Home Blog Page 26

US Congress passes Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act: Here’s what the bill says, its impact, and India’s response

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
US Congress passes Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act: Here’s what the bill says, its impact, and India’s response

On 16th September, the US House of Representatives passed a bipartisan sanctions bill on Russia by a margin of 262-159.  Passed in the Senate, the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 grants the President authority to impose tariffs up to 100% on the top five purchasers of Russian oil: China, India, Slovakia, Hungary and Azerbaijan. Following the Senate passage, the bill will now head to US President Donald Trump’s desk to be signed into law.

In August this year, the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 was passed by an 86-11 margin in the US Senate. However, it faced challenges in the House of Representatives. 

While the bill’s fate was uncertain given it lacked the required majority support, the procedural hurdle was overcome after r two Democratic lawmakers voted with Republicans, and it was advanced with 214-211 votes.

Following the Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, 2026, passage on 16th September, US senator from the Democratic Party, Richard Blumenthal issued an open threat to China and India, saying that it would be better if the two countries ‘improved their performance’.

“For China and India, it would be better if you improve your performance. Buy your oil and gas from somewhere else,” Blumenthal said.

From Russia Sanctioning Act, Lindsey Graham Russia Accountability Act to Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act

In July 2026, a group of US senators introduced an updated version of the earlier proposals, particularly the 2025 Sanctioning Russia Act. Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Richard Blumenthal, and Roger Wicker, among others, held a press conference in Washington to announce the proposal and expressed confidence that the bill has the required senatorial backing and will be passed by August 2026.

The revised version came to be referred to as the Lindsey Graham Russia Accountability Act, in honour of the late Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who championed the original Sanctioning Russia Act.

The Graham-introduced Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 proposed that “the [US] President must increase the rate of duty on all goods and services imported into the United States from countries that knowingly engage in the exchange of Russian-origin uranium and petroleum products to at least 500% relative to the value of such goods and services.”

The bill proposed measures against the shadow fleet of Russian tankers used to evade existing sanctions. The bill included visa bans, asset freezes, and sanctions on Russian officials, banks, and energy firms. The bill also imposes sanctions on Russia’s shadow fleet of tankers that do not depend on Western maritime services, on Russian financial institutions, including the Central Bank of the ‌Russian Federation, ⁠and on Russia’s largest state-owned energy projects, including Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 1, 2 and 3.

The bill’s most interesting provision, however, is the natural gas exception. The Lindsey Graham Russia Accountability Act largely exempted countries importing less than 15% of their total natural gas from Russia and actively reducing purchases, granting relief to most European allies of the US.

Key provisions of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act

Section 102 of the passed bill provides for mandatory sanctions on Russian officials, military figures, oligarchs, and supporters. The targeted Russian officials include the President of the Russian Federation, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, and other key officials.

As per the bill, the US President must, within 30 days of enactment and every 180 days thereafter, impose blocking of property and visa ineligibility on specific persons, like the Russian president, certain military commanders, persons providing goods or services to Russia’s defence industrial base, persons ‘undermining’ Ukraine, as well as those involved in energy projects or sanctions evasion.

“The President shall exercise all of the powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to block any vessel described in subsection (b), and block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of a person described in subsection (b), if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person,” the bill reads.

Regarding visa and admission restrictions, the bill provides, “An alien described in subsection (b) shall be—(i) inadmissible to the United States; (ii) ineligible to receive a visa or other documentation to enter the United States…”

Sanctions on Russian financial institutions

Section 103 of the passed legislation states that the US President must sanction the Central Bank of Russia, Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, other state-owned or affiliated Russian financial institutions, and, with limited exceptions, foreign institutions that indulge in significant transactions with them. The measures primarily include property blocking additional CAATSA sanctions, as well as restrictions on correspondent/payable-through accounts.

Prohibitions on investment, energy, debt, and securities

Sections 105 to 111 detail provisions for prohibiting US citizens or the government from making new investments in Russia or purchases of Russian sovereign debt.

In addition, the bill prohibits export, reexport, or in-country transfer of US-produced energy or energy products to Russia.

It further prohibits listing or trading of securities in Russian government-owned, controlled or affiliated entities on US exchanges.

Moreover, the bill restricts financial-messaging services to sanctioned Russian banks.

The bill also bolsters restrictions on Russian uranium imports and sanctions Rosatom leadership. Section 111’s “Sanctions” clause reads, “—Beginning on the date described in section 3112A(d)(2)(C) of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h–10a(d)(2)(C)), and every 180 days thereafter, the President shall impose sanctions described in section 102(e) with respect to any leaders, officials, senior executive officers, or members of the board of directors of, or principal shareholders with a controlling or majority interest in, Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation or any subsidiary or successor entity.”

Surge in duties on Russian goods by 500%

Under Section 112, the bill provides for increasing duties on Russian goods, including oil, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, petroleum, petroleum products, petrochemical products, coal, and coal products, imported into the US from Russia up to a massive 500%.

“Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, increase the rate of duty for all goods, including oil, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, petroleum, petroleum products, petrochemical products, coal, and coal products, imported into the United States from the Russian Federation to a rate of up to 500 percent ad valorem,” the bill states.

Secondary tariffs on top purchasers of Russian energy and ‘sanctions-evasion’ facilitators: US bill targets India and China

Section 113 is the most discussed provision of the Lindsey Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026. Under this, the US President must raise duties of up to 100% ad valorem on “all” goods imported from major purchasers of Russian energy, particularly China and India.

“Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, increase the rate of duty for all goods imported into the United States from a country described in subsection (c) (and only from a country described in subsection (c)) to a rate of up to 100 percent ad valorem,”  it states.

About the “country described”, the bill states:

  • (1) (A) knowingly made new purchases of crude oil or natural gas that originated in the Russian Federation on a date that is on or after 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act; and
  • (B) was among the 5 largest importers, by total volume, of crude oil or natural gas that originated in the Russian Federation during the most recent 12-month period preceding the date of the enactment of this Act; or
  • (2) was among the top 5 countries facilitating Russian oil sanctions evasion during the most recent 12-month period preceding the date of the enactment of this Act.

The Bill, however, ensures that America’s European allies do not bear the brunt of the US’s manoeuvers to undermine Russia and cripple its economy. For this, the bill adds an “exception” clause.

It states that a duty will not be imposed under this section with respect to goods imported from a country described in subsection (c)(1) for the importation by that country of natural gas that originated in Russia, if its total imports of natural gas from Russia were less than 15% during the specific 12-month period.

In addition, the countries that have undertaken significant steps to reduce their imports of natural gas from Russia shall also be exempt from duties.

Source: US Congress’s website

Iran sanctions extension

Under Section 201, the bill extends authority to sanction persons involved in Iran’s energy sector or weapons-related activities.

“Section 13(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by striking “2026” and inserting “2031”,” it states.

Will a 100% tariff get imposed automatically now that the sanctions bill is passed?

The passed bill authorises the US President to impose up to 100% tariffs on the five countries; it does not make them mandatory or come into effect automatically. This law grants the US President legal room to impose tariffs or grant waivers or exemptions.

Even if President Trump does not immediately impose a full 100% tariff, the bill has now created a permanent legal authority to threaten and influence negotiating terms while dealing with the targeted countries.

India and the US are engaged in extensive talks for a bilateral trade deal; imposition of a 100% tariff on Indian exports to the US would put pressure on India to demonstrate a meaningful reduction in Russian oil purchases to secure an exemption.

However, India has maintained that its energy imports are not governed by the whims of a foreign country but by their domestic needs and geopolitical interests.

Ever since the Russia-Ukraine war broke out in 2022, India has played the anchor role and kept the oil flowing globally. In fact, the US earlier lauded India for saying that Washington encouraged India to buy Russian oil, as stabilizing energy supplies and prices. However, as the Trump administration failed massively to secure even a ceasefire, let alone a complete end to the war, the US is vilifying India and China.

All this while, the US itself continued to import fertilisers, uranium, palladium, and base metals, among other products, from Russia, saying that these products are critical for American industries and hard to replace. OpIndia has reported earlier how the same US that accused India of profiteering from the Russia-Ukraine war is itself the biggest beneficiary of the prolonged war.

Committed to ensuring energy security for Indians: Ministry of External Affairs hits back

In response to media queries about the passage of the Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act in the US Congress, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said India remains committed to ensuring energy security for its people through diversified sources, in line with evolving market dynamics.

“The Government of India has noted the passage of the Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act in the US Congress. We are monitoring further developments on this matter. As stated on several earlier occasions, India remains firmly committed to ensuring energy security for its 1.4 billion people. It will continue to do so through diversified sourcing and on the basis of evolving market dynamics,” the MEA said.

It further informed the country that the issue of Russian oil purchases has been discussed with US interlocutors in recent months,

“Its potential implications for not just the bilateral relationship but also the international energy market have been very clearly articulated by the Indian side,” the MEA stated.

Furthermore, the MEA stated that it has made it clear that India will take all requisite measures to protect its trade and economic interests.

Source: MEA

“The Indian side has also made clear its determination to take all necessary measures to protect its trade and economic interests. The government will work closely with Indian trade and industry bodies to deal with the implications of these developments,” it added.

How India finds the missing children

Anurag
-
0
How India finds the missing children

When a child goes missing in India, the search involves far more than the local police station. Police databases, child-protection authorities, railway networks, helplines, shelters and increasingly facial recognition technology form an interconnected system designed to trace children and return them safely.

NCRB data show that 98,375 children were newly reported missing in 2024, including 75,603 girls and 22,768 boys. Another 48,800 children from previous years remained untraced at the beginning of the year, taking the total number under consideration to 147,175. During 2024, 98,826 children were traced or recovered, while 48,349 remained missing at year-end.

The process begins with an FIR. There is no requirement to wait 24 hours before reporting a missing child. Details and photographs can then move through police and child-protection networks. TrackChild and Khoya-Paya have been brought under the Mission Vatsalya Portal, which works alongside systems such as CCTNS. Child Helpline 1098, Child Welfare Committees and District Child Protection Units are also part of the tracing, protection and restoration process.

Railway stations have emerged as important intervention points. Under Operation Nanhe Farishte, the Railway Protection Force rescued 84,119 children between 2018 and May 2024, including missing, runaway, abandoned and other vulnerable children.

Technology is now adding another layer to this network. Facial recognition can compare photographs of missing children with images of children found elsewhere, potentially linking cases separated by years and hundreds of kilometres. Systems such as Telangana Police’s DARPAN and the nationwide UNIFY platform demonstrate how image matching can support investigators. CCTV networks at railway stations can similarly help identify children moving through crowded public spaces. AI-assisted age progression may also help when the available photograph is several years old.

But technology does not independently solve a missing-child case. Facial recognition produces probable matches that still require human verification. Its effectiveness depends on photographs being available, records being correctly entered and databases communicating with each other. Questions also remain over accuracy, privacy and the retention of children’s facial data.

India’s challenge, therefore, is not simply developing better technology. It is ensuring that police, databases, welfare systems and technology connect quickly enough to turn information into identification, protection and, wherever possible, a safe reunion with family.

Read the first article How India finds the missing children‘ on Chapter One Magazine.

Read the second article ‘How India is using advanced facial recognition and AI to find missing children‘ on Chapter One Magazine.

‘Baseless, reckless’: Father of Disha Salian issues Rs 500 crore defamation notice to Aaditya Thackeray over discrediting his complaint as ‘politically motivated’

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
‘Baseless, reckless’: Father of Disha Salian issues Rs 500 crore defamation notice to Aaditya Thackeray over discrediting his complaint as ‘politically motivated’

Days after the Central Bureau of Investigation FIR named Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray in the Disha Salian death case, her father Satish Salian has issued a Rs 500 crore defamation notice to Thackeray and NCP (SP) leader Anil Deshmukh. In the notice issued on 16th September, Satish Salian alleged that his pursuit of justice for Disha Salian, the former manager of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput, was portrayed as “politically motivated” by Aditya Thackeray and former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh.

“In his pursuit of justice concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of his daughter, my client lodged a detailed complaint before the competent police authorities, placing on record specific allegations and material available with him and seeking registration of an FIR in respect of offences including gang rape, murder, destruction/suppression of evidence and the involvement of various persons,” the notice reads.

The notice further highlights that the CBI FIR names Aditya Thackeray, details how material facts pertaining to the matter were allegedly suppressed or covered up.

“The complaint specifically contained allegations against Noticee No. 1, Shri Aaditya Thackeray, as well as other persons as offenders whose roles required investigation. The complaint and subsequent proceedings also raised serious allegations concerning acts and omissions of various public servants and police officials connected with the original handling of the case and the alleged subsequent suppression and/or cover-up of material facts,” the defamation notice adds.

Satish Salian’s counsel stated that the petition was instituted by Satish Salian in exercise of his constitutional and statutory remedies as a father seeking an independent investigation into the death of his daughter and was supported by the allegations, circumstances, contradictions and documentary/electronic material specifically placed before the Hon’ble High Court.

“You, Noticee No. 1, being yourself specifically named by my client as one of the principal offender in his complaint containing allegations of gang rape, murder, conspiracy and destruction/suppression of evidence, chose to intervene in the aforesaid proceedings and actively opposed his petition seeking registration of an FIR and an independent investigation into those allegations,” it adds.

Instead of questioning the maintainability of the case against him, Aaditya Thackeray attacked the credibility of Satish Salian

The defamation notice further stresses that Aaditya Thackeray did not confine himself to disputing the case’s maintainability; rather, he directly questioned Satish Salian’s motives and portrayed his pursuance of legal remedies as “motivated, malicious and actuated by an ulterior object of damaging your reputation.”

“In opposing the petition, you did not confine yourself to questions of law or maintainability. You directly questioned my client’s bona fides and motives, portraying his pursuit of legal remedies concerning the death of his daughter as politically motivated, malicious and actuated by an ulterior object of damaging your reputation. It was further contended on your behalf that my client was being “used as a tool to harass” you,” the notice reads.

The allegations levelled by Aaditya Thackeray against Satish Salian are “baseless, reckless and grossly defamatory”

Calling the claims made by Aaditya Thackeray that his implication in the Disha Salian death case is ‘politically motivated’ as “baseless”, Satish Salian’s defamation notice states that these claims are “false, baseless, reckless and grossly defamatory.”

“The aforesaid allegations are false, baseless, reckless and grossly defamatory, having been made without any credible material or proof and solely with a view to further your ulterior and improper motives. The said allegations amount to a direct and serious imputation upon the integrity, credibility, honesty and bona fides of my client, by portraying a bereaved father, who was merely seeking a lawful investigation into the alleged gang rape and murder of his daughter, as a person abusing the judicial process for an improper, malicious and politically motivated purpose,” the notice adds.

Himself accused in the Disha Salian death case, Aaditya Thackeray attempted to discredit the complainant

The notice further states that Satish Salian had named Aaditya Thackeray in the complaint, and that the Shiv Sena (UBT) leader’s alleged role in Disha Salian’s death was to be investigated; Thackeray resorted to discredit the complainant.

“The gravity of the aforesaid imputations is further aggravated by the fact that you yourself were specifically named in my client’s complaint as a person whose alleged role was required to be investigated. Thus, while seeking to resist and defeat such investigation, you simultaneously attempted to discredit the complainant himself by attributing to him mala fide, political and ulterior motives for invoking lawful remedies…” the notice adds.

Source: IANS

Aaditya Thackeray had claimed that he never met Disha Salian, him implication in her death case is ‘politically motivated’

On 16th September, Aaditya Thackeray stated X and claimed that he never met Disha Salian. He alleged that his name is being linked to Salian’s death due to political motives, out of personal enmity, and for character assassination.

“To stop the dust of rumours once again, I’m stating only and only the facts! I have never met Disha Salian, nor did I have any acquaintance with her. For political motives, out of personal enmity, with the intent of character assassination, for the past 6 years, some people have been deliberately trying to link my name to this unfortunate incident repeatedly, despite there being no evidence or connection whatsoever,” he wrote in Marathi.

Further, Thackeray criticised television news channels for allegedly running a false campaign against him and conducting media trials.

“This constant false campaign, devoid of any facts or truth, is unfortunate. The false discussions on TV channels and media trials carried out through empty bluster cannot alter the truth. Allow the official machinery to conduct this inquiry afresh—without any interference, without political intervention, without character assassination, and impartially. I say it once again: if you think that through such character assassination and false propaganda, you can make us sit quietly, that is your delusion. For the sake of truth, against injustice, our fight will continue, taking the countrymen along with us!” he wrote.

CBI FIR names Aaditya Thackeray and actor Rhea Chakraborty

Recently, the CBI registered an FIR into the death of Disha Salian, the former manager of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, nearly six years after her death and following a direction from the Bombay High Court.

The FIR names several individuals for investigation and sets out allegations ranging from criminal conspiracy and an alleged cover-up to the purported creation and propagation of what it describes as a “false suicide story”.

Among those named in the FIR are Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray, Rohan Roy, actors Dino Morea and Sooraj Pancholi, Aaditya Thackeray’s bodyguards, Rhea Chakraborty, Showik Chakraborty, former police officer Sachin Vaze, former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh, DCP Vishal Thakur and former Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray.

Former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh, along with police personnel, forensic officials, doctors and several other individuals, also find mention in the FIR.

The FIR alleges that “the then chief minister Uddhav Thackeray, father of Aaditya Thackeray, and others also played a significant role in the conspiracy and subsequent cover-up.”

It must be recalled that Disha Salian died on 8th June 2020, after falling from a residential building in Mumbai’s Malad area. Mumbai Police registered an Accidental Death Report (ADR) rather than an FIR at the time. Salian had worked briefly as Sushant Singh Rajput’s manager.

Just six days after Disha Salian’s death, Sushant Singh Rajput was found dead at his residence in Bandra. While a CBI closure report concluded that Rajput’s death was a suicide, that report is yet to be heard by the competent court.

‘Swatantra Bhardwaj got bail, Umar Khalid still in jail’: Islamo-leftists draw false equivalence to lament the Delhi Riots accused mastermind’s six years in jail

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
‘Swatantra Bhardwaj got bail, Umar Khalid still in jail’: Islamo-leftists draw false equivalence to lament the Delhi Riots accused mastermind’s six years in jail

The Islamo-leftist cabal intermittently outrages over the fact that the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots accused mastermind Umar Khalid is languishing in Tihar Jail for over five years now. They count days, write glorifying and sympathy-evoking articles, solicit support from US politicians, hold seminars, and cry hoarse on social media. The fresh round of outrage in support for Umar Khalid follows the grant of three-week interim bail to Swatantra Bhardwaj in the alleged assault case against Hinduphobic CJP-linked activist Nishu Azad’s father, Sanjay Azad.

Court grants interim bail to Swatantra Bhardwaj

A Delhi court granted three-week interim bail to influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj in connection with an alleged assault on the Hinduphobic CJP activist Nishu Azad’s father and Ambedkarite ‘activist’ Sanjay Azad during the CJP-led protests at Jantar Mantar in June. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of Patiala House Court passed the order.

Bhardwaj had approached the court seeking regular bail, but the court granted him interim bail instead. The development came a day after the court decided to hold in-camera proceedings after being informed that two FIRs had been registered against Bhardwaj under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the POCSO Act.

As reported earlier, the matter gained traction after a video podcast in which Bhardwaj allegedly spoke about assaulting Sanjay Azad during the Jantar Mantar protest went viral. He later denied deliberately hitting Sanjay Azad, and said that he acted in self-defence.

The Delhi Police has also rejected the claims of a serious head injury to Sanjay Azad and said that he suffered a simple head injury.

Islamo-leftists compare the cases of Swatantra Bhardwaj and Umar Khalid, in the latest round of outrage over Khalid’s prolonged incarceration

As soon as the news came about interim bail grant to self-declared Hindutva influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj, the Islamo-leftist coterie framed the development as proof of some sort of ‘two-track’ justice. They contrasted the cases of Swatantra Bhardwaj and 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots mastermind Umar Khalid, who is lodged in Tihar Jail for six years.

One leftist X user, Rakhi Tripathi, wrote, “India. Both Indians. Different names. Different justice. One is Umar Khalid, a PhD scholar from JNU who talks about democracy and has spent nearly six years behind bars awaiting trial. The other is Swatantra Bharadwaj,a street thug who publicly boasts about violence, about cracking someone’s head open, and speaks with the confidence of political protection. One remains behind bars. The other boasts of violence openly. Look at their names. There are many Umar behind bars, and many Swatantra who thrive on state-sponsored impunity. This is the real divide we have created among India’s youth.”

One Islamist emphasised that ‘PhD scholar’ Umar Khalid is in jail without trial while a “goon” Swatantra Bhardwaj gets quick bail, as if Khalid has been booked not for his alleged role in orchestrating the Delhi Riots but for being a PhD scholar.

The X user also insinuated that Umar Khalid is rotting in jail because of his Muslim identity, even though Khalid identifies as an atheist as per his own admission.

“PhD scholar Umar Khalid has been in jail for six year without trial. Goon Swatantra Bhardwaj got bail within 10 days. And people say what’s in a name?” he wrote.

Meanwhile, leftist ‘journalist’ Tavleen Singh wrote, “What kind of justice system do we have that allows a thug who confessed to murder to be given bail. And keeps Umar Khalid not convicted of any crime in jail for six years. #justiceforumarkhalid.”

Leftist propagandist Kaushik Raj, who is named in court for helping Umar Khalid, wrote,“Umar Khalid is in jail since 6 years while goons like Swatantra Bhardwaj who openly accept their role in violence are free to roam.”

Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, accused the judiciary of being prejudiced, and wrote, “Bail for Bharadwaj, Jail for Umar. Judiciary is blinded by prejudice.”

Another one wrote, “Gems of the Indian Judiciary Scholar Umar Khalid has been in prison for nearly six years without trial and continues to be denied bail. Meanwhile, Swatantra Bharadwaj, who publicly admitted on a live broadcast to an attempted murder, has been granted bail. What a striking contrast in the application of justice.”

Social media is replete with Islamo-leftists crying hoarse about Bhardwaj’s bail and drawing false equivalence between his and Umar Khalid’s case. In fact, the same narrative has been echoed from Umar Khalid’s own Facebook page, which posted, “Six years behind bars without a trial. Ten days in custody, followed by three weeks of interim bail. On the same day that news broke of Swatantra Bhardwaj being granted three weeks of interim bail, the reminder came again: Umar Khalid has spent six years in prison without a trial.”

The “bail to Swatantra Bhardwaj, jail to Umar Khalid” comparison does not hold

Of the many differences in the cases of Swatantra Bhardwaj and Umar Khalid, the biggest is that Bhardwaj faces ordinary BNS hurt or restraint charges in addition to later-added SC/ST and a separate POCSO case. Bail is the rule, the jail the exception.

Courts often grant interim or regular bail in such cases after the interrogation is over and there is no serious flight risk, subject to conditions.

Umar Khalid, on the contrary, is charged under the stringent UAPA in the 2020

What creates a statutory bar is Section 43D(5), which says that bail is not granted if the court finds the allegations prima facie true. Be it Supreme Court, Delhi High Court or trial courts, all have repeatedly emphasized that a prima facie case exists against Khalid as both an ideological and organizational driver.

The case of a person accused of allegedly assaulting another individual is not comparable the case of a person accused of masterminding a full-fledged rioting the resulted in loss of lives and widespread damage to public property.

Not downplaying the severity of the allegations against Swatantra Bhardwaj, but he, unlike Umar Khalid, is not an accused mastermind of a riot. It is very much possible that the trial in Bhardwaj’s case proceeds, he is found guilty of the pressed charges and punished accordingly, or is acquitted.

Mere interim bail does not mean that the court is favouring a supposed Hindutva aligned or pro-BJP figure, while those like Umar Khalid, who owe their claim to fame to hating on and peddling propaganda against the BJP-led ruling dispensation, are deliberately denied bail.

By this juxtaposition, the Islamo-leftist cabal is essentially casting aspersions on the integrity of the Delhi courts, and by extension, the Indian judiciary.

The delays in Umar Khalid’s case and his prolonged incarceration without trial are not the State’s doing, rather, it is largely the outcome of his own legal team’s alleged forum shopping manoeuvers.

Umar Khalid’s role in Delhi Riots and the subsequent prolonged incarceration

It must be recalled that on 14th September 2020, Umar Khalid, former JNU student and son of an ex-SIMI member, was arrested for his role in the Delhi anti-Hindu riots that broke out on the 24th of February. He, along with others, was booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA and other relevant provisions of the IPC for being the masterminds of the riots.

Umar Khalid is accused of mobilising the Muslims to run riots, block roads, and harass the public by asserting that the new law was ‘against Muslims’ and had also planned to involve women and children in the ‘Chakka Jam’ amid the visit of US President Trump to India.

He had allegedly met the former AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain and another accused, Khalid Saifi, to assure logistical support during the riots through his contacts in the PFI. According to the reports, the agencies have been watching and warning about the nexus between Maoists, whose front organisation Khalid is aligned with, and hardline Islamists allegedly represented by Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Welfare Party of India, and the banned outfit SIMI. He had also repeated Pakistani talking points in Kashmir and claimed that the Indian Union territory was occupied by Indian forces.

Umar Khalid’s prolonged incarceration, for which Islamo-leftists blame the Modi government and even the judiciary, are also his own doing.

As per the timeline traced by OpIndia, it is evident that after the exit of Justice Aniruddha Bose, Umar Khalid and his lawyers – Kapil Sibal to be precise – demanded adjournments ad nauseam till the petitions were withdrawn. Further, it is evident that Prashant Bhushan also attempted to ensure that the case was listed before the CJI, a proposal struck down by Justice Bela Trivedi. This poses an important question of whether Kapil Sibal was “trying his luck” at forum shopping and having failed at that, withdrew his petition from the Supreme Court.

OpIndia’s analysis of the sequence of events in the Umar Khalid case suggests that there were only two “changes in circumstances” that could have led to the decision by Umar Khalid – one is the change in judge, the other is a crucial change/clarification of the law On the 7th of January 2024, in a different matter, the Supreme Court clarified that in UAPA cases, jail is the norm and bail is the exception – Umar Khalid and other accused have been arguing in court that according to the law, jail is the exception and bail is the norm as on the 7th of January 2024, in a different matter, the Supreme Court clarified that in UAPA cases, jail is the norm and bail is the exception – Umar Khalid and other accused have been arguing in court that according to the law, jail is the exception and bail is the norm.

 OpIndia has reported earlier that out of the 14 adjournments in 2023 and 2024, 7 delays and adjournments were sought by Umar Khalid himself. It therefore becomes evident that the withdrawal was certainly not because of the famed “delay” in hearing. While the Islamo-leftist ecosystem continues to cry ‘injustice’, it is the alleged failed forum shopping attempts of the accused’s lawyer that have Khalid rotting in jail for so long.

The insinuation that Umar Khalid has been denied a fair trial and bail due to his Muslim identity, although he identifies as an atheist, amounts to directly accusing the judiciary of harbouring biases against individuals based on their religious identities or political leanings, and that these biases drive their denial of bail and fair trial to some and quick relief to others.

The same Islamo-leftist cabal that treats Umar Khalid as a hero and an unconvicted political prisoner, whose mere presence in prison is the ‘travesty of justice’, ‘death of democracy’, ‘Musalman khatre main’, and what not, treat Swatantra Bhardwaj’s podcast wherein he made boastful claims, as an irrefutable confession.

Islamo-leftists know that UAPA is a strict anti-terror legislation, and easy bail has not been a norm in such cases, perhaps, this is the reason, they call the UAPA a ‘draconian law’, since their ideological brethren do not get to indulge in alleged anti-national activities, rioting and then casually get bail to resume their acts and become heroes.

Conclusion

Clearly, the ideological leanings and religion of the individual drive the broader presumption of innocence. While this identity-first adjudication can embellish articles and social media narratives, the courts consider the statute and actual charges when deciding who gets bail and who doesn’t. A rioting conspiracy and an ordinary hurt cannot be equated just because Umar Khalid is the blue-eyed boy of Islamo-leftists.

The gravity and the scale of the crimes Umar Khalid and Swatantra Bhardwaj are accused of vary dramatically; comparing the two cases can be an appealing punchline, but it remains preposterous.

PNS Hunain returns to Pakistani harbour after sustaining severe damage: Here’s what we know about the high-seas collision with an Indian warship

Jinit Jain
-
0
PNS Hunain returns to Pakistani harbour after sustaining severe damage: Here’s what we know about the high-seas collision with an Indian warship

Pakistan Navy’s PNS Hunain has returned to harbour after sustaining severe damage following a collision with an Indian Navy warship in the North Arabian Sea, in an incident that has now triggered a formal diplomatic protest from New Delhi.

The Pakistani vessel came dangerously close to an Indian frontline warship on the evening of September 15 while the Indian vessel was on a routine surveillance mission. The Pakistani ship approached at high speed and manoeuvred in an unsafe and unprofessional manner before the two vessels collided. The Pakistani vessel was identified as PNS Hunain, a Yarmook-class corvette.

The incident took place in international waters, around 220 kilometres east of Oman, according to reports citing defence sources.

PNS Hunain subsequently headed back to harbour after suffering severe damage. On the other hand, India’s Ministry of External Affairs has officially said that the incident did not cause any major damage to India’s vessel.

But the damage to the ship is only one part of the story.

The more serious issue for New Delhi is how the Pakistani naval vessel came close enough to an Indian warship to cause a collision in the first place.

And buried in a 35-year-old India-Pakistan agreement is a provision that appears almost tailor-made for this very situation.

The High-Seas encounter

According to Indian sources, the Indian warship was conducting a routine surveillance mission in the North Arabian Sea when the Pakistani naval vessel approached it at high speed.

The Pakistani vessel manoeuvred in an “unprofessional and unsafe manner”, eventually resulting in the collision. The seas were rough at the time, making close-quarters manoeuvring between two military vessels even more hazardous.

What makes the episode particularly significant is the account of what happened aboard the Indian warship.

According to Indian authorities, despite “extreme provocation” from the Pakistani side, the Indian Navy captain exercised “extreme restraint” and took measures to prevent a severe accident that could have resulted in serious loss of life and damage.

That account, if borne out by the full operational reconstruction, suggests that the collision was not viewed by the Indian side as an innocuous brush between two ships.

It was a situation in which the commanding officer had to act to prevent a potentially much more serious outcome.

The three-nautical-mile rule Pakistan violated

At the centre of India’s protest is Article 10 of the 1991 Agreement between India and Pakistan on Advance Notice of Military Exercises, Manoeuvres and Troops Movements.

And its wording is remarkably specific.

Article 10 states:

“The Naval ships and submarines belonging to the other country are not to come closer than three Nautical Miles (NM) to each other to avoid any accident while operating in international waters.”

Article 10 of the 1991 Pact

The provision requires Indian and Pakistani naval ships and submarines operating in international waters to maintain a separation of at least three nautical miles, approximately 5.6 kilometres, specifically to prevent accidents. The text is part of the agreement deposited with the UN Treaty Series.

Pakistani naval ship’s conduct was in direct contravention of Article 10. That makes the provision central to understanding the diplomatic escalation.

This was not simply a case of two ships accidentally finding themselves in the same patch of ocean. The two countries had already agreed upon a specific safety distance for precisely this reason.

The irony is difficult to miss: the agreement explicitly says the three-nautical-mile separation exists “to avoid any accident”; Pakistan violated that provision and the result was a collision.

The precise navigational data, the ships’ positions, speeds, courses and communications immediately before the incident, has not been publicly released. Those details will ultimately be necessary to establish how the Pakistani vessel deliberately tried to ram into the Indian Navy unit.

But New Delhi’s position is already clear.

New Delhi sends a diplomatic message to Islamabad

On September 16, India summoned Pakistan’s Chargé d’Affaires in New Delhi and lodged a strong protest over what the MEA called the “unacceptable and unprofessional conduct” of Pakistani naval units.

The Pakistani diplomat was asked to convey to the concerned authorities in Islamabad that all military units must exercise due care and comply with the relevant bilateral agreements to prevent a repeat of the incident.

India has also instructed its Chargé d’Affaires in Islamabad to lodge a similar protest with Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The diplomatic response is significant because New Delhi has not treated the collision merely as a navigational mishap.

It has tied the incident directly to an existing fraught relationship between India and Pakistan, which took a further hit after Pakistani terrorists killed tourists in Pahalgam after identifying them as Hindus.

The message is essentially this: international waters may be open to naval operations, but they are not a free-for-all where military vessels can ignore agreed safety distances.

Not the first India-Pakistan Naval close call

The latest incident also brings back memories of a similar episode in 2011, when Pakistan Navy’s PNS Babur and India’s INS Godavari were involved in a maritime incident in the Gulf of Aden.

That episode generated competing allegations over the conduct of the two vessels, with both sides lodging protests.

The 2011 incident is relevant because Article 10 of the same 1991 agreement was also part of the dispute. Contemporary accounts recorded allegations that the two ships came dangerously close and made contact.

More than a decade later, the same bilateral provision has returned to the centre of another India-Pakistan naval incident.

Why this incident matters

The Indian and Pakistani navies routinely operate in the Arabian Sea. Their ships can encounter one another in international waters.

That, by itself, is not extraordinary.

What is extraordinary is a close-quarters encounter that ends with the two vessels colliding, particularly when the two countries already have a written agreement requiring their naval ships and submarines to remain three nautical miles apart.

The 1991 agreement was designed as a confidence-building measure to prevent military movements and manoeuvres from being misunderstood and to reduce the possibility of accidents. The naval provision is unusually direct: maintain distance to avoid an accident.

That safeguard is now being invoked by India after the very accident it was meant to prevent.

And the timing makes the episode even more sensitive.

India-Pakistan relations remain deeply strained following the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack and India’s subsequent military action during Operation Sindoor. A direct encounter between the two countries’ military assets therefore could result in a greater calamity for a cash-strapped Pakistan, which is struggling financially.

For now, India’s official position is unequivocal: a Pakistani naval unit engaged in unacceptable and unprofessional conduct; the incident violated Article 10 of the 1991 agreement; and the Indian commander exercised restraint to prevent a potentially far more serious accident. Any misadventure, whether deliberate or otherwise, could cause severe consequences, one that Pakistan witnessed in the aftermath of the Pahalgam massacre in April 2025.

Philippines’ Muslim-majority region holds first parliamentary vote: Read the history of separatist conflict and Bangsamoro Autonomous Region

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Philippines’ Muslim-majority region holds first parliamentary vote: Read the history of separatist conflict and Bangsamoro Autonomous Region

The Muslim-majority Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) in the southern Philippines has completed its first parliamentary election on Tuesday, 15th September, marking a major step in the region’s transition from an armed separatist struggle to elected self-government. The election produced a hung parliament, with no single party winning the 41 seats needed for a majority in the 80-member regional legislature.

According to the latest partial results, the Bangsamoro Federalist Party (BFP), led by transitional Chief Minister Abdulraof Macacua, emerged as the largest party, securing around 36% of the regional party vote and 16 seats.

The United Bangsamoro Justice Party (UBJP), associated with former Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, followed with around 32% and 15 seats.

The remaining seats were divided among other parties and representatives. With no party holding a majority, coalition-building will be necessary before the new Parliament can choose the region’s chief minister.

The election saw a turnout of about 84% among nearly 2.4 million registered voters, according to election authorities and reports. The vote was conducted amid heavy security because of the region’s history of armed conflict and election-related violence.

More than 20,000 military and police personnel were deployed for security. Voting in some areas was also extended after authorities discovered pre-filled ballots in Maluso town on Basilan island.

The 80-member Parliament consists of 40 regional party representatives, 32 district representatives and eight sectoral representatives. Unlike the Philippines’ national presidential system, voters do not directly elect the regional chief minister.

The newly elected Parliament will choose the chief minister from among its members by majority vote. The elected parliamentarians are scheduled to assume office on 30th October.

Why did Bangsamoro get its own Parliament?

The election is the result of a peace process that sought to end one of the Philippines’ longest-running separatist conflicts. For decades, Muslim rebel groups in Mindanao fought the Philippine government, demanding greater political control over areas where Muslim communities had historically lived.

The most important development came in 2014, when the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front signed the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro after years of negotiations.

Instead of continuing its demand for an independent Muslim state, the MILF agreed to pursue self-government within the Philippines through an autonomous political arrangement. In return, the government committed to creating a more powerful and better-funded autonomous region.

The agreement therefore did not create a separate country. The Bangsamoro remained part of the Philippines but received wider powers over regional governance. The arrangement also included a process for the MILF to decommission its fighters and help former combatants move into civilian life.

The Bangsamoro Organic Law later established the legal framework for the autonomous region. Voters approved the creation of BARMM in a 2019 plebiscite, after which a transitional government, known as the Bangsamoro Transition Authority, was formed.

That transitional government largely comprised former rebel leaders and was intended to govern the region until regular parliamentary elections could be held.

The first regular parliamentary election was therefore not simply another regional election. It was intended to complete the political transition promised under the peace agreement, from a region governed by an appointed transitional authority to one governed by elected representatives.

Where is the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region?

The Bangsamoro region is located in Mindanao, in the southern part of the Philippines, and covers five provinces, three cities and 63 villages. It has around 2.4 million registered voters. The area is home to a large Muslim population and is the only region in the Philippines operating under a parliamentary form of government.

Mindanao’s conflict has deep historical roots. Muslim communities in the southern Philippines, often referred to collectively as the Moro people, had a long history of opposing the ‘outside’ rule. Over time, colonial rule, migration and changes in political and economic control altered the demographic and political balance in parts of Mindanao.

By the 1970s, armed separatist movements had become a major challenge to the Philippine state. The conflict was not limited to one organisation. Different rebel and militant groups operated in the region, while clan rivalries, private armies and disputes over land and political power also contributed to violence.

The human cost was enormous. Since the 1970s, around 150,000 combatants and civilians have been killed in conflicts in the southern Philippines, according to figures cited by the Associated Press. The violence also contributed to poverty and underdevelopment in an area that has remained among the poorest parts of the country.

Once a haven for al-Qaeda and the Islamic State terrorist groups

Although the 2014 peace agreement was primarily aimed at ending the conflict between the Philippine government and the MILF, the region continued to face threats from other armed groups.

For years, Western and Asian governments feared that these tenacious, long-running insurgencies could help foster Islamic extremism in Southeast Asia. Mindanao was widely viewed as a haven for al-Qaeda and the Islamic State terrorist groups, complete with bombing attacks and kidnappings, until a U.S.-backed Philippine offensive weakened the extremists. 

In 2016, ISIL-linked terrorists briefly took control of a local town, and the following year, the same terrorist group laid a devastating siege to Marawi City. The Philippine military used air strikes and ground operations to retake the city. The fighting caused widespread destruction and displaced large numbers of residents.

From Muslim-majority clusters to territorial autonomy 

The Bangsamoro case also shows how Muslims first tend to live in clusters, slowly make ghettos in the name of migration and protection and later, over decades, develop increasingly strong claims over a particular territory. In Mindanao, historical settlement, migration and conflict helped create areas where Muslim communities became concentrated and developed a collective identity and claimed the place as their ancestral homeland. 

Over time, this identity became closely linked with demands for greater political control, protection of land and resources, and eventually a separate system of governance. What began as demands for recognition and protection therefore developed into a wider political movement seeking control over territory and institutions. 

In this case, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front eventually gave up its demand for a separate Muslim state and accepted autonomy within the Philippines under the 2014 peace agreement. The creation of BARMM gave this territorial and political identity a formal constitutional framework, allowing the community to exercise substantial self-government without formally separating from the country. The election has moved Bangsamoro from a transitional government to an elected Parliament. 

‘No tax on UPI consumers’, Finance Ministry says only 0.4% MDR to be levied on payments to merchants up to ₹2,000; NPCI issues FAQ sheet

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
‘No tax on UPI consumers’, Finance Ministry says only 0.4% MDR to be levied on payments to merchants up to ₹2,000; NPCI issues FAQ sheet

Amid speculation, the Ministry of Finance announced on 15th September that there will be no charges on person-to-person Unified Payments Interface (UPI) transactions. The National Payments Corporation of India confirmed that only nominal 0.4% charges will be levied on payments to merchants (P2M) transactions above ₹2,000. The revised UPI Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) will come into effect from 15th October 2026.

0.4% MDR on P2M UPI transactions

“The new UPI framework introduced has no impact on any person-to-person transactions. UPI will continue to remain completely free for all person-to-person transactions, irrespective of the amount transferred. Payments to merchants up to ₹2,000, along with transactions covered under the zero-MDR framework for small merchants, will also remain free. Consequently, approximately 96% of all P2M transactions will remain unaffected. MDR will apply only to specified merchant transactions above ₹2,000,” the Finance Ministry stated.

No tax or charges on person-to-person UPI transactions: Centre assures

It categorically rejected reports and claims that the Central government or NPCI were planning to impose a tax or charges on UPI transactions.

“It is clarified that MDR is neither a tax nor a charge collected by the Government or NPCI. It is distributed among payment ecosystem participants, including banks and payment application providers, to support the operation and continued expansion of the UPI ecosystem. Introduced under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, following detailed deliberations by the UPI Steering Committee, the framework seeks to ensure the long-term sustainability of UPI while protecting individuals and small merchants from additional charges,” the Ministry said.

P2P UPI transactions to remain free irrespective of amount, Customers will not pay MDR

The Modi government also listed what will remain free and what will attract MDR. The government confirmed that all person-to-person (P2P) UPI transactions “will remain completely free, irrespective of the amount transferred.”

No transaction fee, platform fee or other charge may be imposed on individuals for sending or receiving money through UPI. “Therefore, UPI transactions accounting for 70% of the total transaction value will remain completely outside the MDR framework,” the Finance Ministry stated.

In addition, merchant payments up to ₹2,000 will remain free of MDR, and customers will not be required to pay any charge when making such payments through UPI.

Regarding payments received by small merchants like street vendors, the government said that those receiving up to ₹1 lakh per month through UPI QR codes under the Person-to-Person-Merchant (P2PM) category will “continue to enjoy zero MDR on all transactions.”

 This provision is to keep street vendors, neighbourhood shops and other small businesses exempt from additional payment costs.

Addressing what will attract MDR, the Central government stated that a nominal MDR of 0.4% will apply only to Payments-to-Merchants (P2M) transactions above ₹2,000. The MDR will be shared among payment ecosystem participants, including banks, payment service providers and UPI application providers. For transactions of ₹75,000 and above, the MDR will be capped at ₹300 per transaction.

In addition, transactions above ₹2,000 in essential and thin-margin sectors, including railways, telecommunications, insurance, fuel and agricultural inputs, will attract a flat MDR of ₹5 per transaction.

The Finance Ministry argued that this flat charge will provide cost certainty for critical public services and businesses operating on narrow margins.

A nominal MDR of 0.2% will be levied on payments relating to mutual funds, securities, stockbrokers and dealers. “The lower rate is intended to support continued retail participation in formal financial markets,” the Ministry said.

Only 4% of P2M transactions will be affected

The Central government highlighted that despite the announced nominal MDR levies, most merchant transactions will remain unaffected.

The MDR will apply only to 4% of total merchant transactions, meaning that 96% of P2M transactions are either below the ₹2,000 threshold or covered by the zero-MDR framework for small merchants.

NPCI explains why MDR is being introduced

Following the announcement that P2M transactions will attract 0.4% MDR, the NPCI has issued an FAQ sheet addressing the key concerns.

Regarding why an MDR is being levied now, the NPCI said that since the MDR is distributed only amongst the UPI ecosystem, it will boost further investment into infrastructure resiliency, innovation, cybersecurity and customer service

“UPI processes billions of transactions every month. The MDR is distributed only amongst the UPI ecosystem to further invest into infrastructure resiliency, innovation, cybersecurity (protecting the UPI Infrastructure with banks and non-banks) and customer service. UPI is a home-grown payment system, and its charges (MDR) are much lower than other payment instruments such as Credit Cards, Debit Cards, Wallets etc. The charges are kept very reasonable and will be applicable only for transactions above ₹ 2,000 to ensure UPI remains the most affordable mode of accepting payments,” the NPCI said.

Regarding comparison between UPI MDR and traditional Debit and Credit card MDRs, the NPCI said that UPI MDR is comparatively very less than the fees levied on traditional debit-credit card-based transactions, which attract around 1.5% to 2.5% fees per transaction.

“UPI MDR is structured to be much lower than all traditional card-based transaction fees. Standard credit card MDRs typically range from 1.5% to 2.5% per transaction, while debit card MDRs are capped up to 0.90%. By setting the baseline UPI MDR at 0.4% on transaction above ₹ 2,000 and capping it at ₹300 for high-value purchases, UPI remains the most affordable digital payment acceptance tool for commercial enterprises. This cost difference helps merchants lower their payment processing expenses while accepting digital transactions,” the NPCI stated.

Explaining why reliance on government subsidy alone is not sufficient, the NPCI said that government subsidy was designed as short-term bridge funding rather than a permanent measure to compensate the cost incurred by the payment industry. It said that a sole and permanent reliance on government incentive/subsidy will create funding uncertainty and limit long-term technology investments by fintech and banks.

“Annual government incentive/subsidy, while helpful in accelerating early digital adoption, were designed as short-term bridge funding rather than a permanent measure to compensate the cost incurred by the payment industry. Industry estimates indicate that maintaining UPI payment operations, server bandwidth, fraud prevention systems, and bank technical support costs around ~₹20,000 crore annually. Relying solely on fiscal budget allocations creates funding uncertainty and limits long-term technology investments by banks and fintech. Transitioning to a commercial, threshold-based model provides reliable capital for continuous technological innovation,” it said.

UPI apps will not charge any platform fee

Pertinently, the NPCI has confirmed that various UPI applications will not charge any platform fee or transaction fee.

“UPI App providers shall NOT charge Platform Fee or any other charge for any payment made through UPI. UPI applications are explicitly restricted from levying platform fees on UPI transactions,” it said.

Furthermore, scanning QR codes at local markets, street vendors, or small retail shops will also remain completely free for consumers.

There will also not be any monthly quotas, volume limits, or tiered caps on free UPI transactions for individual consumers.

“Users can make as many valid person-to-person(P2P) or person-to-merchant (P2M) transactions as necessary throughout the month without hitting a fee threshold. While individual banks and NPCI enforce standard daily security caps on aggregate transaction amounts (typically ₹1 lakh to ₹5 lakh depending on the transaction category), these are risk-management parameters, not commercial charge tiers. In any case, consumers face zero transaction fees regardless of how frequently they use UPI,” the NPCI said.

Government notifies zero charges on small transactions and RuPay cards

Earlier on 15th September, the Ministry of Finance, in a notification issued, stated that banks and system providers cannot impose charges, directly or indirectly, on UPI transactions within this limit or on payments made through RuPay debit cards. The new notification specifically protects UPI payments up to ₹2,000. It also covers RuPay debit card payments. For higher-value UPI transactions, the government has not introduced any fee for consumers.

Why did the Centre revise UPI MDR?

Over the years, UPI has grown rapidly, with more than 24,000 crore transactions worth ₹314 lakh crore recorded in 2025-26. However, payment companies and banks have raised concerns about the rising cost of running the system.

The Department of Financial Services told the Standing Committee on Finance that the payments industry was spending about ₹20,700 crore every year on person-to-merchant transactions. A committee report in March also said that the absence of MDR was making the UPI system financially difficult to sustain.

The government currently supports low-value UPI payments through its incentive scheme for promotion of RuPay debit cards and low-value BHIM-UPI transactions (P2M). The incentive is capped at 0.15% of the transaction value and applies to payments of up to ₹2,000 made to small merchants. Large merchants are not covered.

For 2026-27, the Budget has estimated ₹2,000 crore for this subsidy. The government paid ₹2,196.21 crore in 2025-26, compared with ₹1,922.77 crore in 2024-25.

Zardozi became ‘embellishments’: After Prada, Ralph Lauren copies Indian craftsmanship without credit, triggers backlash

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Zardozi became ‘embellishments’: After Prada, Ralph Lauren copies Indian craftsmanship without credit, triggers backlash

Indian traditions, jewellery, and attire have long been appropriated or copied by the West without any credit to India. In a latest such incident, US fashion brand Ralph Lauren showcased a deep pink evening gown carrying Indian Zardozi embroidery, sans credit to Indian craftsmanship,

On 12th September 2026, Ralph Lauren published several images of the deep pink gown, including a close-up of its embroidery; however, it made no mention of Indian Zardozi craftsmanship used in the embroidery.

The American fashion brand captioned the images as, “Draped with shimmering silk-viscose and scattered with hand-applied embellishments, an eveningwear gown from #RalphLaurenSpring2027 makes a cinematic statement.”

Zardozi, the Persian embroidery form that flourished in India to the extent of becoming Indian

Though of Persian origin, Zardozi handicraft gained prominence and significance in India in the medieval era, particularly in the 14th century. In India, Zardozi is more popularly known as Zari.

Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai, Lucknow, Agra, Bareilly, Farrukhabad, Hyderabad, and Bhopal are among the key centres of Zardozi handicraft in India. This embroidery form has undergone notable evolution over the centuries.

The comment section of the said Ralph Lauren post is replete with comments from Indian users, who called out the American brand for using an Indian embroidery form without giving due credit.

Indian fashion designers are outraged over Ralph Lauren failing to credit India and describing Zardozi as mere ‘embellishments’

Fashion designer Prakhar Rao Singh Chandel has strongly criticised Ralph Lauren, highlighting that Zardozi is registered in Lucknow and six surrounding districts since 2013. He further emphasised that more than 1,75,000 artisans are working in the cluster.

Chandel also blasted Ralph Lauren for using the wording “embellishments” for Zardozi embroidery on its showcased evening gown. He noted that while Ralph Lauren provided an elaborate description, it reduced the intricate and sophisticated Zardozi handwork to just “embellishments”.

In addition, the US fashion brand’s post, says that through artisanal treatments, handwork, and texture, “I wanted each piece to feel as though it carries its own history and character”.

However, Ralph Lauren failed to highlight both the true history and the character of the Zardozi handicraft it copied and appropriated.

Similarly, Yash Sahu, Academic Lead & Design Faculty at IMS Design and Innovation Academy, Noida, opined that the handwork seen on the Ralph Lauren gown is much more aligned with the vocabulary of Indian Zardozi than generic embroidery.

“The metallic surface, raised embellishment and ornamental treatment are all strongly associated with Indian Zardozi traditions. But there may also be elements of Aari or other hand-embroidery techniques used alongside it,” Sahu told The Indian Express.

“A photograph can suggest a technique; it cannot establish the exact stitch construction. To definitively call it Zardozi, Aari or a combination, the garment itself would need to be examined,” he added.

Much like Chandel, Sahu raised strong objections to Ralph Lauren reducing Zardozi embroidery to mere embellishments, highlighting that it is not just a decorative aesthetic but a labour-intensive craft involving metallic threads and complex sewing techniques.

“Zardozi is a labour-intensive craft involving metallic threads and embellishments, traditionally including gold and silver elements, sequins, beads and metallic wires,” he explains, sharing how Aari is technically different as it uses a “hooked needle to create a chain-stitch construction,” he said.

A significant section of Indian fashion designers believe that the bigger question is not whether foreign brands can use Indian craft or not, but why are they not comfortable in using it by giving proper credit to the recognizable traditional Indian source.

When a craft is used without credit and the original source is made invisible, it is copying and stealing. When a craft is used acknowledging its source, origin and history, then it can be accepted as borrowing and taking inspiration.

This, however, is not the first time that globally popular fashion brands have copied without credit or attempted to appropriate Indian handicraft.

Ralph Lauren copied Jhumka-style earrings and a Bandhani print skirt without acknowledging Indian craftsmanship

In March-April 2026, Ralph Lauren presented jhumka-style earrings as “vintage accessories” and a bandhani-style printed shirt, without any credit of Indian craftsmanship.  

The skirt featured a wrap silhouette with a tie-up waist and flowy hem, described as drawing from traditional Bandhani tie-dye, although it was pointed out that they used a simple print technique instead of the traditional tie-and-dye craft, which has origins in Gujarat and Rajasthan.

Prada copied Kolhapuri chappals and denied credit, only to admit the act after outrage

In mid-2025, Italian luxury brand Prada “proudly” showcased a pair of flat, open-toe leather sandals in its Spring/Summer 2026 menswear line. While Prada was receiving praise for the unique and catchy footwear designs, it soon turned out the designs were an outright copy of Kolhapuri chappals, the traditional handcrafted sandals from India.

Kolhapuri chappals are named after Kolhapur in Maharashtra, India. These chappals are famed for their braided leather straps, intricate cutwork and durable handcraftsmanship. The designs of these slippers have been passed down through generations. They have carried a Geographical Indication (GI) tag in India since 2019, recognising their regional heritage and unique crafting process.

The Prada sandals, or the fake Kolhapuri chappals, came with a price tag of ₹1 lakh or $1,200, while in India, the original version lists for around ₹1,000. 

Indian netizens noticed Prada’s copy-without-credit act and labelling of iconic Kolhapuri chappals as mere ‘leather sandals’. Calling out the deliberate erasure of the sandals’ origin, Indian social media users accused Prada of stealing the design but also of cultural appropriation.

Following a political and public backlash in India, particularly from Kolhapuri artisans, Prada’s Head of Corporate Social Responsibility, Lorenzo Bertelli, sent a letter to the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce acknowledging the sandals’ Indian provenance. He explicitly credited the Kolhapuri chappal inspiration. 

Dior copied Lucknow’s Mukaish embroidery without credit

Days after the Prada controversy in 2025, French fashion house Dior received backlash for showcasing a $200,000 overcoat embroidered with the traditional Indian Mukaish embroidery, without crediting Indian artisans or mentioning the country of origin.

During a Paris fashion show, Dior unveiled the ivory-and-gold overcoat featuring intricate Mukaish embroidery.

Notably, Mukaish is a hallmark of Lucknowi heritage and is also known as “badla work”. This ancient Lucknowi embroidery style is labour-intensive, in which artisans weave metallic threads into patterns. This embroidery style, creating a shimmering effect, is often found in kurtas, dupattas, and chikankari sarees.

Dolce & Gabbana and the Indian walnut carving row

In August 2025, Italian brand Dolce & Gabbana launched its Alta Moda SS25 collection and presented it at the Roman Forum in Italy. The presentation, however, featured a bag with a design combining a souvenir Trevi Fountain with a wooden jewellery box commonly found in Indian households, without giving credit to India.

Made using the traditional Jadankari, or walnut wood carving technique still practised by hand, particularly in Kashmir, these boxes are also made in Uttar Pradesh’s Saharanpur and hold a GI tag.

The Sabyasachi-H&M episode

In 2021, Indian celebrity fashion designer Sabyasachi Mukherjee drew flak for exploiting traditional crafts without properly involving or crediting the artisans behind them. Mukherjee collaborated with Swedish brand H&M and designed a collection titled Wanderlust. The affordable collection featured prints inspired by Indian textile traditions like Sanganeri block printing, which is a GI-tagged craft practised by the Chhipa community of Rajasthan.

The collection was sold out in no time, without a single Sanganeri block printing artisan from the Chhipa community getting any credit. Soon after, several artisan cooperatives wrote open letters condemning the incident, and accused Sabyasachi Mukherjee of allowing India’s rich craft legacy to be “bastardised by H&M’s conveyor belt”, all while marketing the collection with visuals suggesting handmade authenticity.

Gucci passed off Indian kurtas as an ‘organic linen kaftan’

Back in 2021, Italian luxury brand Gucci was mocked on Indian social media for selling what was essentially an Indian kurta by labelling it an “organic linen kaftan” at a whopping price of $3,500 or ₹2.5 lakh. Indians pointed out they could buy the same garment in local markets for a few hundred rupees. In addition to price comparisons, Indian netizens described it as a perfect case of cultural appropriation.

Are Indians being too possessive about Indian fashion and handicraft? Or do they know that today’s silence will lead to tomorrow’s erasure?

Fashion has always borrowed. That is not a problem. The problem is the fact that American, Italian, and French, and other big fashion houses are repeatedly taking a living, named, GI-protected craft, flattening it into a generic luxury word, selling the prestige, all without naming the source.

This inflicts not only financial loss but also reputational loss, as well as erasure of original authorship. By not giving explicit credit to original artisans, these big labels are essentially making huge money while killing the opportunities for original traditional craftsmanship to survive and shine.

Techniques practised for centuries by named clusters and local identities, in the public record, are reduced to just another Ralph Lauren or Dior detail. The original artisans, who are struggling to keep their craft alive, neither get credit nor a share of the markup. With this frequency of appropriation, even many Indians would start associating Bandhani, or Mukaish or Zardozi with Italian or French or American

In the 19th century, the now-famous Paisley pattern originated from the buta motif on Kashmiri shawls. These were so coveted that Scottish mills in Paisley began mass-producing cheap replicas, eventually pushing Kashmiri artisans out of the market. This is how appropriation destroys traditional craftsmanship and restricts their influence to just the local sphere.

The least luxury fashion houses can do is give proper credit to the country of origin and original artisans. Collaborations and payments would be even better. Artisan partnerships and ethical sourcing are a mutually beneficial approach.

‘Bar should belong to those who know law and not judge’: Mahesh Jethmalani exposes “fixer lawyers,” flags serious concerns plaguing the judiciary, demands transparency

OpIndia Staff
-
0
‘Bar should belong to those who know law and not judge’: Mahesh Jethmalani exposes “fixer lawyers,” flags serious concerns plaguing the judiciary, demands transparency

On 14th September (Monday), senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani raised serious concerns over the glaring lapses within the judiciary and pointed out the factors behind its declining credibility among the public. Speaking at an event in New Delhi, he highlighted the scandal surrounding former Justice Yashwant Varma, the lack of transparency in collegium appointments, the absence of a database tracking complaints against judges, corruption within tribunals and the delays that continue to plague the legal system.

Jethmalani also made a special reference to the role of “fixer lawyers” and how they contribute to the problems within the system. He was addressing the 6th edition of the Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture, which was attended by Union Minister for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, eminent lawyer Harish Salve and several other prominent figures.

Cash-at-home scam of Justice Varma

Jethmalani initially brought attention to the cash-at-home scam related to Yashwant Varma, who served as a judge in both the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts. “Transparency in the legal system must start with those responsible for delivering justice, i.e., the judiciary. A depressing scandal unfolded, as we are all aware, when a fire in the outhouse of an active high court judge revealed that it housed burnt and partially burnt sacks containing cash in Rs 500 denominations,” he recounted.

Jethmalani subsequently emphasised statistics to outline how the episode caused a profound loss of confidence in the judiciary. He indicated that Daksh, a public policy research organisation established in Bengaluru in 2009 that focuses mainly on justice reform or justice system reform, found that 60 to 70% of respondents had complete confidence in the judiciary as an institution in 2017.

“On the other hand, a C-voter India Today survey conducted soon after the fire incident to gauge public sentiment towards the judiciary in the wake of the controversy found the following: 30% fully trust the judiciary, 12% somewhat, 48% do not trust it at all and 10% had no opinion,” he mentioned.

However, Jethmalani asserted that both the former chief justice and his successor responded with great urgency and transparency regarding the situation. “Varma was removed from all judicial responsibilities, and a panel of three judges was formed to investigate the issue. The results exposed that he had authority over the outhouse,” he added, while choosing not to engage with other discoveries of the probe that he considered irrelevant to delve into at this time.

Jethmalani remarked that Varma had approached the Supreme Court on two occasions. First to contest the committee’s findings and then to quash the parliamentary proceedings in relation to his impeachment. “Both attempts were dismissed, and the judge ultimately resigned in April of this year. While this brought a temporary end to that chapter, it would have been fitting for C-Voter India today to analyse public confidence in the judiciary after his ouster.”

Jethmalani maintained that these actions would likely have improved the public perception of the judiciary, but also noted that no First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged in this case, even after a year and a half has elapsed. He stated, “It is true that the judge has resigned and ceases to be a public servant. Hence, no sanction is required for initiation of an investigation.”

He proceeded to shed light on the complications that could accompany such a move, asking, “The question is who sets the process in motion. So this is a little bit of a grey area. Can the police or the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) submit an FIR?” He also cited a previous judgement and inquired whether the CJI had to urge the President to grant a green signal to investigate the case.

However, Jethmalani endorsed that swift and clear action was critically needed irrespective of the scenario in light of the extensive harm this incident inflicted on the whole legal system.

No transparency in collegium appointments

Jethmalani further contended that there should be transparency in the collegium’s processes for appointing and transferring judges in the higher judiciary. He mentioned that opacity in this area cultivates suspicion of favouritism and victimisation.

“Moreover, surveys show that the public’s perception of judicial corruption is currently at its highest level within the subordinate judiciary. There is no transparency about the number of complaints against subordinate judges that have been reported to the vigilance mechanisms across various states. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDC) primarily functions as a database for court cases, orders, judgments, and information on pendency and disposal,” he highlighted.

Jethmalani conveyed that, however, there is currently no database for grievances against judges of the higher judiciary or subordinate judges, nor for the probe or disciplinary results of these complaints. “Such a database is imperative if corruption at all levels of the judiciary is to be eradicated, since any delay in dealing with these complaints can be detected in real time and checked,” he added.

He requested the CJI to take action in this matter in the interest of transparency and public trust, submitting that the database should be on a pan-India basis, as no state has made available definitive data concerning such complaints and the actions taken in response.

“Uttarakhand, a relatively small state, stands as an exception where, from January 2020 to April 2025, its High Court vigilance mechanism received 258 complaints related to judicial corruption, of which only four led to disciplinary or criminal proceedings. The question of whether this low figure is due to frivolous complaints or a lackadaisical review can only be answered by a comprehensive database and an evaluation of the nature of those complaints,” he stated.

Rising corruption in tribunals

Jethmalani also elaborated on the increasing public dissatisfaction regarding the escalating corruption within the tribunals, especially those governed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). He pointed out that there is an excessive deferral in the resolution of cases, which contradicts the fundamental purpose of setting up tribunals.

“There are only two alternative solutions available to address this issue. One remedy involves closely monitoring the activities of these tribunals. This would require the formation of a national tribunal data grid that not only tracks the number and pendency of cases before the tribunal but also includes complaints against tribunal members submitted to the vigilance mechanism and their resolutions,” he suggested.

However, Jethmalani warned, “Its success hinges on the transparency of tribunal operations and the eradication of corruption. A recent public interest litigation presented to the Supreme Court recommended the creation of a national data grid for tribunals, similar to the national judicial data grid that it plans to introduce.”

According to him, the petition was rejected on the basis that the 7,000 draws assigned to the apex court were solely intended for E-courts and tribunals. However, the court permitted the petitioner to seek assistance from the Law and Justice Ministry for the purpose.

Jethmalani called upon Union Minister Meghwal to consider the issue before remarking, “The second alternative is for Parliament to entirely abolish the tribunalisation of the bankruptcy code and return the bankruptcy jurisdiction to the High Court, as was once advised by the late Fali Nariman.”

Fixer lawyers responsible for corruption in judiciary

Jethmalani, after outlining the challenges afflicting the judiciary, held fixer lawyers accountable for the same, stating, “The bar must conduct a thorough introspection of its own involvement in perpetuating postponements and corruption within our legal system.”

“The existence of corruption in the judiciary or tribunals is contingent upon the activities of fixer lawyers who manipulate the legal system by facilitating bribery. Those within the bar are well aware of their identities. Their names are probably available to intelligence agencies and should be conveyed to the Supreme Court collegium if this has not yet been done,” he pressed.

He pushed for exemplary actions against lawyers who behave as middlemen, strongly asserting, “The future of the bar should belong to lawyers who believe only in winning their case on merits. In other words, the bar should be a repository of lawyers who know the law and not the judge.”

Notably, the sensitive matter of bench fixing made headlines when Kapil Sibal, who represents anti-Hindu Delhi riots accused, Umar Khalid, tried to engage in forum shopping and bench fixing for his client. Interestingly, liberals such as Rajdeep Sardesai were shamelessly promoting this unethical practice at that time.

Jethmalani further criticised, “It is a trying shame that it was not until this year, via a petition presented to the Supreme Court, that the public became aware of the prolonged holdups in elections for various state bar councils and the restructuring of the bar councils of India, which have persisted for years and, in some instances, for decades.”

He similarly added, “It is also a crying shame that there was an effort to extend the tenure of the chairman of the Bar Council of India for a duration of 5 years until 2030, rather than adhering to the mandated 2-year term as stipulated by the Act.”

Jethmalani mentioned that the plea brought before the Supreme Court also detailed events of nepotism and corruption among bar council officials, as well as an effort to maintain control over the trust vested with important functions in perpetuity. He added, “They might cease to be a part of bar council but continue to be associated with the crucial trust.” He also praised the petitioners for alerting the court to this startling turn of events, declaring that he is keenly awaiting the decision as he concluded his speech.

Maulana Azad urged Muslims to be “extremely hard against Kafirs”: Anand Ranganathan enlightens ‘atheist’ Javed Akhtar about his hero’s bigotry

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Maulana Azad urged Muslims to be “extremely hard against Kafirs”: Anand Ranganathan enlightens ‘atheist’ Javed Akhtar about his hero’s bigotry

In Indian political parlance, keeping the dead alive in rhetoric is a necessity. However, this ritual of necessity becomes problematic when the invoked figure is glorified, and their utterly bigoted proclivities are downplayed. This results in the creation of a perception that the invoked figure was unquestionably unproblematic. A query by Bollywood lyricist Javed Akhtar to scientist and political commentator Dr Anand Ranganathan about ‘be extremely hard against Kafirs’ remarks by Independent India’s first Education Minister Maulana Abul Kalam Azad exemplifies this perfectly.

On 14th September, Javed Akhtar expressed shock over a reel in which Anand Ranganathan spoke about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad urging Muslims to be extremely hard against Kafirs but extremely sympathetic among Muslims. Akhtar said that the quoted statement was attributed to Maulana Azad.

Taking to X, Javed Akhtar requested Anand Ranganathan to share the source of this information.

“Dear Mr Anand Ranganathan . Recently In one of your reels you have read a paragraph and attributed it to Maulana Azad . I honestly found it quite unlike his life long sociopolitical stances . Could you please tell me the source of your information , is it a part of any of his article or speech . please let me know the when and where of it . I” ll be really thankful . Warmly , Javed,” Akhtar wrote.

Responding to Javed Akhtar’s query, Anand Ranganathan said that the quote is from the 1914 speech of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in Calcutta. This speech was published in Khutbat-e-Azad.

“The Maulana is exhorting the Indian Muslims to unite with Muslims around the world and save the Caliphate. He begins by stating that all relationships in the world can break down, father can turn against son, brother against brother, mother can shun her child but the relationship of a Muslim with a Muslim can never be severed,” Ranganathan wrote.

Ranganathan further quoted Maulana Azad’s speech and wrote, “The Maulana then continues: if even a grain of the soul of Islam is still alive in its followers, then if a thorn enters the foot of a Turk on the field of battle, I swear by Allah that no Muslim of Hindustan is a Muslim until he feels that prick in his own heart. For the Millat of Islam is one body, and Muslims, wherever they are, are its limbs. If a finger of the hand is cut, the rest of the body cannot remain at peace until it has felt the blow. This is not rhetoric. It is the plain meaning of the well-known hadith which Imam Ahmad related: the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, said that the likeness of the believers in their mutual love, mercy and compassion is that of one body: when one limb complains, the whole body responds with sleeplessness and fever. And there is the other hadith, related by Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari: The believer to the believer is like a building; each part supports the other. This is the first and last distinguishing mark of the people of Islam, to which the Qur’an itself has pointed.”

He also highlighted Azad’s commentary after quoting the Quranic verse 48:29, and wrote, “Whatever hardness they have is for falsehood and unbelief; whatever love and tenderness they have is for truth, sincerity, Islam and Tawhid. So be extremely hard against disbelievers but extremely sympathetic and kind among ourselves; take heed, then, and do not pass over this as if you had not heard it.”

Dr Ranganathan further stated that this is the second time he is “enlightening” Akhtar on his heroes and their supposed lifelong sociopolitical stances.

“This is the second time I am enlightening you on your heroes and their lifelong sociopolitical stances. The first time was when you refused to believe that books were banned, editors sacked, films blocked, and Majrooh jailed, under Nehru’s rule. Please don’t ask me about Gandhi next – the Mahatma, not Rahul, though both are probably your heroes,” he wrote.

Did Maulana Azad really urge Muslims to be extremely hard against Kafirs?

OpIndia searched through the source cited by Dr Anand Ranganathan, Khutbat-e-Azad. Originally published in Urdu, we found and translated the relevant text into English.

Ranganathan’s attribution of the quote to Maulana Azad is factually correct. It is found in Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s speech of 27th October 1914. This speech’s theme was ‘Ittehad-e-Islami’.

Further, Azad emphasised how Muslims across the world should stand united and described the Turks as the last sword of the Islamic world.

Excerpts taken from Khutbat-e-Azad

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who went on to become Independent India’s first Education Minister, delivered this well-thought-out speech at a time when the Ottoman Caliphate in Turkey was looking at its collapse. Maulana Azad, who has in recent decades been portrayed as a liberal progressive Muslim, had in a 1914 speech essentially advocated for global Islamism.

He alleged that Europe invented ‘bogus’ terms like ‘Pan-Islamism’ and the ‘Eastern Problem’, describing it as “an extreme Satanic strategy” devised to divide Muslims across the world.

Maulana Azad, one of Javed Akhtar’s ‘secular’ heroes, said that there was nothing wrong in attacking the polytheists.

“Then, if it is true that a sword is being sharpened to strike in the heart of Islam, then what hesitation that we be engaged in developing a shield. If the worship of Jesus has ancient enmity against the worship of God, and this is not a new Christian conspiracy, then the unity of brotherhood is not a new tactic of the followers of Tawheed (Islamic monotheism) to defend against the attack of polytheists,” Maulana Azad said in the same speech.

Azad’s speech advocated Islamism, Ummah unity and Tawhid, and contributed to motivating Muslims of undivided India to leave their country and join Jihad in Turkey during the Gandhi-backed Khilafat Movement.

So much for Azad’s liberal and progressive image, that he had blasted liberal Muslims who did not support his call to back the Ottoman Caliphate. Maulana Azad said that the time had come to “discriminate between faith (Iman) and Kufr (disbelief), declaring liberal Muslims of that time as ‘Munafiqeen’.

Maulana Azad also urged Muslims to engage in Jihad fi-Sabeelillah (Jihad in the name of Allah).

Interestingly, decades later, the military of Pakistan, a country carved out of India on Islamic lines, adopted Jihad fi-Sabeelillah as its motto.

Maulana Azad oversaw the whitewashing of Mughal tyrants and obfuscation of Hindu history during his tenure as Education Minister

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was India’s Education Minister from 1947 till his death in 1958. While India observes National Education Day on 11th November to commemorate his birth anniversary, Maulana Azad presided not over India’s educational development but over the negationist process targeting Indian history to cover up the horrific crimes of Islamic invaders and tyrants.

During his 11-year tenure, Maulana Azad recruited individuals who were either members of the same community or adhered to the Leftist ideology. Humayun Kabir, MC Chagla, and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed were among them. All of them combined to present the Mughals as “messiahs of the oppressed Hindu masses” and, in the worst case, as ‘benevolent dictators.’

Reports indicate that Maulana Azad allowed a deliberate cover-up of loot, slaughter, destruction of temples, Jizya tax, forced conversions, forcing widows of dead soldiers into harems, sale of captured children in the slave bazaars of Baghdad, burning of libraries and appropriation of defeated peoples’ properties to constitute waqfs for the welfare of  Muslims, and other crimes by Muslim invaders and tyrants in the medieval era.

Maulana Azad was home-tutored in Quran-Hadith to protect him from ‘corruption’ by English education

Maulana Azad may have been supposedly sophisticated in his approach and outlook; his allegiance lay only with Islam and Islamism. In fact, Maulana Abul Kalam’s ancestry did not fit in as secular India’s Education Minister. He was born into the family of an Islamic Ulema who travelled to Bharat from Herat in Afghanistan during Mughal emperor Babur’s regime.

Maulana Khairuddin did not value English education and wished for his sons to succeed him as Pirs (Muslim saints). Azad and his brother’s schooling was mostly controlled by their father, who was adamant that his sons carry on the family legacy of commitment to, learning of, and propagation of Islam.

His father sent him to the world-renowned Islamic University of Al-Azhar in Cairo, Egypt for two years in 1905. Later, Azad travelled to Mecca, and then to Kolkata, spending most of his time studying and singing the Quran. Starting with Maulana Azad, the practice of whitewashing Islamic tyrants continued as leftist historians like Romila Thapar gained prominence.

1...252627...7,677Page 26 of 7,677