalling roughly 16,150 colonies that are suggested for relocation. Importantly, ZSI referenced its own previous experience; effective reef systems were created through coral translocation in the Gulf of Kachchh, which had over 90% survival rates. The NGT accepted the evidence. The tribunal urged MoEF&CC to ensure coral regeneration using ‘proven scientific methods’ and ZSI, which is familiar with these waters, has a track record of successfully achieving precisely that.

Sovereignty, UNCLOS, and the strategic argument Ghosh cannot quite dismiss

This is when Ghosh’s analysis becomes most intellectually evasive. He describes the national defence justification as ‘theoretically persuasive though tactically questionable,’ but he does not present the tactical case. He dismisses the strategic case without addressing it.

So, let us confront it. Great Nicobar Island is around 40 nautical miles from the Strait of Malacca, across which nearly 80% of China’s oil imports pass. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), India’s Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 nautical miles from its baseline. Without sufficient infrastructure in Great Nicobar, India cannot meaningfully exercise its sovereignty over this zone. A country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is more than just a legal concept; it is an economic and strategic reality that requires physical presence, monitoring capabilities, and maritime enforcement. Without a port or an airport, India’s EEZ in the southeastern Indian Ocean is essentially an unguarded frontier.

China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy has progressively expanded its presence in the Indian Ocean through what strategists refer to as the ‘String of Pearls.’ Gwadar in Pakistan, Hambantota in Sri Lanka, and Kyaukpyu in Myanmar. These aren’t hypothetical threats. They are recorded infrastructural investments that allow the PLA Navy access to the Indian Ocean’s littorals. Against this backdrop, India’s development of its own island its own territory, within its own sovereign powers, does not constitute aggression. It is basic strategic prudence that is perfectly in tune with international law.

This is the headquarters of the Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC), the only tri-service integrated command in India. By upgrading Great Nicobar, it becomes a real force multiplier rather than just a symbolic outpost. Ghosh may refer to this as ‘tactically questionable,’ but he should explain to the reader what exactly is dubious about protecting one’s own maritime frontier in a period when global power competition is fierce.

The 8000 people nobody talks about

The 8,000 people, out of which 7,000 are settlers from the mainland, who truly reside on Great Nicobar must finally be taken into consideration in any article regarding the island’s biodiversity. At the moment, they lack dependable road access to the rest of the island, are only reachable by air and water, have subpar medical services, and almost no economic opportunities. By 2052, the project’s Environmental Clearance anticipates 51,000 direct jobs and more than 1,28,000 potential jobs. The 160 MLD water system being constructed, township development, and water supply infrastructure are not abstract advantages, rather, they are the difference between an isolated population and one that is linked to the country’s mainstream.

Ghosh’s perspective leaves no room for these 8,000 people. Inhabited islands are sometimes viewed in the conservation literature as issues that need to be resolved rather than as communities with rightful development claims. That framing, however unintended, indicates whose interests the environmental critique eventually serves.

The monitoring architecture

A truly ‘rushed’ environmental clearance would not require a project monitoring committee led by the Chief Wildlife Warden, three independent monitoring committees that meet twice a year with site visits, biodiversity committee reviews before any road expansion, and six-monthly compliance reports submitted to the MoEF&CC Regional Office. It would not require the project proponent to pay and maintain WII research stations in Campbell Bay and Kamorta for a period of 30 years. It would not be necessary to install 150 satellite tags on leatherback turtles in the first five years of the initiative.

This oversight architecture is imperfect; no document is perfect, but it is not insignificant. It is hardly an honest environmental analysis to attack it as a ‘Faustian bargain’ without first acknowledging its existence.

Conclusion

Ghosh concludes with grief, which is an understandable reaction to large-scale change in ecologically valuable environments. However, grief alone cannot be used to shape policy. The government’s choice to develop Great Nicobar is not a concession to development lobbyists. It is the result of a collaborative process that included WII, ZSI, BSI, SACON, the EAC, the NGT, a public hearing in Campbell Bay, and the courts. Every institution under Indian environmental legislation was used. All agreed that the project, with its conditions, was acceptable.

A nation’s sovereignty over its own area, whether biological, economic, or strategic, is not negotiable. It’s a right. The challenging, unglamorous, institutionally controlled task of simultaneously pursuing security and the environment is what India has attempted at Great Nicobar, not a choice between the two. Critics who fail to acknowledge the problem do not safeguard nature. They’re simply making noise from a safe distance.

1...222324...7,599Page 23 of 7,599