Several pro-Hamas and pro-Palestine Islamic organisations have been staging protests across the country against the Tata group for past few days. The protests are being organised as part of a national campaign being led by the Indian People in Solidarity with Palestine (IPSP), calling for boycott of Tata-owned products due to the conglomerate’s ties with Israel.
केरल: कोझिकोड में स्टूडेंट्स इस्लामिक ऑर्गनाइजेशन ऑफ इंडिया (SIO) के कार्यकर्ताओं ने ज़ूडियो के बाहर किया विरोध प्रदर्शन, टाटा समूह पर लगाया गाज़ा नरसंहार में सीधे सहयोग करने का आरोप.@sioindia#Zudio#Palestine#Indiapic.twitter.com/pfx83x2Uji
On 28th May, a demonstration was staged in Calicut, Kerala, by the Student Islamic Organisation (SIO), the student wing of Jamaat-i-Islami Hind, outside an outlet of Zudio, which is a Tata-owned fashion brand. The protestors, holding placards, raising pro-Palestine slogans and donning Kaffiyehs, called for the boycott of Tata products ahead of Eid.
Protest against ZUDIO by SIO at Calicut by carrying palestine flag. Where these people after pahalgam attack ?. Have you ever seen any protest or campaign against fuckisthan?…Silent.. Dead.. pic.twitter.com/NMFXmsfUtZ
— The Kerala Girl??️( Bharath ki Beti ) (@da_kerala_girl) June 4, 2025
Similar protests were collectively organised by the IPSP and the SIO outside the stores of Tata-owned brands in Delhi, Pune, Mumbai, Patna, Vishakhatpatnam, Chandigarh, Rohtak, and Vijayawada.
IPSP woke jokers protesting against Zudio because Zudio is a Tata franchise.
Because TATA is doing business with Israel.
These jokers are burdens and contributing nothing in Indian economy so they want to disturb it.
The SIO also launched an online campaign urging Muslims not to shop brands like Zudio and Westside for Eid celebrations. The orgaisation also called for boycott of other international brands liks Zara, Adidas, H&M, Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Victoria’s Secret, Tom Ford, Skechers, Prada, Dior and Chanel due to their links with Israel.
Why Hamas supporters are boycotting Tata
The Islamist organisations targeting the Tata Group are alleging that it is “enabling a genocide” in Gaza by having long-standing business relations with Israel. The SIO alleged that Tata provides armoured Land Rover vehicles to Israel which are used by the country in patrolling in the “occupied regions of Kashmir”.
SIO Calicut President, Muhammed Shafaque alleged that Tata manufactured missiles used by Israel in Gaza. “There are also reports that missiles used in Gaza were manufactured in Tata factories. Tata, being an Indian brand and still enabling a genocide, is especially disturbing to us,” Shafaque told Timeline
Shafaque claimed that the SIO stands against injustice regardless of international borders.” “SIO has stood with oppressed people everywhere – from Gaza to Black communities in the US. We do not view justice through nation-state borders,” he said. Notaby, the Islamist group did not organise any boycott campaigns against Pakistan after 26 innocent Hindu tourists were killed in Pahalgam by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists. And no such campaign was led by the SIO against Turkey which supported Pakistan’s military action against India.
The nationwide campaign launched by these Islamist organisations against Tata Group and other brands is inspired by the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a global anti-Semitic campaign launched by the Islamic forces against Israel.
What is the global BDS movement
The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat and other Islamist organisations, advocates for punitive measures against Israel, including boycotting Israeli products, withdrawing investment, and imposing economic and political sanctions against the country.
The BDS movement was founded by a Qatar-born Palestinian activist named Omar Barghouti in 2005. Over 100 organisations and groups have been associated with the movement, including terrorist organisation Al-Haqq (affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood), and the ‘Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine’. In 2009, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine was established under the BDS movement in Brussels with the objective of constructing a global narrative against Israel. George Soros’s Open Society Foundation reportedly provided $200,000 funds to Al-Haqq in 2009 and another $2 million between 2016 and 2020.
How the BDS movement entered India
The movement made its way into India in 2021 when the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, Al-Jazeera, Turkey, and Pakistan launched a campaign against India on the pretext of the Kashmir issue. Consequently, on the lines of the tribunal set up against Israel, the Russel Tribubal for Kashmir was established in Bosnia. The first session of the tribunal was held in December 2021 in Sarajevo and Herzegovina, Bosnia.
The session was organised by the anti-India Islamist organisation, Kashmir Civitas Tribunal in collaboration with the World Kashmir Awareness Forum, the Permanent People’s Tribunal of Bologna (Italy), and Nahla (Centre for Education and Research) Jabir Balkans. After launching the BDS campaign in India, the Kashmir Civitas released a 32-page toolkit in March 2022 laying out a strategy that included boycotting Indian sports, cultural, and academic institutions, pressuring companies to withdraw investments from India, pushing for sanctions on India, banning trade with Indian companies, ending military agreements internationally, and revoking India’s membership in international organisations.
In August 2019, after the abrogation of Article 370 by the Modi government, the AMP issued a statement condemning the abrogation. Later on, AMP founder Hatem Bazian was appointed as a judge on the Russell Tribunal for Kashmir. AMP received support from Pakistan-backed organisations like ‘Stand with Kashmir’ and ‘Sound Vision’, which is affiliated to Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan.
The ongoing boycott calls by Islamist organisations against Tata Group and other brands are a replication of the strategy adopted by these organisations against Israel. And although, such campaigns fail to find support of common people, the government needs to keep a check on the agenda behind them.
On Friday (6th June), the Supreme Court refused to grant urgent hearing on a petition challenging the Bombay High Court order that allowed animal slaughter to be carried out at a Dargah inside the Vishalgadh Fort in Kolhapur on the occasion of Bakrid.
The petitioner argued that the Vishalgadh Fort is a protected monument and sought an urgent hearing on the matter as Bakrid is on 7th June. However, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma denied the request.
“In protected monuments, so many religious activities are going on,” Justice Karol said and also questioned the urgency in the matter.
Justice Karol added that just like last year, permission was granted for animal sacrifice on Bakrid at Dargah premises inside Vishalgadh Fort, it will be the same this time as well.
“It will be like last year only. We are sure High Court has considered this. I am telling you, be it of any religion or faith, in a protected monument, so many activities are going on,” Justice Karol said.
As the petitioner’s counsel sought a hearing next week, Justice Karol said, “”What is the urgency? The matter will be infructuous anyhow.”
As reported earlier, the Bombay High Court recently gave permission for animal slaughter at Vishalgadh Fort in Kolhapur district during the upcoming Muslim festivals. This animal slaughter will be done at the disputed dargah inside the fort. This permission has been given in view of the upcoming Muslim festivals of Bakrid and Urs, that will be celebrated at this dargah.
Meanwhile, Hindus have been constantly raising the matter of illegal Muslim encroachments inside this fort with 156 illegal encroachments, mostly around this dargah. The area where the Dargah was located earlier was quite small which has now been expanded to more than a thousand square feet. The Hindu community protestors say that the expansion of the Masjid behind the Dragah has been undertaken without the state’s permission, hence illegal.
This order was given by a bench of Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale and Firdos Pooniwala on Tuesday (June 03, 2025). The bench said, “It is to be noted that in an order issued on June 14, 2024, permission was given to sacrifice animals and birds in ‘a closed and private area’ near the dargah, not in any ‘open or public place’.”
The court said that the order, like last year, will be applicable this year as well. This year as well, animals can be sacrificed inside the fort on the festival of Bakrid on June 07 and during Urs from June 08 to June 12. The court said that sacrifice should not be done in a public place outside the fort.
Notably, the Vishalgadh Fort is about 1000 years old. This fort is an integral part of the heroic life of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. The Muslim community has made illegal encroachments in the fort. The temples inside the fort have been left in a dilapidated state. Currently there are 20 to 24 Hindu temples here, but they are in a very bad condition.
The Karnataka High Court on Friday ordered that no precipitative action will be taken against officials of Karnataka State Cricket Association over the RCB’s IPL victory celebration stampede in Bengaluru. Hearing a petition challenging the legality of the FIR filed against KSCA, the court stayed precipitative action against the body till next hearing.
Order: By way of interim arrangement, the registry is directed to relist on June 16, without prejudice respondents are directed to not take any precipitative action against R2, 3, 4 subject to condition that petn cooperates with investigation/inquiry. #chinnaswamystadium
However, the court refused any interim relief for RCB Marketing Head Nikhil Sosale, who has been arrested by police. During the hearing, there was some confusing over who was the investigating officer in the case, as all the relevant police officers of the police station have been suspended by the state govt. While the petitioner said that the arrest was illegal and it was done on CM’s orders, Justice S R Krishna Kumar said that an arrest after an FIR has been filed can’t be called illegal.
The court added that even if the cop who registered the FIR has been suspended, the FIR remains valid. The court further added that the state must be heard before issuing any order. The court listed the matter for Monday.
There is an FIR. Once an FIR is registered, there is power of arrest. You will have to show arrest is illegal: HC
A day after 11 people died in stamped Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru during IPL victory celebrations by RCB, Karnataka Police registered three FIRs against IPL team RCB, Karnataka State Cricket Association and event management firm DNA entertainment. 4 persons have been arrested in the matter, 1 from RCB and 3 from DNA.
Moreover, the state government has suspended the Bengaluru Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police, and DCP of the central division and the Cricket Stadium in-charge have been suspended. Along with them, the Police Inspector, Station House Master and Station House Officer of Cubbon Park Police Station have also been suspended.
Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah also announced the formation of one-man commission headed by retired Justice Michael D’Cunha appointed to probe the tragedy on Wednesday. The commission will submit a report on the tragedy in 30 days.
While announcing these steps, the CM had said that a decision has been taken to arrest those responsible for crowd management at the event. Following this, the arrests were made.
The case has been transferred to the Criminal Investigation Department for inquiry. The FIR against officials of the three entities have been filed under culpable homicide, criminal negligence and other serious charges.
Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 115 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 118 (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by using dangerous weapons or means), 190 (liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in pursuit of a common object), 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their duty), 125(12) (acts endangering life or personal safety of others), 142 (unlawful assembly) and 121 (abetment of an offence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita have been invoked in the case.
The Karnataka High Court has also suo motu cognisance of the incident and asked for a status report from the authorities.
A picture of ‘Bharat Mata’ caused great pain to the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government during an official event held at Raj Bhavan on the occasion of World Environment Day in Kerala. They insisted that the poster should be removed. Furthermore, the program was boycotted by Education Minister V Sivankutty and Agriculture Minister P Prasad.
The ministers in Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s cabinet insisted on taking down the poster from the stage, which Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar opposed. Agriculture Minister Prasad commented that this poster (Bharat Mata), which is tied to ‘iconography’ related to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), will not be accepted.
The officials, reflecting their mindset, abandoned the program at Raj Bhavan and relocated the function to the Darbar Hall of the Secretariat. However, the governor upheld the program’s dignity by lighting a lamp before the portrait. This issue raises profound questions about the commitment of the Kerala government to national unity and constitutional values.
On a significant occasion such as World Environment Day, when the nation and society should unite, the Kerala government prioritized political animosity by opposing a particular image. Agriculture Minister P Prasad explicitly stated that this image, which contains ‘iconography’ linked to the RSS is unacceptable. This declaration indicates that the Kerala government perceives even a national symbol through the lens of its political beliefs.
While Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has not issued a direct statement, it has been revealed that the Agriculture Minister abstained from the event with his approval. This indicates his implicit endorsement, further intensifying the doubts regarding the government’s motives.
On the other hand, the Governor expressed his dissatisfaction regarding the minister’s demand to take down the poster of ‘Bharat Mata.’ The Governor stated that he also received a request from the latter’s office for the same but he declined.
No Compromise on Bharat Mata: Governor Whatever be the pressure from whichever quarters there will be no compromise whatsoever on Bharat Mata asserted Kerala Governor Shri Rajendra Vishwanath Aralekar, here today.@rajendraarlekarpic.twitter.com/shjyVPQY2J
The Governor mentioned that ‘Bharat Mata’ holds significant importance for him. She is an ideal that he cannot disregard. He further conveyed that the practice of displaying the image of ‘Bharat Mata’ in the Raj Bhavan commenced only after he assumed the position.
This entire dispute revolves around the use of the image of ‘Bharat Mata,’ which the Left government associates with the ideology of the RSS, whereas the governor regards it as a symbol of national pride. Now, the matter has once again strained the relationship between the state government and the Governor.
When the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) isn’t busy promoting terrorists or pushing propaganda against regimes—especially those democratically elected but inconvenient to its narrow ideological agenda—it spends its time deceiving its own British audience by whitewashing horrific crimes like the sexual exploitation perpetrated by Pakistani grooming gangs.
This week, Newsnight on BBC presented perhaps the most grotesque display of institutional gaslighting the British public has seen in recent times — and that bar is already subterranean.
Billed as a “serious conversation” on grooming gangs — a subject that should evoke shame, introspection, and accountability — the program did what British leftwing institutions such as BBC have mastered over the past two decades: shifting the spotlight from the victims to the optics, from uncomfortable truths to misleading data charts, and from culpability to contexualisation.
"That is not true."
DCC Becky Riggs, national policing lead on child protection and abuse investigations, rejects suggestions by Robert Jenrick MP that group based child sexual exploitation – i.e. grooming – is committed predominately by British Pakistani men.#Newsnightpic.twitter.com/o0VufvzB5s
At the centre of this farce was a chart — proudly displayed on national television — showing that 55% of grooming gang suspects were “White British” while only 12.9% were Pakistani. But what should have been an exercise in reckoning was shamelessly turned into an audition for PR by the BBC and the police officer invited on the show. The police officer, whose department spent years systematically failing victims as it looked the other way, declared former immigration minister Robert Jenrick’s claim that grooming gangs are “predominantly Pakistani” as “misleading.”
After all, how a cop can be trusted when her own department had asked a victim of Rotherham grooming gang to delete her posts on child sexual abuse. An official from a department that was spooked by online discussions of rampant sexual abuse can scarcely be trusted to own up their failure in the full glare of national television.
But what the BBC didn’t want their viewers to notice was that the very same chart they used to shield Pakistani grooming gangs showed only 31 per cent of all suspects. The other 69% of cases? No recorded ethnicity. Nearly seven out of ten suspects weren’t even represented in the data — but BBC, in its infinite wisdom, decided this was enough to declare Jenrick factually wrong and politically motivated.
This isn’t journalism. This is narrative laundering aimed at protecting the grooming gangs belonging to Pakistani heritage that have for years sexually assaulted British citizens with impunity.
And even if we take their cooked numbers at face value — the 12.9% Pakistani representation in a country where Pakistanis form just 2-3% of the population — we’re still looking at a 4x to 6x overrepresentation. That’s not a minor statistical anomaly. That’s a sociological red flag — the very one the British state has spent two decades trying to burn, bury, and forget.
But the BBC didn’t stop at misleading data. They cherry-picked timeframe too. The data presented was from 2024 — one year. As if grooming gang crimes are COVID-19 that came into existence only recently. These are multi-year, often multi-decade crimes — where police and social services routinely took longer to act than it takes to build a cathedral. In Rotherham alone, the official estimate was 1,400 girls abused over 16 years. That scale doesn’t fit neatly into a one-year chart — so the BBC just pretends it never happened.
Considering definitions of crimes or lack therof, “Grooming gangs” isn’t an official crime category in the UK. Conservatives tried to introduce one this year, but it was blocked. Which means that any “analysis” can quietly lump together lone online predators, familial abuse, and consensual but underage relationships to dilute the distinct and proven pattern of group-based exploitation — almost always involving older Pakistani Muslim men preying on vulnerable white British girls. That is the very pattern documented in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Keighley, and Oxford.
But the BBC doesn’t want you to focus on that pattern. It wants you to focus on political correctness, on how saying “Pakistani men” might upset “community relations,” on how “far-right” groups could misuse the truth — as if the real problem is not rapists, but those who might cite their ethnicity.
Moreover, the BBC’s reliance on police crime data which, as the UK’s own statistical watchdog reminded everyone in 2014, does not meet the standards of national statistics due to inconsistent and unreliable recording. But when the goal is narrative crafting, why bother with credibility?
It doesn’t end there. The officer on Newsnight, with survivors in the room — some of whom waited decades for justice — chose to spend time discrediting a Tory MP rather than admitting to the institutional failure of his own force. This, in front of women who were trafficked, raped, discarded — many by men protected by cultural sensitivities and political cowardice.
This isn’t just a media failure. This is institutional betrayal of the highest order.
To believe the BBC, one has to assume:
Every grooming gang suspect is arrested.
Every suspect self-reports ethnicity accurately, even if they don’t speak English.
Every crime is recorded honestly and without pressure from “diversity departments.”
Anyone who has followed these cases knows these assumptions are fanciful. Police have, in documented cases, ignored abuse because the perpetrators were Pakistani. Council officials have stayed silent for fear of being labelled racist. Survivors were accused of lying. Whistleblowers were fired.
And now, in 2025, BBC has learned nothing. This episode of Newsnight wasn’t a discussion. It was a defence — of a failed bureaucracy, of compromised data, and of a cultural elite more interested in social engineering than child protection.
Robert Jenrick said grooming gangs are predominantly Pakistani. He is right — both in data and in spirit. That makes him inconvenient to the BBC, but it makes him honest.
The BBC, meanwhile, has shown us once again that for Britain’s establishment, the truth is optional. The narrative is not.
And that is the most dangerous grooming of all.
As Conservative MP Chris Philp (Croydon South) recently pointed out, “A 20-year study shows that the majority of rape gang prosecutions related to perpetrators of Pakistani origin—83%.” And yet, BBC’s Newsnight went on to blatantly misrepresent these facts in a recent broadcast, continuing a long tradition of editorial obfuscation in the name of political correctness.
A 20 year study shows that the majority of rape gang prosecutions related to perpetrators of Pakistani origin – 83%
Philp rightly stated: “The cover-up has to end. We need a proper national inquiry.” But instead of investigating systemic grooming crimes and the authorities’ long-standing reluctance to act, the BBC has repeatedly chosen to gaslight victims, mislead the public, and protect the reputations of offenders—so long as they fit into a shielded identity category.
While British media institutions were busy gaslighting their viewers, OpIndia has, for years, been among the few news outlets consistently reporting the truth about the UK grooming gang scandal. From detailed reports on Rotherham and Rochdale, to trenchant critiques of the BBC’s spin machine, OpIndia has documented the systemic failures of British authorities to act—not because they didn’t know, but because they were afraid of the optics.
OpIndia’s coverage has not only chronicled the scale and horror of these crimes, but has also highlighted BBC’s penchant to meddle into other countries’ internal affairs with biased reportage while ignoring the cultural, religious, and ideological dimensions of crises bedeviling the UK. Whether it’s the cowardice of political leaders, the complicity of law enforcement, BBC has chose to either turn a blind eye to them all or give it a spin in its appalling bid at manipulating public opinion.
It is not uncommon for allies to become adversaries, especially in the realm of politics. Nevertheless, what might the implications be if the richest individual and the most powerful politician were to engage in a fierce confrontation? In a surprising turn of events and shifting allegiances, former buddies, United States President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, have begun to publicly attack each other, as their disagreement has escalated into a bitter verbal conflict.
Meanwhile, these war of words although occurring on media, social media and other platforms could have tangible repercussions. Trump issued a warning to revoke the governmental subsidies and contracts associated with Musk to conserve ‘billions of dollars in the budget’. As expected, the SpaceX CEO (Chief Executive Officer) also fired back.
Dragon spacecraft (Source: Inverse)
He demanded the president’s impeachment, challenged him to withdraw funding for his companies and responded by declaring that he was hastening the “decommissioning” of his Dragon spacecraft. Notably, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) depends on it to transport their astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station (ISS) as part of a contract estimated at around $4.9 billion. The capsule is the country’s only spacecraft that can fly humans in orbit.
In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately pic.twitter.com/NG9sijjkgW
However, Musk only made the statement to retract it a few hours later after a random user, named “Alaska” intervened to make peace between the two giants. The user described their altercation as “shameful” and told them to “cool off and take a step back for a couple of days,” alleging that they were above such behavior.
His remarks surprisingly seem to impact the owner of X, who labeled it as “Good advice” and conveyed that he will not move forward with his earlier declaration. He subsequently reshared a photo of the United States flag set against the backdrop of the Dragon, accompanied by the caption “Team America.”
Demissioning the Dragon: What it would mean
Interestingly, the decommissioning of Dragon would cause considerable disruption to the ISS program, which includes a multitude of countries participating in an international accord signed over twenty years ago. The only other crewed spacecraft capable of sending astronauts to the ISS is Russia’s Soyuz system.
On 22nd April, a Dragon craft brought 6,700 pounds of equipment, science studies and crew supplies to the ISS. Aleksey Ovchinin, a Russian cosmonaut, is currently leading a team of seven persons on a mission onboard the ISS. The crew consists of three NASA astronauts.
“NASA will continue to execute upon the president’s vision for the future of space,” posted Bethany Stevens, press secretary of the space agency after Musk’s threat. She added that NASA will maintain its collaboration with industry partners to ensure that the president’s goals in space are accomplished.
NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space. We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met.
Elon Musk established Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), a tiny and obscure enterprise in 2002 with a lofty objective of sending humans to Mars in the future. It was awarded a NASA contract in 2006 to transport supplies and cargo to the International Space Station.
SpaceX had not yet sent anything into orbit at that time and it did not until two years later with its small Falcon 1 rocket. However, the company which was started by Elon Musk has since grown to be the foundation of all American spaceflight, both military and civilian.
It began in 2010 when the first Falcon 9 rocket was launched. The rocket began delivering supplies to the space station in 2012. The Falcon 9 was developed with funding from NASA and SpaceX. It used the NASA seal of approval to attract customers to launch their satellites with SpaceX. It offered launches and satellites in orbit at a lower cost than the majority of other rockets at the time and became the first priority.
SpaceX secured a contract to transport humans to the space station under the Obama administration. It undertook its first mission to the space station in May 2020 during Trump’s first term. While addressing an audience at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on 30th May of that year, he showered Musk with praise and celebrated the “groundbreaking partnership” between NASA and SpaceX.
Five years ago, @NASA_Astronauts Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley launched to the @Space_Station aboard a @SpaceX Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket. Our Demo-2 mission was the first time American astronauts launched on an American rocket from the U.S. in nearly 10 years. pic.twitter.com/V4C3ZG9ucm
He announced that the two has “given our nation the gift of an unmatched power a state-of-the-art spaceship to put our astronauts into orbit at a fraction of the cost of the space shuttle.”
President Trump: "Congratulations, Elon Musk."
"Today the groundbreaking partnership between NASA and SpaceX has given our nation the gift of an unmatched power, a state-of-the-art spaceship to put our astronauts into orbit at a fraction of the cost of the Space Shuttle."
SpaceX’s success caused its rivals to falter and now it dominates the space sector. The federal government currently depends largely on the company and its founder. There aren’t many alternatives available to the government for carrying people and cargo into orbit and beyond in the near future.
NASA and SpaceX: An interdependent relationship
Although SpaceX plays a major role in NASA’s space exploration and operations, the two organizations have a mutually beneficial relationship. SpaceX ranks among the largest federal contractors. NASA, the Air Force, and other organizations have awarded SpaceX more than $20 billion in contracts since 2008.
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, the agency’s head and a former senator from Florida, stressed that “NASA is really committed” to commercial cooperation, reported CNBC. He noted that SpaceX received a key role in the agency’s Artemis plan, a proposal for using Starship to transport men to the moon’s surface.
It was the sole name check among the other NASA initiatives he highlighted that involve corporations, including private space stations and lunar cargo spacecraft. “You sit down with Elon Musk and he’ll tell you he would not be where he is if it were not for NASA,” Nelson asserted.
Starship will be used to land astronauts on the lunar surface on NASA's Artemis III mission, which will put the first humans on the Moon since 1972 pic.twitter.com/qLiRp0PSAp
SpaceX is the second-highest-paid vendor for the agency in fiscal year 2022, after Caltech which oversees NASA’s JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). SpaceX is the only route for NASA astronauts to travel to and from orbit right now. Nelson emphasized, however, that the relationship is reciprocal.
“Elon will tell you also, in a moment of truth, that he had a lot of technical problems, as do all of them. And who do they come running to, to help them? NASA,” he pointed out. A representative for the business cited a 2017 remark made by Musk to illustrate SpaceX’s perspective. “I’m a big fan of NASA, in fact, at one point my password was ‘I love NASA.’ It does a lot of good things for which it doesn’t get enough credit,” the latter had expressed.
Today’s private spaceflight would look considerably different without NASA’s investment. SpaceX was close to going bankrupt and probably wouldn’t have had any money left without it. While the business now makes money from a wide range of clients, launching NASA science probes and transporting personnel and cargo to the ISS account for a sizable amount of its funding. The US Department of Defense also uses SpaceX to fly payloads.
How crucial is SpaceX for NASA and US Defense Department
NASA uses SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft to transport people and supplies to the ISS. It relied on Russia’s Soyuz for crew transportation when the Space Shuttle program terminated in 2011 until Crew Dragon went into service in 2020. SpaceX is one of two providers (with Boeing’s Starliner) for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and has since carried out multiple crewed missions (such as Crew-1 through Crew-11).
Additionally, SpaceX manages a considerable portion of the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts for ISS cargo resupply via Cargo Dragon. SpaceX’s 30th CRS mission was completed in 2024 and the company has contracts that run through 2026.
Commercial Crew Program (Source: NASA)
NASA contracted other firms to deliver those services, allowing for an alternative in case of any complications. Boeing, the other company it authorized to launch men into orbit, has not yet finished repairs for its Starliner capsule following a test flight that left two NASA astronauts in orbit. After nine months in space, Sunita Williams and Butch Wilmore finally made it to Earth on a SpaceX Crew Dragon.
The next Starliner’s launch date has not yet been disclosed by Boeing or NASA, but it is expected to take place within the next year. Northrop Grumman, an aerospace and defence tech corporation, also has a contract to use its Cygnus spacecraft to transport cargo to the space station, however, the most recent Cygnus had to be discarded due to damage sustained during its shipping to Florida for launch. Sierra Space, based in Louisville of Colorado, has been contracted by NASA to deliver cargo but it has not yet launched its Dream Chaser spacecraft.
International Space Station (Source: Space)
Hence, the future of the troubled and aging space station would be even more uncertain if SpaceX decided to decommission Dragon spacecraft. The likelihood that the company would at least return the Crew Dragon, which is presently docked at the space station and the four astronauts who depend on it for the journey home is very high. However, it would be unable to launch the upcoming crew of astronauts.
SpaceX critical for smooth operations at space station
“The Dragon spacecraft is capable of carrying up to 7 passengers to and from Earth orbit, and beyond,” according to SpaceX’s official website. However, in its absence the space station’s crew could be trimmed to three members, which is the maximum number of astronauts that a Russian Soyuz capsule can hold.
NASA will have to purchase seats for Soyuz from Russia, as it did from the time the space shuttles were retired until the start of Crew Dragon flights. Additionally, SpaceX has been contracted by NASA to construct the spacecraft that will return the space station to the atmosphere, allowing it to safely burn up over the Pacific Ocean when it is retired in 2030.
SpaceX even appears to have tapped on the growing need for affordable launch services and satellite-based communications to propel revenue growth, even as NASA continues to support scientific and deep space exploration missions. Launch costs have been drastically reduced by SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, which have allowed the business to take a commanding lead in the worldwide launch industry.
Falcon 9 (Source: Everyday Astronaut)
NASA makes use of its own Space Launch System (SLS) for Artemis deep-space missions, nonetheless it is more expensive (up to $2 billion per launch) and is employed less frequently. On the other hand, Falcon 9 launches reportedly cost between $60 to $90 million per launch, which is far less than the cost of ULA’s (United Launch Alliance) Delta IV Heavy or SLS.
NASA has utilized Falcon Heavy for projects like Europa Clipper (launched in October 2024) and Falcon 9 for science missions including TESS, DART and Psyche. SpaceX became the most active launch operator globally in 2024 after completing 134 Falcon launches, a record-breaking accomplishment. The firm wants to meet the growing demand for satellite deployment by surpassing this milestone with 170 launches by the end of the year.
SpaceX’s significant part in mission to put humans on moon
NASA’s Artemis program leans heavily on SpaceX’s Starship to serve as the Human Landing System (HLS) for Artemis III and IV, which would land humans on the moon. In 2022, the company was presented with a $1.15 billion contract by NASA to build an improved Starship lunar lander and conduct a second crewed flight.
One year prior, the space agency declared that SpaceX’s Starship had defeated the other two bidders to secure the $2.9 billion contract for the construction of the Artemis lunar lander. The development of Starship is crucial because SpaceX’s capacity to produce a workable, reusable spacecraft is essential to the space agnecy’s current lunar landing timeframe of 2026.
SLS launches the Artemis 1 Moon Mission (Source: WIRED)
“We have awarded SpaceX to continue the development of our integrated human landing system. We’re confident in NASA’s partnership with SpaceX to help us achieve the Artemis mission and look forward to continuing our work toward landing astronauts on the moon, to prepare for the next giant leap towards Mars,” informed Lisa Watson-Morgan, HLS program manager.
The goal of NASA’s Artemis program is to send the first woman and person of color to the moon. This will be the first time a human has set foot on the moon since the Apollo program’s last lunar landing mission in 1972. Blue Origin, the aerospace firm founded by Jeff Bezos, has secured a NASA contract for a lunar lander intended for astronauts.
However, this is scheduled for several years later, coinciding with the Artemis V mission. Therefore, the present program to send NASA astronauts to the moon in a few years also fails without SpaceX.
SpaceX’s role in security satellites and space exploration
Trump’s threat to cancel all of SpaceX’s contracts could render numerous federal government payloads stranded on the ground. NASA has granted contracts to the company to launch science missions, such as Dragonfly, a drone powered by nuclear that will circle Titan, Saturn’s moon. Furthermore, it frequently places secret American military and intelligence satellites in orbit around the planet.
SpaceX has been contracted by the Department of Defence to develop a more secure version of its Starlink internet satellites for military communications. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets are facing competition from new contenders for these government missions. Both Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket and United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket had their debut launches earlier this year and last year, respectively. However, they are more expensive and don’t have the same track record of achievements as SpaceX.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that Musk’s SpaceX has played a crucial role in the space exploration and defence sectors of the United States. It also stands as one of the primary contenders for the construction of the ambitious “Golden Dome” project. However, it is also undeniable that this partnership has allowed the company to not only acquire billions of dollars but also to receive validation for its technological capabilities, which has significantly aided its success.
NASA is presently heavily dependent on SpaceX and is attempting to diversify and reduce their reliance on one company. However, this will take considerable time, as the company is significantly ahead of its competitors and is a distinctly dominant force in the field, despite its fluctuations and setbacks.
As the United Nations pushes aggressively for a so-called “humanitarian corridor” into Myanmar’s Arakan State, its real objective appears to be establishing a military foothold – turning Bangladesh into the latest battleground for the US Deep State’s proxy wars.
This move not only threatens to destabilise the region but also poses a grave threat to Bangladesh’s sovereignty. Simultaneously, the UN is shamelessly extending undue support to Muhammad Yunus and his Islamist-jihadist cabal.
During a meeting with Yunus on 3rd June this year, United Nations Resident Coordinator Gwyn Lewis expressed her organization’s “unwavering solidarity with Bangladesh’s reform and transition process”, emphasizing the UN’s commitment to “supporting the nation’s path towards sustainable development and prosperity”.
UN resident coordinator calls on Chief Adviser
Dhaka, June 3, 2025: Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus met with the United Nations Resident Coordinator, Gwyn Lewis, at the State Guest House Jamuna on Tuesday.
— Chief Adviser of the Government of Bangladesh (@ChiefAdviserGoB) June 3, 2025
Shockingly, she also expressed support for the recent ban on the Awami League imposed by the Yunus regime, stating that “inclusive elections” in Bangladesh are possible without the party – despite its massive support base of over 45 million out of 120 million registered voters.
This indicates the UN’s willingness to support the illegal entrenchment of Yunus and his Islamist-jihadist allies in power – at the cost of democracy and democratic institutions in Bangladesh.
It is worth noting that just weeks ago, Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, raised eyebrows by publicly addressing concerns about the UN’s involvement in last year’s jihadist coup, which has since plunged Bangladesh into the hands of radical Islamist groups, including Al-Qaeda, Islamic State (ISIS), Hizb ut-Tahrir, and Lashkar-e-Taiba.
In a revealing interview with the BBC, Türk admitted that the UN actively discouraged the Bangladesh Armed Forces from intervening during the anti-government protests, which were in fact orchestrated by extremist groups.
His statements suggest that the UN not only enabled but played a pivotal role in facilitating the jihadist coup that toppled the Sheikh Hasina government on August 5, 2024.
Questions are now swirling around Türk’s deep ties with controversial figures like Muhammad Yunus and George Soros – and whether key UN human rights officials have been complicit in the destabilization of Bangladesh.
Appearing on BBC’s HardTalk on March 5, 2025, Türk was asked about the UN’s failures in handling conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine. He pivoted to Bangladesh, stating, “I am giving you an example of Bangladesh last year. During July-August, there were massive demonstrations by students. They had had enough of the previous government under Sheikh Hasina; there was massive repression happening”.
He continued, “The big hope for them was actually our voice – my voice – and what we were able to do. We put the spotlight on the situation. And we actually gave the warning to the army that if they got involved, they might no longer be allowed to contribute troops to peacekeeping missions. As a result, we saw changes”.
Türk added, “When Muhammad Yunus took over as the new chief adviser of the interim administration, he asked me immediately, ‘Can you send us a fact-finding mission to put a spotlight on the situation and investigate what was happening?’ – which is what we did, and it actually helped. I went to Bangladesh last year. The students were so grateful for us taking a stand, for us speaking out, and for supporting them”.
But here, Türk blatantly lied. He has long been on the payroll of George Soros and maintains close ties with Hillary Clinton and Muhammad Yunus. As the Islamists and jihadists ramped up their violent protests in preparation for the coup, Yunus – while in France – contacted Türk directly, urging him to exert pressure on the Bangladesh Armed Forces. Yunus reportedly asked Türk to warn the army that any intervention would result in their expulsion from UN peacekeeping missions – thereby removing one of Bangladesh’s key global roles and sources of prestige and revenue.
Another deeply concerning aspect of Türk’s role was his orchestration of a so-called “fact-finding mission” aimed at documenting alleged repression by the Awami League government. Prior to this, Türk visited Bangladesh, held confidential meetings with Yunus and his jihadist allies, and later published a report that is now being used by the regime to justify its brutal crackdown and terrorist activities.
The February 12, 2025 report issued by the United Nations Human Rights Office (OHCHR) is now being used extensively by the Yunus regime to portray the Sheikh Hasina government as a perpetrator of human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. Backed by significant financial resources, the regime has launched aggressive media and public relations campaigns to legitimize its rule. Simultaneously, it is doing everything in its power to suppress Chapter 6 of the report – a section Türk failed to omit – that contains damning evidence against the current regime. The contents of this chapter are critical in understanding why the Yunus regime is so desperate to keep it hidden from both local and international audiences.
Chapter 6 of the OHCHR report contains chilling details of mob lynchings, targeted killings of police officers, and orchestrated assassinations of political opponents by Islamist-jihadist groups. It outlines how these extremist forces – working in collaboration with Yunus – carried out violent operations to paralyze the state and engineer a political takeover. By silencing this chapter, the regime aims to whitewash the brutality that paved its way to power.
This disturbing attempt to bury the truth further underscores the broader question: why is the international community – including the United Nations – so invested in protecting and legitimizing an illegal, Islamist-driven regime in Bangladesh?
Volker Türk’s own admissions make it clear that the UN has played an active and destructive role in enabling terrorism and jihadism – not just in Gaza, but now also in Bangladesh.
Commenting on Türk’s tenure, Foreign Policywrote, “Volker Türk lacks the temperament to be the United Nations human rights chief”. Similarly, Devexnoted, “Türk, a close, trusted confidant of [UN Secretary-General] António Guterres, beat out a field of about a dozen potential candidates from Europe, Asia, and Africa for the top UN human rights job. The Biden administration, which did not formally back any candidate, has generally responded favorably to Türk. ‘We like him,’ said one US official”.
Meanwhile, on March 25, 2025, Muhammad Yunus openly acknowledged in a televised national address that he had requested UN Secretary-General António Guterres to help “prevent the spread of rumors and false information” targeting his regime. Yunus stated, “Everyone knows who is behind the rumors and why. We have sought the cooperation of the United Nations to prevent the spread of these rumors and false information. The UN Secretary-General has assured us of his cooperation in dealing with this”.
Doesn’t this statement unequivocally prove that the United Nations, including its Secretary-General António Guterres, is complicit in empowering an illegal regime – one that is not only compromising Bangladesh’s sovereignty and national security but also actively destabilizing the region? This regime has also been linked to the export of terrorism and coordination with insurgent groups targeting neighboring India.
The critical question now is this: given Volker Türk’s public admission that he obstructed the Bangladesh Armed Forces from acting against Islamist terrorists – who murdered hundreds of police officers, and persecuted Hindus, Christians, and other minorities, while causing property damage worth hundreds of millions – shouldn’t Türk and his collaborators at the UN face international trial for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity?
Similarly, shouldn’t United Nations Resident Coordinator Gwyn Lewis be declared persona non grata in Bangladesh for brazenly interfering in the country’s internal affairs and openly supporting an Islamofascist regime led by Muhammad Yunus and his network of jihadists and terrorists?
The time has come to call things by their name: the United Nations, under the guise of diplomacy and human rights, has become a willing accomplice in legitimizing an Islamist-jihadist coup in Bangladesh. Volker Türk, Gwyn Lewis, and even António Guterres have crossed every line of ethical and diplomatic conduct by empowering a regime that thrives on terror, suppression, and betrayal of national interests.
Their actions have not only aided the rise of a dangerous theocratic tyranny but also dealt a severe blow to the democratic aspirations of 170 million people. The global community must no longer tolerate this treachery. These individuals must face international prosecution for aiding crimes against humanity. If Bangladesh is to survive this onslaught on its sovereignty, its people must rise with unrelenting resolve, and the world must stand with them – not with the traitors in suits and the terrorists in power.
The credit appraisal for small ticket loans up to 2.5 lakh Rupees where gold is given as collateral will not be needed, said Sanjay Malhotra, Governor of the Reserve bank of India (RBI).
The RBI Governor said that the regulations on the gold loans were draughted, and final guidelines will be released by Friday evening or at the latest by Monday.
Speaking during the press conference after announcing the outcome of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), Governor Malhotra said, “There was nothing new in this (draft) that we have released. We have consolidated and reiterated our old rules. Because it was seen that some regulated entities were not following them. Because there was no clarity in it… whatever the final regulation is, we will release it if not today, then by Monday.”
The statement comes after the government last month asked the RBI to see that the needs of small gold loan borrowers are not affected by the central bank’s proposed new rules on lending against gold as collateral.
The Finance Ministry in a post on social media platform X informed that it has suggested to the central bank that Draft Directions on Lending Against Gold Collateral issued by the RBI have been reviewed by the Department of Financial Services (DFS) under the guidance of Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.
The DFS has shared its suggestions with the RBI and requested the central bank to ensure that the new rules do not make it difficult for small borrowers to get gold loans. These borrowers often depend on small-ticket loans to meet urgent personal or business needs.
The finance ministry also said that these new guidelines may require time to be implemented properly at the ground level. Therefore, the DFS has suggested that the RBI implement the new directions from January 1, 2026.
To further protect small borrowers, the ministry has proposed that those taking loans below Rs 2 lakh should be kept out of the new requirements. This, it said, would help ensure faster and smoother disbursal of small gold loans.
The RBI is currently getting feedback from stakeholders on the draft guidelines. The Finance Ministry said that it expects the RBI to carefully consider the concerns raised by various stakeholders and suggestions from the public before finalising the rules.
The Reserve Bank of India draft guidelines to harmonise regulations for loans against gold as collateral will be applicable to banks, cooperative banks, and NBFCs.
(This news report is published from a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has not been written or edited by OpIndia staff)
Ordering the closing down of a Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) liquor shop located on a roadside. While passing the order, Madras High Court pulled up the MK Stalin government in Tamil Nadu saying that a welfare government should strive to enforce prohibition rather than establishing more TASMAC shops which adversely affect public health. TASMAC is a company owned by the Tamil Nadu state government, having a monopoly over wholesale and retail branding of alcohol beverages in the state.
“…it is a constitutional philosophy and the Directive principles insist that a welfare Government should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more TASMAC shops which adversely affect public health,” said a bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete.
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court told the Tamil Nadu government that it was contradictory for a welfare state to establish more hospitals on one hand, and simultaneously establish TASMAC shops on the other. The court added that a welfare state should strive to prohibit alcohol beverages in a gradual, phased manner to reduce harm to public health.
“It is contradictory for a welfare Government to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish TASMAC shops on the other. This is not in consonance with the constitutional ethos. When the right to health is a fundamental right, the State must ensure that the prohibition is slowly implemented in a phased manner to reduce harm to the public health,” the court observed.
The court’s remarks came during the hearing of a petition seeking closing down of a TASMAC shop located at Trichy Road in Dindigul Town. The petitioner, K Kannan, informed the court that the shop was located on a road which was used by school children and was causing nuisance to passers-by. He added that because of the shop, the commuters were finding it difficult to use the road freely.
Counsel for TASMAC opposed the petition claiming that the shop was located within a commercial area. He claimed that this exempted the shop from the restriction that no shop should be established in areas having an educational institution or a place of worship within a distance of 50 metres. Rejecting the claim, the court said that mere adherence to the distance criterion did not suffice when other mitigating circumstances were raised by aggrieved citizens. The court noted that the shop was causing inconvenience to school-going children and other commuters.
“In view of the fact that the closure of one TASMAC shop would not cause any prejudice but would rather benefit the public at large, this Court is inclined to consider the relief sought for. Consequently, the respondents are directed to forthwith close the TASMAC shop No.3110 situated at Trichy Road, Dindigul Town, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,” the court ordered.
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences to reschedule the NEET-PG exam to August 3, 2025. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed NBE to postpone the exam as the number of centres have doubled.
Originally, the exam was scheduled to be held on 15th June. But on 30 May, the Supreme Court ordered that the NEET-PG will be held in a single shift, instead of two shifts. Following this order, NBE said that it will need to double the number of exam centres to accommodate all the candidates in a single shift, and approached the apex court seeking extension of time.
NBE said that more time is needed for security and other arrangements at 900 centres instead of originally planned 450. It had added that 3 June is the nearest available date for the same.
During the hearing today, the court initially questioned NBE why it needs so much time to hold the exam, saying it should be held in second or third week in July.
NBE’s counsel said that time is needed to ensure that the exam is not compromised in any way. He said that selecting new centres and making all the arrangements will take time. He also presented a letter sent by TCS, which said that the earlier the exam can be held in double the number of centres is 3 June.
When the bench asked why the exam can’t be held in July, NBE pleaded to grant next hearing on Monday to come up with more explanation. However, the court decided to accept the request and dispose the petition.
The bench said that it was satisfied that the NBE’s prayer was bona fide and allowed it to conduct the exam on August 3, 2025. The bench further clarified that no further time extension will be granted.
