In a decisive breakthrough that exposes Pakistan’s direct involvement in one of Kashmir’s deadliest terror attacks, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has arrested two local operatives who sheltered the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists responsible for the April 22 Pahalgam massacre. The arrested individuals have identified the three attackers as Pakistani nationals, shattering Islamabad’s longstanding denials of cross-border terrorism.
Key developments in the investigation
The NIA apprehended Parvaiz Ahmad Jothar (Batkote) and Bashir Ahmad Jothar (Hill Park, Pahalgam) after confirming their role in providing food, shelter, and logistical support to the attackers at a seasonal dhok (mountain hut) in Hill Park prior to the assault. Both have been charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). During interrogation, the duo disclosed the identities of the three terrorists and confirmed they were Pakistani natonals trained and deployed by the Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba. This aligns with intelligence linking the attack to handlers across the border.
Initial police sketches released on April 24 identified three suspects: Hasim Musa (described as a Pakistani ex-SSG commando), Ali Bhai alias Talha (a Pakistani national), and local Kashmiri Adil Hussain Thoker. However, the NIA’s conclusive findings on June 22 have overturned this assessment. Forensic evidence and interrogations confirm the actual perpetrators were Pakistani Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives, including Suleiman Shah, a known mastermind of the 2024 Z-Morh tunnel attack, and two other unidentified Pakistani nationals. Critically, the NIA has ruled out local involvement in the execution of the attack, confirming all three gunmen were Pakistani nationals.
NIA Arrests 2 for Harbouring Pak Terrorists in Pahalgam Terror Attack Case, Gets Identities of the LeT Attackers pic.twitter.com/Pf9OrCE3KZ
The attack: Brutal religious targeting and India’s response
On April 22, the terrorists invaded Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam, separating Hindu tourists from muslims and executing 26 civilians (25 tourists, 1 local) at point-blank range. The NIA emphasized this “selective killing based on religious identity” marked it as a calculated act of communal terror. The Pahalgam attack triggered Opration Sindoor (May 7) – India’s precision airstrikes destroying 9 terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and killing over 100 terrorists. Subsequent strikes on Pakistan’s Noor Khan airbase forced Islamabad to seek a ceasefire on May 10. India has warned of “more severe responses” to future provocations.
What lies ahead
The two accused will face custodial interrogation in a Jammu special court. During this process, the agency is re-examining ballistic evidence from past attacks to build a solid case and probing Suleiman Shah’s links to the 2023 Kulgam and 2024 Poonch attacks.
While the arrests validate India’s stance on cross-border terrorism, the failure to neutralize the attackers after two months underscores operational challenges in Kashmir’s rugged terrain. Families of the 26 victims await justice, even as India signals zero tolerance for terror safe havens in Pakistan.
On 21st June, Donald Trump announced that the United States had carried out attacks on three nuclear sites in Iran amid the ongoing conflict with Israel. The strikes, for many, are not just a military escalation; they represent a return to a century-old pattern of Western intervention, resource control, and regime destabilisation in Iran.
From the 1901 D’Arcy oil concession to the 1953 MI6-CIA coup that overthrew Mossadegh, and the British-fuelled rise of the Shah, Iran’s modern history has been repeatedly shaped by foreign powers seeking control over its strategic assets, primarily oil and gas. Today, as Iran faces renewed pressure over its nuclear programme, the echoes of that legacy remain unmistakable and unresolved.
Origins of APOC in Iran and the D’Arcy oil concession (1901–1909)
In the early 1900s, the British took hold of Iran’s vast oil wealth under astonishingly one-sided terms, all thanks to a British speculator, William Knox D’Arcy. In 1901, he secured a 60-year petroleum concession from Persia’s Qajar monarch. The exclusive rights were granted to explore and extract oil across most of Iran. To get such access, Iranian officials were bribed to negotiate the deal.
William Knox D’Arcy. Source: Turtle Bunbury
The concession allowed D’Arcy to keep ownership of any oil he found, and Iran got only a 16% share of the profits. Notably, the Iranian government was not even allowed to inspect the accounts. In 1908, D’Arcy finally found oil at Masjed Soleiman, and it turned out to be one of the world’s largest deposits. In 1909, a syndicate of British investors formed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) to exploit what became known as the D’Arcy concession. APOC became the sole owner of the vast reserves of oil located underneath Iran’s soil. The deal that was done in 1901 did not allow anyone else to drill, refine or sell Iranian oil other than APOC.
Source: Flickr
Britain secures control of Persian oil (Churchill’s 1914 deal)
By 1914, the Royal Navy had shifted from coal-powered ships to oil. Furthermore, the British government was fully aware of the strategic importance of Persian oil by then. It was essential for them to take full control of Iranian oil. On the eve of World War I, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, pushed the government to purchase a 51% stake in APOC. The deal effectively nationalised the company under British control.
Winston Churchill. Source: Wiki
Churchill called the Iranian oil bonanza “a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams”. With backing from the British government, APOC built the world’s largest oil refinery at Abadan on the Persian Gulf and expanded production severalfold. By the 1920s and 1930s, Iranian oil had become the backbone of Britain’s industrial economy and global military power.
British factories, ships, and motor vehicles were running on cheap Iranian oil, pushing Britain’s economy to new levels, and yet, Iran itself hardly saw any benefit. APOC’s royalty payments to Iran were considerably low. For example, Iran was paid merely £47,000 in 1920 while the company made millions in profits. The British were good at cheating on profit calculations and because Iran could not independently audit the books, they had to believe what the British told them.
Abadan Refinery. Source: stanmore tourist board
The imbalance allowed Britons to enjoy a rising standard of living while Iranians remained in poverty. Oil workers at Abadan were paid just a few shillings a day and lived in squalid shanty towns with no running water or electricity.
Colonial influence and the rise of the Pahlavi dynasty (1919–1941)
Britain’s stronghold on Iran’s oil was not the only issue at that time. Britain was consistently meddling in the internal politics of Iran. The Qajar monarchs had been selling off Iran’s patrimony to foreigners for decades, leading to anger among the public. In 1919, after World War I, London tried to formalise its dominance through the proposed Anglo-Persian Agreement. If it had been signed, it would have given Britain control of Iran’s army, treasury, transport and communications, effectively making Iran a British colony. However, the proposal faced backlash from the nationalists.
Iranians had already forced the Qajars to accept a constitution in 1906, and now the nationalist Iranians were against the corrupt monarch who was perceived as one who bartered away the region’s sovereignty. In 1925, Iran’s parliament (Majlis) deposed the last Qajar Shah and transferred the throne to Reza Shah Pahlavi, who was a military officer. Reza promised order and an end to foreign humiliation.
Reza Shah Pahlavi. Source: Britannica
He established a strong central government. Although he was an autocrat who brooked no dissent or free press, he did seek to revise Iran’s oil deal with APOC. In 1928, he demanded fairer terms from APOC, stating that Iranian oil increased British wealth while Iranians remained poor.
APOC dragged its feet for four years. In 1933, after Reza threatened to cancel the D’Arcy concession, APOC finally agreed to pay a minimum royalty and cede a bit more territory. The company was rebranded as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) to placate the Shah’s dislike of the old name “Persian”. Despite the new deal, the influence of Britain remained strong.
During the 1930s, Germany showed sympathy to Iran and Reza continued to revolt against the British, which alarmed London. During World War II, Britain feared Iran might slip from its stronghold. In 1941, British and Soviet forces jointly invaded Iran, forcing Reza to abdicate. He was exiled and replaced with his pliant 21-year-old son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The British orchestrated regime change, securing a friendly monarch in the middle of the war. However, removing Reza Shah had consequences of its own. Iran’s pro-democracy movement flared up and the demand for a truly independent nation without any involvement of foreign powers grew louder.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Source: Wiki
Nationalisation and Mossadegh’s challenge to British oil (1940s–1951)
After WWII, an anti-colonial wave was at its peak throughout the developing world. In Iran, nationalists increasingly focused on a single goal, reclaiming the oil from the British. AIOC was being seen as an “imperium in imperio” in Iran, which means an empire within an empire. The public no longer wanted Britain to dominate Iran’s economy while its profits flowed to London.
By 1950, AIOC’s oil revenues far outstripped Iran’s own state revenues, making it clear that Iranians were facing injustice. Popular outrage mounted at how Britain’s AIOC controlled Iran’s main source of income and kept Iran impoverished. Even the then ambassador of Britain in Tehran, Sir Francis Shepherd, acknowledged the colonial mindset at play and wrote in 1950 that “the Persians” must not be allowed to run their own oil industry, as “they cannot do it”. According to him, Iran’s role was merely to “profit from the technical ability of the West”. This condescension only hardened Iranian resolve to end British exploitation.
By the late 1940s, a broad coalition of pro-democracy liberals, secular nationalists, and leftists was formed under the leadership of Mohammad Mossadegh, who was a veteran politician known for his integrity. Public anger over AIOC’s abusive labour practices was at its peak. There was a notable strike by the oil workers at Abadan in 1946, which was crushed only after the British Navy intervened. Momentum built for Iran to nationalise its oil industry and use the wealth for its own development.
Mohammad Mossadegh. Source: Wiki
In March 1951, the movement reached its climax. The Majlis, with overwhelming public support, voted unanimously to nationalise AIOC’s assets and create the National Iranian Oil Company. Within weeks, the Shah, who had then become a figurehead, bowed to public pressure and appointed Mossadegh as Prime Minister on 28th April 1951. Iranians celebrated Mossadegh as a national hero for standing up to Britain. Time magazine called him “the Iranian George Washington” for his defence of his country’s sovereignty.
While Iranians were celebrating, London was outraged, as it had lost control of Iran’s oil. The British government and AIOC refused to accept Iran’s nationalisation of the oil industry. The British elites hated Mossadegh’s move. For them, AIOC was the most lucrative British enterprise anywhere on the planet, and they saw its expropriation as an intolerable affront to the established (colonial) order.
British officers came up with a hardline strategy – no mediation, no compromise, no acceptance of nationalisation in any form. Britain immediately took a series of aggressive steps to strangle Iran’s economy and destabilise Mossadegh’s government. AIOC withdrew all British managers and technicians from the Abadan refineries, hoping it would cripple oil production.
The Royal Navy blockaded Iran’s oil exports, and the company organised an international boycott of Iranian oil to prevent Tehran from selling it elsewhere. The sterling assets of Iran in London banks were seized, and the export of key goods to Iran, including steel and sugar, was banned. It even seized foreign vessels carrying Iranian oil. The economic warfare went on for two years, between 1951 and 1953, and devastated Iran’s finances, leading to an economic crisis.
However, Mossadegh did not bow to Britain’s pressure. He managed to keep Iran solvent through strict measures and rallied nationalist sentiments against Britain’s bullying. In the international arena, he scored a public relations victory. Mossadegh travelled to New York in late 1951 and defended Iran’s case at the United Nations, outshining Britain’s representatives. He won support from the global public, especially in emerging post-colonial nations. He argued that Iran had a right to control its own resources. Mossadegh’s victory on the international platform further angered Britain and hardened their resolve to remove him.
Initially, Britain considered military options. Then-Prime Minister Churchill was far more hawkish on Iran than his predecessor Attlee. Churchill railed against the “weak” response of the previous government and had no qualms about using covert action. British Intelligence (MI6) had long cultivated a network of agents inside Iran. It was now time to step up plans to oust Mossadegh by any means necessary. Mossadegh pre-empted one early MI6 plot by expelling all British officials and closing the UK embassy in late 1952, after discovering British spies conspiring with royalist dissidents. With another defeat on the ground, Britain turned to the one power capable of helping orchestrate Mossadegh’s downfall, the United States.
The MI6-CIA coup of 1953 (Operation Ajax)
By 1953, Britain was determined to remove Mossadegh and reclaim its dominance over Iranian oil. British officials framed the crisis in Cold War terms to win over hesitant Washington and argued that inaction could result in a communist takeover in Iran. Notably, Mossadegh was neither a communist nor Soviet-aligned. The election of US President Dwight Eisenhower presented an opportunity. His top foreign policy appointees, John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, were staunch anti-communists willing to collaborate with London.
1953 Iranian coup d’état – Source: Wiki
The declassified files confirmed that Britain was the instigator and prime force behind the coup plan. The codename given to the operation was Operation Boot by MI6 and Operation Ajax by the CIA. MI6 and CIA coordinated closely to orchestrate the removal of Iran’s democratically elected government in August 1953.
British intelligence was not only equipped with a plan but had deep networks of local contacts and colonial-era tactics. AIOC, still majority-owned by the British state, effectively funded the entire covert operation. British agents in Tehran worked closely with their American counterparts. The objective was clear: install a regime that would “settle the oil question” on Western terms.
London and Washington agreed to restore the young Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as an authoritarian ruler with expanded powers. General Fazlollah Zahedi, a pro-British military officer, was chosen as the new prime minister. Ironically, Zahedi had been detained by the British during WWII for his pro-Nazi leanings. Between the spring and summer of 1953, MI6 and CIA systematically bribed Iranian officials, military commanders, newspaper editors, and underworld figures to turn against Mossadegh.
There were ample funds, thanks to the profits made by AIOC. They paid off members of parliament, senior clergy, and street gangs to fuel the plot. They also exploited social divisions as one of the key parts of the strategy. They saw a potential ally in Ayatollah Seyyed Abol-Ghasem Kashani, once a Mossadegh supporter, who now commanded a strong base among traditional merchants and devout masses.
In February 1953, a mob of Islamist militants funded by Kashani and British agents stormed Tehran and attacked Mossadegh’s residence, calling for his execution. At the same time, MI6 orchestrated false-flag operations. The provocateurs paid by the British posed as Communist Tudeh Party members and attacked mosques and clerics to discredit Mossadegh. Later, a CIA agent admitted that the British had “sent the people we had under our control into the streets to act as if they were Tudeh. They threw rocks at mosques and priests”.
There was an attempted coup in early August 1953, but it failed. A second coup was orchestrated on 19th August 1953, which succeeded. Pro-Shah military units bribed by MI6 and CIA entered Tehran. British and American-financed mobs clashed violently with Mossadegh supporters. The Shah, who had briefly fled, returned and formally dismissed Mossadegh. The Prime Minister’s residence was stormed, and he was arrested, effectively ending Iran’s democratic experiment.
Churchill hailed the outcome. Mossadegh was imprisoned. General Zahedi became Prime Minister. However, the real power rested with the Shah. He dismantled checks on his authority and signed a new oil deal. In 1954, a Western consortium gave AIOC, which later became British Petroleum (BP), a 40% share in Iranian oil. American firms received another 40%. The rest of the profits went to the European partners.
In Iran, the coup was widely seen as a betrayal of sovereignty by imperial powers. Though Britain won control in the short term, the 1953 coup planted the seeds of anti-Western resentment that would ultimately bring down the Shah himself.
The Shah’s authoritarian rule and growing anti-Western sentiment (1953–1970s)
Following Mossadegh’s removal, Britain and the US secured a loyal regime in Tehran that protected their oil interests. For the next 25 years, the Shah ruled as an autocrat closely aligned with London and Washington. He received unwavering Anglo-American military and political support, including arms, advisors, and intelligence. In return, all he had to do was to keep Iranian oil flowing West and resist Soviet influence. British diplomats saw him as a compliant “asset” who would serve their agenda.
However, inside Iran, his rule grew increasingly repressive. His secret police, SAVAK, backed by Western intelligence, jailed, tortured, and executed opponents, including nationalists, leftists, and intellectuals alike. Political opposition was outlawed. While oil enriched the elite, ordinary Iranians remained poor. To many, BP and other foreign firms appeared to be continuing colonial-era exploitation under new names.
The Islamist clergy, who were once allies of Britain, emerged as the fiercest critics of the Shah’s regime. In 1963, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was arrested after denouncing the Shah’s pro-Western policies. Though once opposed to Mossadegh’s secular nationalism, Khomeini now became a leading voice against foreign domination. By the 1970s, opposition had united Iranians from all walks of life, including secular students, merchants, democrats, and conservatives, against the Shah’s authoritarianism and Western backing.
The support from Britain and America for the regime deepened the suspicions. “The British hand” became a shorthand for foreign manipulation. The legacy of 1953 and decades of oil plunder became rallying cries. By 1978, mass protests erupted. Demonstrators carried portraits of Mossadegh, calling him the symbol of lost sovereignty. The message was clear: Iran once had a path to democracy, until Britain and the US crushed it. Now, a new generation wanted reclaim it.
Iranian revolution – the fall of the Shah and the 1979 anti-Western backlash
The Iranian Revolution reached its climax in January 1979. The Shah, seeing no way to quell the tidal wave of protests, fled the country. The monarchy collapsed in his absence. Ruhollah Khomeini stepped in to fill the void and was welcomed as a hero. Khomeini had become the unifying figurehead of the revolution. Islamists and a broad spectrum of Iranians who were fed up with tyranny and foreign dominance were impressed by Khomeini.
Ruhollah Khomeini. Source: britanicca
This was the time when Khomeini’s hardline Islamist supporters quickly sidelined moderate and secular elements, including those who had been close to Mossadegh’s camp. It was a crucial moment, as the revolution’s ideological atmosphere was intensely anti-Western, and specifically anti-British and anti-American. Decades of resentment towards the Anglo-American role in propping up the Shah fuelled the rhetoric of the new regime. Khomeini denounced the United States as the “Great Satan” and Britain as an insidious culprit in Iran’s suffering. The US is still being called the “Great Satan” by Iranian leaders.
One of the revolutionaries’ first dramatic acts was directly inspired by the memory of 1953. In November 1979, radical students stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage. They declared that they were pre-empting another “CIA coup” like the one that had occurred 26 years earlier on the very spot.
Khomeini’s supporters justified the embassy takeover by pointing to 1953’s Operation Ajax, which had been planned in the US Embassy with British collusion. This hostage crisis continued for 444 days, leading to a complete break in US–Iranian relations. It also marked the point at which Iran’s Islamic revolutionaries firmly consolidated power and crushed liberal moderates.
Khomeini established an Islamic Republic that was completely hostile to the West and to any hint of outside interference. British diplomats were expelled or left of their own accord. The new regime saw the UK as equally complicit in past crimes. The long shadow of AIOC and the 1953 coup thus hung over the revolution. The Islamists gained power on a wave of popular anger at exactly the kind of foreign domination that British Petroleum had come to symbolise in Iran.
There is a famous Iranian revolutionary slogan that says “Na sharq, na gharb – Faqat Jumhuri-e Islami” (Neither East nor West – only Islamic Republic). It encapsulated Iran’s desire to be free of both Soviet and Western influence.
Legacy of British intervention – a century of mistrust and conflict
A century after William D’Arcy’s oil deal, Iran’s relations with Britain and the West remain marked by a deep history of exploitation and betrayal and distrust. The 1979 revolution was not an endpoint but the beginning of a more assertive, ideologically driven resistance. In today’s time, Iran’s clerical regime still frames its policies as a defence of sovereignty against Western imperialism, while drawing inspiration directly from the memory of the 1953 coup and the oil nationalisation struggle.
Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, regularly cites Mossadegh’s ouster as a warning and equates Iran’s nuclear ambitions with the earlier battle to reclaim oil. Iran views both as essential to preserving its independence. This narrative resonates across Iranian society, where schoolbooks recount Britain’s monopoly over oil and its role in crushing the country’s economy.
For the West, especially Britain and the US, the long-term consequences of 1953 have been deeply damaging. By destroying Iran’s elected government and reinstating the Shah’s dictatorship, they helped create the very revolution they later feared. The Islamic Republic, far more anti-Western than Mossadegh ever was, has resisted foreign influence and pursued policies that challenge Western interests, especially in the Middle East.
The nuclear dispute is a direct extension of this mistrust. Tehran sees Western demands as modern-day colonialism; Britain, the US, and Israel view Iran’s nuclear ambitions as a threat shaped by its revolutionary hostility. The result is an impasse that has persisted for decades.
Conclusion
For nearly a century, Iran’s destiny was shaped by British oil interests, beginning with the 1901 concession to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, now BP. From World Wars to the 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh, British-backed interventions secured control of Iranian oil, often through compliant monarchs and covert operations. But these actions sowed the seeds of nationalist and Islamist backlash.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution, fuelled by memories of British and Western betrayal, ousted the Shah and brought to power a regime hostile to the West. Today’s tensions, with Israel, the US, and over nuclear ambitions, stem from this legacy. Iran’s leaders still invoke Mossadegh’s defiance, rejecting Western pressure in favour of sovereignty. For Iran, Britain remains a symbol of colonial manipulation. The legacy of APOC endures in Iran’s deep mistrust of the West, continuing to shape regional politics through a lens of historical grievance and resistance.
The Indian subcontinent was replaced by the word “South Asia” which was purposefully popularized in the 1940s and 1970s by policy-making entities in the United States, such as the American State Department to allegedly serve as overarching term for all countries within the region, including India.
However, in reality, the objective was to negate the Indian heritage and roots of the entire territory, thereby dissociating it from its Sanatan history. It is needless to say that this agenda continues to gain momentum over time. Hence, Diwali has turned into a South Asian festival and Neeraj Chopra is dubbed as a South Asian Olympian.
The bitter pill of compromising Indian identity and, by extension, Hindu culture, would have been swallowed had the infamous agenda stopped there. Nevertheless, the situation was quite the opposite. As if this gross appropriation was insufficient, the designation was subsequently used to disguise the heinous offences of a specific group belonging to a particular religion, country and ideology, with the blame for their actions being unjustly assigned to the whole area, especially India.
Emboldened by the abuse of the expression “South Asia,” which was possibly created for a similar reason, and notwithstanding vocal protests from many Indians, there appears to be no cessation to this outrageous practice. This was clearly demonstrated when the Pakistani grooming gangs in the United Kingdom were exposed for raping, violating and brutalizing minor British girls over multiple decades. However, they were introduced with the same broad term to obscure the truth of their origin and background.
Therefore, it is imperative for all Indians to come together and assert ourselves, for enough is enough. How long can any self-respecting nation withstand the exploitation of its identity, which was initially snatched and then corrupted into something so repulsive and unrecognizable?
I, for my part, can not tolerate being subjected to such a breach of my identity by those whose predominant concern is not the shocking crimes perpetrated by their favored demographic, but to mask them under the umberalla of “South Asia” in the interest of political correctness. Meanwhile, any decent act by a Pakistani, no matter how rare or trivial, will be associated with them by virtue of their name, nation and faith.
On the other hand, an Indian who is convicted of even a small infraction is never afforded the same privilege. Their identity or nationality does not fade into the shadows as “South Asia” takes precedence. On the contrary, their nativity and ethinicity are highlighted to ensure public awareness as political correctness often takes a convenient back-seat in these matters.
Likewise, any accomplishment by an Indian or India is not exclusively recognized for the country but is instead attributed to “South Asia” as if other nations also played a part in the success. The largest democracy in the world is basically employed to shoulder blame and share credit with the likes of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Some jokes, as distasteful as they could be, truly write themselves.
British-Indians furious at Prime Minsiter Keir Starmer
Much like myself and several other Indians, British Indians too seem to have reached their limit and directed their anger towards the United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer who opted to use “Asian grooming gangs,” akin to his government and the media as he defended his performance as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from 2008 to 2013, which sparked more criticism of the word.
It reached such an absurd level that even Elon Musk had to call out the British government for its relentless tiptoeing around the cases. He also blasted Starmer for failing to deal with systematic problems concerning the grooming gangs when he was in office. Moreover, Sikh and British Indian leaders contended that such language unjustly stigmatizes whole Asian groups, including Sri Lankans, Indians and others for acts mostly associated with people of Pakistani descent.
The UK’s Hindu Council chair, Krishna Bhan, expressed his disappointment that the prime minister decided to use the term “Asian” to cover up the horrible incidents. “Our Hindu and Sikh girls were also victims of these grooming gangs, and using this vague term insults all Asians,” he pointed out.
“Why should we be classified as part of these gangs? When it comes to grooming gangs, we are Asian. When it’s about Kashmir, we’re Indian. This inconsistency is deeply offensive,” Jay Shah, spokesperson for Friends of India Society International UK also outlined the glaring hypocrisy.
Leaders in the community additionally emphasized how damaging such language is in fostering prejudice and eroding interethnic trust. Politicians were chastised by the Sikh Federation UK for their political correctness and for ignoring the underlying roots of the problem. Unfortunately, the UK government and British media have consistently declined to address the issue directly, despite the severity of these crimes and the unambiguous involvement of Muslim Pakistani males.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan of “non-Muslims are animals” fame, sticking to his track-record, rushed to the defense of the Pakistani rapists and cried “demonisation.” He also charged the Tesla CEO with appeasing the racist far-right following a confrontation over the H1B visa issue, during which the latter supported the influx of highly skilled Indian workers into the US.
While referring to Pakistani offenders by their actual identity seems to be totally unacceptable, holding “South Asia” or “Asia” responsible for the crimes committed by them is apparently a shining example of secularism and peaceful coexistence. Furthermore, anyone who chooses to deviate from this script is swiftly labeled as an Islamophobe or a bigot.
More importantly, the mainstream media continues to overlook facts and shield the rapists while damaging the reputation of an entire continent in the new distorted sense of political correctness. “Asian grooming gangs” remain to be in use, disregarding various reports and multiple UK city councils citing the role of Pakistani men, which is untrue and unfairly targets a whole continent.
It is noteworthy, that the government and authorities of the United Kingdom were reluctant to take action against the accused as they did not want to appear racist. Superficial concerns took precedence over justice, truth, safety and the lives of young girls.
Minimizing India’s milestones as South Asia’s
The Indian Space Research Organisation in 2023 successfully executed the third phase of its lunar exploration initiative, Chandrayaan 3. It later achieved a soft landing on the uncharted southern pole of the Moon. This accomplishment marked a significant milestone for India and while the nation rejoiced, its citizens were soon reminded of the reality of having a parasitic neighbour.
“Chandrayaan 3 is expected to land on the moon on 23rd August at around 5:47 pm IST. A huge moment for South Asia and countries regarded as third world,” Pakistani sports journalist Farid Khan wrote on social media drawing an angry reaction from the Indian netizens who slammed him and even made memes on his outrageous statement.
Interestingly, the Islamic Republic and its leaders including Fawad Chaudhry, who was a minister in the Imran Khan government at that time, ridiculed ISRO, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the space mission when Chandrayaan 2 did not arrive at its intended destination. Despite the failure of their own space program, Pakistanis derided India, only to claim credit when ISRO succeeded.
To draw inspiration from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Shamelessness, thy name is Pakistan.
What could serve as a more fitting example to illustrate the duplicity of such narratives where India bears the burden of its losses while there are many proponents of its successes, particularly the terrorist state of Pakistan which labels the Indian Republic as an “enemy nation” and wants to “bleed it by a thousand cuts” using terrorism. However, there are several takers for this propaganda globally, who persistently spread such disinformation as is observed repeatedly.
Pakistanis have significantly contributed to the severe racism directed towards Indians which is increasingly evident on the internet these days. They subject Indians to various slurs, attack Hindus based on their faith and propagate the most derogatory lies against them. This behavior has become a norm for the Pakistanis.
They stereotype India, blame Indians for the crimes they commit and are essentially devoted lackeys of neo-Nazi elements on social media who are unable to accept the astonishing growth of Indian Americans and India itself. Pakistanis then have the audacity to react negatively when someone points out their true character.
Conclusion
The term “South Asia” was primarily coined by American academics as a “politically neutral term” to describe the Indian subcontinent and to enable Western institutional power centers, such as politicians, policy makers, academics and others, to discuss the area theoretically without compromising the “sensibilities” of other, non-Indian, nations in the region, or to “talk about the region in an inclusive manner.”
It should come as no surprise that Pakistan is at the forefront of the list of “countries” whose “sensibilities” would be harmed if the area was still referred to as the Indian subcontinent. Now, the term has achieved greater recognition among global communities aided by the diaspora of Pakistan in places like the United States and the United Kingdom.
Predictably, an unusual sense of FOMO has gripped the Pakistanis who desire to be linked with the positive news emerging from India while simultaneously envying and hating the neighbour. Pakistan and the international machinery commemorate every achievement of India as a South Asian success and similarly blames the region and even the entire continent for the offenses committed by Pakistanis.
Hence, I have come to terms with the fact that the use of “South Asia” will only increase due to the obsession of the international community with protecting a specific religious group and nationality at the expense of another. Pakistan clealrly wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Yet, as Indians, it is essential that we raise our voices against this blatant violation of our identity by the Pakistanis and their liberal ecosystem. The vilification of “South Asia” or “Asia” for the actions of Pakistan cannot be tolerated any longer, regardless of the political support these individuals receive from their media, political parties or ecosystems in other countries under the banner of political correctness, countering Islamophobia or anti-racism, which, interestingly, is never an issue when it comes to providing the same courtesy to Indians.
Indeed, we find ourselves regrettably sharing the continent, region and even borders with the rogue nation, however, this does not imply that we should be held responsible for its actions.
Preparations are in full swing for the upcoming Lord Jagannath Rath Yatra in the sacred city of Puri in Odisha. The grand 9-day long Rath Yatra or Gundicha Yatra takes place once year and is attended by lakhs of devotees from across the country and the world. As per Drik Panchang, a Hindu almanac, the Rath Yatra is held on the Dwitiya Tithi (second day) of the Shukla Paksha in the Ashadha month of the Hindu calendar. This year’s Rath Yatra will begin on 27th June and conclude on 5th July.
#WATCH | Puri, Odisha | Preparations underway at the Jagannath Temple ahead of the Lord Jagannath’s Rath Yatra in Puri. pic.twitter.com/omDPx5zuGP
Lord Jagannath, along with his brother Lord Balabhadra and sister Devi Subhadra, is worshipped in their child form in the Jagannath Temple in Puri, alternatively known as the Puri Jagannath. The temple, housing three mesmerizing vigrahas of the three deities made of a sacred wood, is a part of the Char Dham Yatra. Puri Jagannath organises its own annual rath yatra in which Lord Jagannath and his siblings travel to Gundicha temple to meet their aunt to fulfill their promise as mentioned in the Skanda Purana.
VIDEO | Odisha: Here's what Gajapati Maharaja Dibyasingha Deba said on Puri Jagannath Rath Yatra.
During the Rath Yatra, the three deities are placed on three gigantic, decorated chariots pulled by devotees through the streets of Puri in a grand procession. The chariots travel to Gundicha Temple, located about 3 km away from the Puri Jagannath. However, due to massive number of devotees attending the procession, the chariots take hours to reach the Gundicha temple. After reaching the Gundicha temple, the deities stay with their aunt for a week, where devotees flock to visit them.
As per the tradition, the celebrations stretch across nine days beginning with Anavsara, a period of rest, and ending with Niladri Bijay, which marks their return to the Puri temple.
Anavasara – started on 13th June, ends on 26th June
Gundicha Marjana – 26 June 2025
Rath Yatra – 27 June 2025
Hera Panchami – 1 July 2025
Bahuda Yatra – 4 July 2025
Suna Besha – 5 July 2025
Niladri Bijay – 5 July 2025
Mythological tale behind Lord Jagannath’s illness
There is an interesting mythological story associated with the Anavasara period, when Lord Jagannath and his siblings rest for about 14 days before the beginning of the Rath Yatra. It is said that the three deities fall ill roughly 14 days before the Rath Yatra and therefore, are provided rest for around 14 days to recover from the illness. During this time, the devotees are not allowed to visit the deities. The Anavasra period ends on the new moon day, when the deities are said to have healed from the illness and regained their energy. This occasion is celebrated as Naba Jaubana Darshan and this is when the devotees get the first glimpse of the three deities after their recovery from the illness before they set out on their journey.
Image via X
There is a folklore associated with the sickness of Lord Jagannath and his siblings. As per the story, Madhav, an ardent devotee of Lord Jagannath fell sick one day. When Lord Jagannath came to know about his sickness, he himself appeared to serve him. Surprised by his presence, a curious Madhav asked him as to why the Lord himself came to serve him while he could have cured him. To this Lord Jagannath replied that there is no short-cut or by-pass to one’s destiny and that one has to endure it. If one cuts it short or tries to avoid it, he will have to suffer it in the next birth. Lord Jagannath told Madhav that his sickness will last 15 days but he offered to endure his pain. The Lord explained that if he endured the pain on Madhav’s behalf, his destiny will be destroyed. Since then, Lord Jagannath has been falling sick for the said period every year before the Rath Yatra.
via PTI
Before setting out for the Rath Yatra, Lord Jagannath, Lord Balabhadra and Devi Subhadra are bathed with 108 kalash of water on Snan Purnima, which an annual bathing ritual. By another account, it is said that the deities fall sick after bathing during Snan Purnima ritual. The water used for bathing them is drawn from the Suna Kuan or the golden well within the temple premises.
via ISKCON
This is followed by Anavasara period, during which the deities recover from the sickness to prepare for the yatra the subsequent stay with their aunt at the Gundicha temple. During Anavasara period, the deities are treated by the temple Baidya (physician) with traditional herbal medicines and concoctions to help them recover.
There is a profound underlying meaning to the story of Lord Jagannath enduring Madhav’s pain. The story explains how one is bound by his destiny and cannot escape it. The only way one can dissolve his karmas or get rid of his destiny is through devotion. The symbolic re-enactment of the events during the Rath Yatra reminds the devotees the about this universal truth. In Sanatana Dharma, deities take human forms or appear as Avatars to guide humans about the right conduct or right path to be followed through various situations of life.
Popular anti-Modi propagandist, Manjul, has received a taste of ‘censorship’ from the West Bengal police for cartoons on Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee that were posted on social media about 6 years ago.
Manjul, who goes by the username ‘MANJULtoons’ on X (formerly Twitter), received an email on Wednesday (18th June) from the social media platform.
He was informed that the West Bengal police had flagged 2 of his tweets, dating back to May 2019, as violative of Indian laws.
Screengrab of the email received by Manjul
“In the interest of transparency, we are writing to inform you that X has received a request from West Bengal Cyber Crime Wing regarding your X account, @MANJULtoons, that claims the following content violates the law(s) of India,” the email read.
“We have not taken any action on the reported content at this time as a result of this request. As X strongly believes in defending and respecting the voice of our users, it is our policy to notify our users if we receive a legal request from an authorised entity (such as law enforcement or a government agency) to remove content from their account,” it added.
Manjul posted one of the tweets on his X (formerly Twitter) handle on 28th May 2019, following the exodus of 2 TMC MLAs and more than 50 municipal councillors to the BJP.
Screengrab of the cartoon posted by Manjul on his X account
He made caricatures of TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee on that occasion. Manjul also posted another cartoon of the West Bengal Chief Minister in connection to the chit-fund scam in the State on 15th May 2019.
Screengrab of the cartoon posted by Manjul on his X account
On Sunday (22nd June), Manjul received yet another email from X (formerly Twitter), informing him that the Kolkata police has now flagged both of his tweets.
Screengrab of the email received by Manjul
“It seems the Kolkata Police have no other work now. They’ve sent yet another notice to X for the same 6-year-old cartoon, claiming it violates the law,” the disheartened anti-Modi propagandist tweeted.
Cartoonist Manjul shares fake news, uses image from 2017 to criticise Indian healthcare system. pic.twitter.com/6jMagSzdT3
OpIndia had previously reported how Manjul had been involved in peddling fake news to tarnish the image of the Modi government and had belittled the legacy of freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose for his political vendetta.
Almost four decades after the devastating Air India Flight 182 bombing, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have cracked a key piece of the puzzle identifying the elusive ‘Mr X,’ a man involved in testing the deadly bomb weeks before the attack that killed 329 people.
But in a frustrating twist for families seeking closure, authorities revealed that ‘Mr X’ died recently, never held accountable for his role.
The announcement came just ahead of the 40th anniversary of the June 23, 1985, bombing, the worst act of terror in Canadian history and a haunting reminder of Khalistani extremism. The attack, orchestrated by Khalistani terrorists, brought down the Montreal-to-Mumbai flight off Ireland’s coast, claiming the lives of hundreds, most of them Canadians of Indian origin.
RCMP Assistant Commissioner David Teboul, speaking at a memorial event attended by grieving families, confirmed ‘Mr X’s’ death but declined to disclose his name, citing privacy laws. Teboul, who leads federal policing in British Columbia, explained that despite key suspects being acquitted in 2005, investigators relentlessly pursued loose ends in the case.
Their efforts finally uncovered the identity of ‘Mr X,’ a man who had travelled with Babbar Khalsa leader Talwinder Singh Parmar to Duncan, British Columbia, on June 4, 1985. The duo met with Inderjit Singh Reyat — the only person ever convicted in the case and tested an explosive device in nearby woods, under the watch of Canadian intelligence agents.
Shockingly, although agents from Canada’s Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) heard the blast, they misinterpreted it as gunfire and failed to intervene, a misstep that haunts the case to this day.
While Parmar was killed by Punjab Police in 1992 and Reyat served time for bomb-making and perjury, ‘Mr X’ slipped through the cracks, his true identity under wraps until recently.
Teboul admitted the likelihood of fresh trials is slim but stressed Canada’s responsibility to honour the victims. “The Kanishka bombing remains the darkest chapter in Canada’s fight against terrorism,” he said, pledging that the RCMP will never let the tragedy fade from memory.
Israel’s ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, has reacted strongly to the opinion piece written by former Congress president Sonia Gandhi in The Hindu newspaper in favour of Iran. In the article, Sonia Gandhi extended support to the Islamic Republic of Iran amid the ongoing conflict with the Jewish State of Israel. She said that India should support Iran against Israel and blamed the Modi government for not choosing sides and maintaining diplomatic balance.
Acknowledging Gandhi’s right to express her views, the Israeli ambassador added that leaders like her should be aware of the regional (Middle East) situation. He emphasised that three decades of Iranian aggression in this region cannot be ignored.
Delhi: On Congress leader Sonia Gandhi writing a piece in a newspaper supporting Iran and urging the Indian government to do the same, Ambassador of Israel to India, Reuven Azar, says, "I think politicians should be informed. We were disappointed to see that the person you… pic.twitter.com/zU0KnIwDub
He said, “We are disappointed to see that the one you mentioned (Sonia Gandhi) did not condemn the attacks of 7 October 2023 (Hamas attack) as should have been done. Ignoring the aggression carried out by Iran for the last three decades is completely unacceptable.”
In her article, Sonia Gandhi portrayed Iran as the victim of Western hegemony and Israeli aggression. She talked about taking Iran’s side in the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel. Gandhi advised the Modi government to ‘speak in a responsible and loud voice’ and also raised questions about India’s alleged silence. Gandhi said that Iran has been India’s long-time friend while strategic relations with Israel are recent.
Additionally, she also accused the Modi government of abandoning the foreign policy supporting the two-nation theory that envisioned an independent Palestine. She accused Israel of violating Iran’s sovereignty and taking unilateral action. She also accused Israeli PM Netanyahu of constantly disturbing peace and promoting terrorism. Advocating for Iran, she wrote, “In 1994, Iran helped block a resolution critical of India at the UN Commission on Human Rights on the Kashmir issue.”
Indian government has maintained a neutral stance during the Israel-Iran conflict and has urged for peace in the region.
India has always been a supporter of peace. Be it the Ukraine-Russia war or the Israel-Iran war, India has talked about peace. In his recent visit to Cyprus, Prime Minister Modi reiterated that war cannot solve any problem in this century and that every problem can be solved through peace only.
Iran is considering blocking the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. airstrikes targeted its nuclear facilities within Iran. Iran’s national parliament has already approved the closure of the Strait. It is a move that could send global oil markets into chaos—but India seems to be reacting to the developments with calm. Turns out, years of deliberate planning under Modi’s government have paid off. They didn’t just talk about diversifying oil supplies; they actually did it, methodically spreading their sources far and wide.
Petroleum Minister Hardeep Puri put it plainly that India is sitting on weeks’ worth of reserves, and imports are still trickling in through other channels. It is a quiet reassurance in a noisy crisis. While the world watches Israel and Iran trade blows, India’s earlier groundwork—those unglamorous, behind-the-scenes deals and routes, is proving its worth. Not bad timing, honestly. You don’t just luck into energy security like this. It is what happens when you look at the map, see the risks, and decide not to put all your eggs in one basket. Especially when that basket’s a narrow strait everyone’s fighting over.
UAE-India local currency settlement & CEPA: Bypassing the Dollar and Hormuz
The landmark August 2023 rupee-dirham settlement mechanism enabled India’s first rupee payment for UAE crude – 1 million barrels purchased by Indian Oil Corp from ADNOC. This followed the May 2022 UAE-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), which slashed tariffs on 80% of goods and enhanced market access across 11 sectors. The agreement facilitates non-dollar transactions, reducing costs and dependency on Hormuz-transited shipments. Bilateral trade, standing at $84.5 billion in 2022/23, now flows through resilient financial channels, with a real-time payment linkage further shielding transactions from global volatility. This framework ensures continued access to UAE oil even if Hormuz closes.
Russian oil surge: The sanctions-driven safety net
India’s big bet on discounted Russian oil after the Ukraine invasion has really paid off. Fast forward to June 2025, and they’re bringing in more than ever – a whopping 2 to 2.2 million barrels every single day. That’s actually more than what they get from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait combined. Think about that! Before 2022, Russian oil was barely a blip on the radar, under 1% of India’s imports. Now? It makes up over a third, sometimes nearly half, of their total crude intake, which averages around 5.1 million barrels daily.
But the real strategic win isn’t just the price or the volume. It’s how it gets there. Russian oil, like Urals and ESPO, completely sidesteps the Hormuz Strait. Instead, tankers take the long way round – through the Suez Canal, around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope, or across the Pacific. This physical separation from the usual Middle Eastern shipping lanes is a huge deal. As analysts point out, when things get messy in the Middle East, this Russian supply offers India something crucial: reliable barrels at manageable prices, acting like a vital buffer.
Angola: Beyond oil to strategic partnership
India’s top African oil supplier Angola exported $2.5 billion worth of crude to India in 2023-24 (approx. 110,000-130,000 bpd). Its exit from OPEC in 2023 over quota disputes unlocked new opportunities for flexible, non-cartel supplies. During President Lourenço’s historic May 2025 visit – the first by an Angolan head of state in 40 years ties expanded beyond energy. A $200 million defence line of credit for Indian equipment and training complements oil access, while Angola joined the International Solar Alliance. This diversification into security and renewables deepens energy ties and reduces vulnerability to single chokepoints like Hormuz.
Latin American imports: Emergency reserves at scale
In early 2025, Indian refiners increased their sourcing from Latin American nations. Imports risesd 60 % month on month to 453,600 bpd in february 2025, capturing 9% of India’s import basket – the highest since 2021. Key companies include Brazil’s Tupi, Mexico’s Maya, and even debut cargoes of Argentina’s Medanito oil. Though costlier due to freight, these volumes provide immediate alternatives during Middle East crisis. Combined with African supplies (330,000 bpd in Feb 2025), they form a rapid-response option detached from Hormuz risks.
Since 2022, India’s oil import landscape has undergone a revolutionary transformation, fundamentally reducing the dependence on Middle East. Once dominated at 65% of imports (nearly all transiting Hormuz), Middle Eastern suppliers’ share has dropped by 26 percentage points to just 39% (2 million bpd) by June 2025. The most dramatic shift came from Russia, previously a minor supplier at under 1% – which now delivers a staggering 2.2 million bpd (44% of total imports), marking a 40-fold increase. Latin American imports simultaneously hit record volumes at 453,600 bpd (9% share), a near-doubling from their 2022 baseline of 5%. U.S. shipments have also surged dramatically, jumping 57% monthly to reach 439,000 bpd. Complementing these diversified flows, India’s strategic petroleum reserves now hold 9-10 days of supply – a critical buffer against regional disruptions. This multi-continent sourcing strategy has slashed Hormuz-transited oil from over 60% to just 40% of total imports in three years.
Geopolitical resilience in action
Minister Puri emphasized that “a large volume of supplies do not come through Hormuz,” crediting Modi’s leadership for this strategic repositioning. Only 40% of india’s oil transits the strait today, down from over 60% in 2022. Kpler analysts confirm that even a short Hormuz closure (24-48 hours) would see India pivot harder to Russian, US, African, and Latin American crudes, supported by strategic reserves. While higher freight costs remain a challenge, India’s multi-vector oil policy – blending currency diplomacy, sanctions opportunism, and Global South partnerships –has transformed vulnerability into resilience, ensuring fuel stability for 1.4 billion citizens as West Asia erupts.
Bangladesh had fallen into the hands of Muslim mobs since the undemocratic ouster of Sheikh Hasina as Prime Minister on 5th August 2024. These extremists had been eyeing opportunities to persecute the minority Hindu community under one pretext or the other.
As such, unsubstantiated and unverified claims of blasphemy have become an easy excuse to take the law into their own hands and torture the Hindu community. Muslim extremists have been alleging insult to the Quran, Islam and the Prophet Muhammad and systematically attributing them to the minority Hindus.
This has been a new weapon in the arsenal of violent mobs, which have become emboldened under the incumbent regime of Muhammad Yunus. Bangladesh is gradually following the footsteps of Pakistan in terms of Islamisation and using blasphemy to satisfy their trigger-hungry nature.
OpIndia has found at least 13 cases since the fall of Sheikh Hasina when Muslims used ‘insult to Islam’ as an excuse to attack, torture and persecute Hindus in Bangladesh.
Muslim mob thrashes elderly Paresh Chandra Shil and his son in Lalmonirhat
On 22nd June, a violent Muslim mob brutally thrashed an elderly Hindu man and his son after accusing them of ‘insulting’ Islam. The victims were identified as 69-year-old Paresh Chandra Shil and 35-year-old Bishnu Chandra Shil.
According to reports, the incident occurred in Lalmonirhat Sadar Upazila in Rangpur Division of Bangladesh. A disturbing video has surfaced on social media wherein the Muslim mob can be seen mercilessly beating the elderly Hindu man.
The extremists tore the vest of 69-year-old Paresh Chandra Shil and repeatedly threw punches and blows at him. They also attacked his son Bishnu Chandra Shil when he tried to save his father.
The father-son duo operated a salon in Ward No.9 of Lalmonirhat Municipality. A Muslim customer accused Paresh Chandra Shil of supposedly making ‘derogatory remarks’ against Islam and Prophet Muhammad when he went to the salon for a haircut.
Islamists beat up elderly Paresh Chandra Shil and his son Bishnu Chandra Shil in the #Goshala market of #Lalmonirhat district of #Bangladesh over fabricated charges of blasphemy
— Vladimir Adityanath (@VladAdiReturns) June 22, 2025
Another local Muslim claimed that he had heard the elderly Hindu man make similar comments about a month earlier.
Soon after, Muslim extremists gathered outside the salon of Paresh Chandra Shil in a pre-planned manner and brutally assaulted him and his son.
Later, the mob notified the Lalmonirhat Sadar Police Station who then arrested Paresh Chandra Shil and Bishnu Chandra Shil based on allegations of ‘blasphemy.’
Police OC Nurnabi Mia said, “Two people have been arrested on accusations of hurting religious sentiments. Legal action is being taken against them.” No action was taken against the Muslim mob for grievous assault.
Muslims demand execution of Hindu youth over allegations of insulting Islam
A 24-year-old Hindu youth named Sohag Das faced death threats after Muslims accused him of insulting Islam via a Facebook post on 16th June this year. The incident occurred in Chandipur Union in Dinajpur district of Bangladesh.
A large number of Muslims, led by the radical outfit ‘Al Insaf Islami Sangh’ staged protests against Das and demanded his immediate execution.
“We love the Prophet more than our life. Hurting his honour means hurting the whole Muslim Ummah. We want the highest penalty of death sentence for this criminal”, a Muslim extremist declared.
Others called upon ‘Chief Advisor’ to the interim government of Bangladesh, Muhammad Yunus, to hang the Hindu youth.
Hindu youth Bikash Dhar Deepta arrested on unproven charges of ‘blasphemy’
In May 2025, a Hindu youth named Bikash Dhar Deepta was arrested on allegations of ‘insulting’ Prophet Muhammad. The incident occured in Moulvibazar Sadar upazila in Sylhet Division of Bangladesh.
A group of Muslims had alleged that Bikash Dhar Deepta made ‘objectional remarks’ about the last Prophet of Islam on Facebook on 11th May. Soon after, they hounded him and created chaos and unrest in Moulvibazar Sadar upazila.
The police booked the Hindu youth under the Cyber Security Act on the complaint of one Abdul Kadir Ratan.
Hindu youth Bikash Dhar Deepta, image via Daily Observer
In a statement, Moulvibazar Model Police Station OC Mohammed Mahbubur Rahman stated, “Based on the complaint, Bikash Dhar Deepta has been arrested and brought under the law. The police are investigating the incident seriously and legal action will be taken.”
The victim is 23 years old and a student of Economics at the Shahjalal University of Science and Technology.
Muslims unleash terror on Hindu villagers after accusing man of blasphemy
On 6th April this year, Muslims blocked the Dinajpur-Gobindaganj highway after accusing a Hindu man (identified as one Sobuj Das) of ‘insulting’ Prophet Muhammad. Radical outfits like Jammat-e-Islami and Hefazat-e-Islam also participated in the demonstrations.
They demanded the arrest and execution of the Hindu victim for supposedly committing ‘blasphemy’. The Muslim mobs unleashed carnage in the area in the presence of the police and the army.
Sobuj Das and his family had to flee the village, fearing for their safety and security. On the night of 3rd April, Muslims in Bantara village declared an indefinite closure of Hindu shops.They also barred local Hindus from driving rickshaw vans. The extremists also threatened to vandalise and burn down Hindu properties if they dared to run their business in Bantar.
In the village of Bontara in Dinajpur, Hindus are being persecuted. It is claimed that Sabuj Das insulted the Prophet on Facebook, which supposedly hurt the feelings of Muslims. As a result, Hindus have been arrested. All Hindu-owned shops have been closed. pic.twitter.com/BnwXlz4zLm
According to Bangladeshi journalist Shoaib Salahuddin Choudhury, the Muslim mobs also threatened to abduct Hindu women if they did not remain confined to their homes.
Noted Bangladeshi author-in-exile, Taslima Nasreen, highlighted that Hindus were being arrested in Bantara village in Dinajpur Sadar upazila. A case in point is that of a Hindu teacher named Upendranath Roy.
Roy was attacked and held hostage in his own home by a mob of ‘Tawhidi Janata’ – vigilante Muslims, unleashing violence under the pretext of protecting the tenets of Islam. The victim was then handed over to the police. His only mistake was that he raised his voice against the collective persecution of the Hindu community in Bantara village.
In Bontara, Dinajpur, the local Touhidi group has ordered the indefinite closure of Hindu-owned shops and banned Hindu rickshaw pullers following a Facebook post by a Hindu youth. Those attempting to reopen their shops have been threatened with violence. #Bangladesh… pic.twitter.com/goTkqZzrZf
Due to continued threats and fear of attacks, the 16-hour-long ‘Harinam Sankirtan’ was abandoned. The situation was further exacerbated by hate speeches made by a mob of ‘Tawhidi Janata’. They openly acknowledged vandalising the house of Sobuj Das based on ‘blasphemous comments’ made on Facebook.
According to reports, more than 150 Hindu families had escaped from the area owing to immediate threats to their lives at the hands of the Muslim mobs.
After the news of the ill-treatment meted out to the Hindu community became viral, the same Muslims who threatened the Hindus for the past 7 days came forward to give out a message of ‘communal harmony.’
Muslim mob attempts to lynch Hindu man after accusing him of ‘blasphemy’
On 6th April, a frenzied Muslim mob attempted to lynch a 40-year-old Hindu man named Akhil Chandra Mondal after accusing him of ‘insulting’ Islam and mocking Prophet Muhammad. The incident occurred in the Tangail district of Bangladesh.
In disturbing visuals that have surfaced on social media, the extremists could be seen attacking the Hindu man with sticks and rods. Akhil Chandra Mondal was seen bleeding from his head while the police escorted him away.
Local Muslims in the area carried out the brutal attack after accusing the victim of posting ‘indecent cartoon’ on Facebook. They first hounded him at his own jewellery shop.
Akhil Chandra Mondal, images via X
The victim managed to escape and took refuge in another shop. But the mob came attacking him soon after. Akhil Chandra Mondal was stripped, his shirt was torn and the Muslims gathered there threw punches and blows at him.
On learning about the matter, the police and the army officials reached the spot and took the victim away. He was subsequently arrested while no action was taken against the Muslim mob that almost lynched him.
After failing to murder Akhil Chandra Mondal, the extremists protested in front of the Tangail Sadar Upazila Parishad.
Hindu students expelled from Bangladeshi university over allegations of ‘insulting Islam’
In March 2025, the Pabna University of Science and Technology in Bangladesh expelled 2 Hindu students over accusations of ‘insulting Islam’ and committing ‘blasphemy’.
According to reports, the victims were identified as Pranay Kundu and Bikarna Das Dibya. They were students of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning.
The university administration was first coerced into issuing a show-cause notice to the Hindu students and then expelling them, despite both students filing their response.
Hindu students Pranay Kundu and Bikarna Das Dibya, images via Kalerkontho
The hounding of Pranay Kundu and Bikarna Das Dibya began on the night of 14th March after they had a heated argument with some Muslims on Facebook. Later, Muslim radicals studying at the varsity protested on campus and demanded their expulsion.
Proctor Kamruzzaman Khan justified the drastic action against the Hindu students claiming that their response to the show-cause notice was ‘not satisfactory.’
In the meantime, the Muslim students began seeking to expel 5 other Hindu students namely – Bidyut Sarkar, Suborna Sarkar, Dipu Biswas, Tanoy Sarkar and Ankan Ghosh. To coerce the administration into submission, the radicals blocked the main gate and administrative building of the university.
Muslim mob hounds Hindu boy in Netrakona over ‘blasphemy’
On 28th February this year, a Muslim mob comprising members of the radical ‘Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh’ and ‘Tawhidi Janata‘ hounded a Hindu man named Supta Saha Anik after accusing him of making ‘objectionable remarks’ about Islam.
The mob organised a protest rally in Kalmakanda upazila in the Netrakona district of Bangladesh after Jumma Namaz. They also demanded the immediate arrest of the Hindu man for supposedly insulting Prophet Muhammad and gave an ultimatum of 48 hours.
As expected, the violent Muslim mob raised genocidal slogans and vowed to make ‘ultimate sacrifice’ in order to avenge the supposed dishonour to Islam.
According to reports, the victim Supta Saha Anik is a student of Rajshahi University. He is also a member of the Chhatra League, the banned student wing of the Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League.
In a video that surfaced on social media, a violent Muslim mob could be seen at the residence of Supta Saha Anik, intimidating his father. Anik is a resident of Mantal village in Kalmakanda upazila in the Netrakona district.
As per screenshots that have surfaced on social media, the Hindu man seemed to have engaged in a heated confrontation with a Muslim man and criticised Islam in response to his provocation.
Muslim mob abducts and tortures Hindu man over allegations of ‘blasphemy
In January 2025, a Hindu man named Pranta Talukder was abducted by a Muslim mob from his residence in the Patenga Kathgarh area in Chittagong city of Bangladesh.
According to reports, the extremists tortured and thrashed him mercilessly. The young Hindu man was severely injured. The Muslim mob accused Talukder of committing ‘blasphemy.’
The local police were informed that a man was being beaten in the parking lot of Lalkhan Bazar Amin Center. On learning about the matter, the cops reached the spot and rescued the Hindu man.
ধর্ম অবমাননার অভিযোগ তুলে "নারায়ে তাকবীর আল্লাহু আকবর" স্লোগান দিয়ে চট্টগ্রাম কাটগড় ২ নাম্বার গলি থেকে প্রান্ত তালুকদার নামে এক হিন্দু যুবককে তুলে নিয়ে যাওয়ার আজকের সিসিটিভি ফুটেজ।।#SaveBangladeshiHinduspic.twitter.com/Ss96PP56Hy
Pranta Talkuder was thereafter admitted to the Chittagong Medical College and Hospital. A video of the Hindu man being carried on all fours by a violent Muslim mob was doing the rounds on the internet.
Muslims burn down Hindu homes and temples over ‘blasphemous comments’ on Facebook
In December 2024, Muslims carried out arson attack on 130 Hindu houses and 20 temples after accusing a young boy named Akash Das of making blasphemous comments on Facebook.
The incident occurred in Dowarabazar upazila in Sunamganj district of Bangladesh. When the news became viral on social media, police and army reached the spot to do ‘damage control.’
130 Hindu houses & 20 mandirs have been vandalised by Islamist mobs in Doarabazar, Sunamganj, Bangladesh.
The pretext? An alleged blasphemous FB comment
Demonization of ISKCON, arrests of monks, assaults on lawyers, incessant anti-Hindu mob violencepic.twitter.com/uIisRWnND3
Muslim mob carries out vandalism, wanted to lynch Hindu boy
In October 2024, a frenzied Muslim mob laid siege to the Kadirdi Degree College in Boalmari in the Faridpur district of Bangladesh after accusing a Hindu boy of ‘insulting’ Prophet Muhammad. The victim was identified as Hridoy Pal.
He is a student of Class XI. A mob comprising of madrassa students gathered outside the Kadirdi Degree College and demanded that the administration hand the victim over to them.
They accused the Hindu student of committing ‘blasphemy’ through a Facebook post. Hridoy Pal was called into the principal’s cabin and interrogated. The victim informed the college authorities that he did not own a mobile phone.
He further stated that the alleged ‘blasphemous’ Facebook post was published from an ID, which was hacked 2 years ago. The frenzied Muslim mob ghearoed the principal’s office, and vandalised motorcycles and school property.
In Faridpur, a teenager named Hriday Pal is being taken away by the army in a bizarre manner, but what is his crime? Behind him, the miscreants are telling the soldiers to beat the boy, and according to them, the soldiers are attacking the boy. The boy is Hindu. Fanatics are… pic.twitter.com/irFz1UcrrF
On learning about the matter, the Officer-in-charge of Boalmari police station reached the spot. Local political leaders also rushed to the scene that pacify the radical Muslims.
Later, the army was called in to prevent any untoward situation. They took the Hindu boy into their custody. A video of a blindfolded Hridoy Pal being carried on all fours by army officials has surfaced on social media.
In the footage, Muslims could be seen slapping the victim and encouraging others to assault him. One army official was seen hitting the Hindu boy with a stick.
Reportedly, the violent mob attacked the army personnel with stones and shoes while they took Hridoy Pal to the army camp.
Muslim mob attacks police station, army vehicle for not being able to lynch victim
On 30th September last year, a frenzied Muslim mob laid siege to the Patiya police station in Chittagong district of Bangladesh, demanding that the cops hand over a Hindu boy accused of ‘insulting’ Prophet Muhammad.
The mob, comprising mostly local madrassa students, also attacked an army vehicle after seeing a young boy in civilian clothes and mistaking him for the Hindu victim. An army official was injured in the onslaught.
A 22-year-old Hindu youth named Partha Biswas Pintu was arrested on charges of committing ‘blasphemy’.
A police complaint to the effect was filed by one Kamrul Islam a day earlier, accusing Pintu of making objectionable remarks about Prophet Muhammad on Facebook.
Another Utshab Mandal incident barely averted in #Bangladesh today: #Islamists in Patia, #Chattogram wanted to lynch a #Hindu boy on the trumped-up charge of insulting the Prophet. As Army took him into custody and tried to drive away, the extremists attacked the army vehicle.… pic.twitter.com/5bcqSXGBly
On learning about the arrest of a Hindu youth, a mob of radical Muslims gathered outside the Patiya police station. They demanded the handover of Partha Biswas Pintu so that they could lynch him.
However, the police refused to give in to their demands. The madrassa students and local Muslims then vandalised the waiting room of the police station.
They also ambushed a car belonging to the Bangladesh Army and injured an official in the process. Scary visuals of the mob violence have now surfaced on social media. In the meantime, the Hindu youth was produced in a local court.
Muslims assault Hindu boy inside police station, almost kills him
In September last year, another Hindu boy named Utsab Mandal was almost lynched to death after he was accused of committing blasphemy by a Muslim mob.
The victim was initially taken to the office of Khulna Metropolitan Deputy Commissioner (South) by the students of the Azam Khan Government Commerce College.
As the news spread about an alleged insult to Islam, a trigger-hungry Muslim mob gathered outside the office and demanded the handover of the Hindu boy for ‘instant justice’.
The police assured the Muslim mob that a case would be filed against Utsab Mandal and that he would be brought to justice through legal means. But the mob didn’t agree, and assaulted the Hindu boy inside the premises of the police station.
The victim was left critically injured. Army and Navy personnel arrived at the scene to control the situation. It was assumed that Mandal died after the brutal assault. However, ISPR later confirmed that he was alive and out of danger.
The victim was booked under the Cyber Security Act and arrested after his discharge from the hospital.
Muslims accuse Hindu student Kankan Biswas of ‘blasphemy’
In September 2024, Muslims painted a target on another Hindu boy named Kankan Biswas by claiming that he made ‘objectionable remarks’ about Islam.
Muslim students, studying at the Jessore University of Science and Technology, held a ‘protest march’ against Biswas and demanded his trial over alleged ‘blasphemy’.
Biswas is a student of the Biomedical Engineering Department at the Jessore University of Science and Technology in Khulna.
Muslims claimed that it was urgent to punish the ‘radical Hindutva of Kankan Biswas for ‘unacceptable and obscene remarks’ about Islam on social media.
They labelled the Hindu student as ‘Kulangar‘ (disgrace) and demanded his immediate expulsion from the varsity.
When Bangladesh High Court recommended death penalty for blasphemy
In November 2024, OpIndia reported how the High Court of Bangladesh recommended strengthening the Cyber Security Act to make ‘blasphemy’ punishable by life imprisonment and death penalty in the country.
“There should be a provision of punishment like death penalty or life imprisonment for such unnecessary, unconscionable, obstinate and provocative speech and conduct against the Quran and Muhammad (Pbuh), which the parliament may consider,” a 2-Judge Bench of Justices MR Hassan and Fahmida Quader stated.
They further declared, “To discourage any such inflammatory speech or act which is likely to offend the minds of people of any religion, or to cause fear, terror, discomfort or apprehension in any of them, enhancing the punishment for such offences and to make them non-bailable must be considered.“
The Bangladesh High Court added, “If the offenders who are involved in the respective links of the charge sheet are not brought under the law, in every case the main culprit or the main conspirator or the main source will remain out of touch. Hence, there needs to be an appropriate order in this regard.“
Currently, the maximum punishment imposed by the blasphemy law in Bangladesh is 2 years imprisonment and a fine of 5 lakh Taka. The country’s High Court now recommends increasing the maximum punishment to non-bailable charge, life imprisonment and death penalty.
Hours after US military carried out airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets, US President Donald Trump took to social media platform Truth Social to share that he won’t be averse to regime change in the country. Trump shared a graphic with the text, “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change’, but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???”
It is obviously styled after his political campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” — and it left the world guessing about the real meaning behind the message.
Strategic strikes or a push for regime change
The message, posted on Sunday (22 June), followed soon after what the Pentagon described as an “overwhelmingly successful” attack on strategic Iranian military and nuclear targets. While the Trump administration asserted that the strikes were retaliatory in response to Iranian aggression, Trump’s social media message suggested greater ambitions — namely, regime change in Tehran.
Trump’s statement is largely being read by many analysts as an appeal to bring Iran back to where it was before 1979, when Western-aligned Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ruled the country. The Shah had close military and diplomatic relations with the US and Israel, but in the eyes of most Iranians, he was a Western puppet. His rule was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which propelled Ayatollah Khomeini to power and founded the Islamic Republic of Iran.
By calling on “greatness” for Iran, Trump could be appealing to a vision of a pro-West Iran, rather than the existing clerical regime led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Critics see this as de facto backing for regime change, a concept Trump has flirted with in the past under his presidency but never seriously pursued with military action.
Iranian reaction: Colonial arrogance
Though no official release came from the Trump campaign explaining the post, its imagery and timing raised alarm among foreign observers. Iranian authorities branded the post “colonial arrogance,” with political commentators throughout the Middle East cautioning it had the potential to fuel added instability.
US officials deny regime change agenda
However, officials in today’s U.S. administration were quick to disavow the notion of regime change. Vice President JD Vance, appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, said, “We don’t want regime change. We want to shut down their nuclear program and work towards a long-term resolution.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seconded the thought, referring to the airstrikes as “a precision operation” and not one intended to overthrow Iran’s leadership.
“Operation Midnight Hammer” was known to only a few in Washington and CENTCOM in Tampa, Florida, highlighting the operation’s secrecy and strategic importance.
