Home Blog Page 32

Tamil Nadu govt moves Supreme court against verdict that made reservation for new Muslim converts ‘unconstitutional’, Madras HC had earlier exposed Joseph Vijay’s appeasement politics: Read case details

0

The newly formed Joseph Vijay government in Tamil Nadu has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the Madras High Court order that held that converts to Islam cannot claim reservations meant for Backwards Class (BC) Muslims. The state government filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court on 6th July.

The matter relates to a Madras High Court order that declared a 2024 order of the Tamil Nadu government as unconstitutional and arbitrary. A Division Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and PB Balaji passed a decision on June 25, 2026, criticising the government order allowing converts to Islam to claim BC status. The Honourable High Court reprimanded the Tamil Nadu government for passing the order with the intention of overriding the judicial precedents and, in effect, incentivising conversion to Islam.

What was the case before the Madras High Court?

The High Court passed the impugned decision in a case relating to a Hindu man who sought to be included within a Backward Muslim community after conversion to avail reservation benefits meant for the community. The man was born into a Hindu family in the Thoothukudi district in April 1993 and converted to Islam in September 2015. He was issued a certificate of conversion by Sunnath Jamath, Kayathar. Subsequently, he filed an application before the Tahsildar, Kayathar, seeking to be certified as ‘Muslim Lebbai’, a community of Muslims eligible for reservation benefits in the state. However, his application was rejected, prompting him to file a writ petition before the High Court.

He relied on the 2024 Tamil Nadu government order, which provided that if a person belonging to Backward Classes (BCs), Most Backward Classes (MBCs), Denotified Communities (DNCs), or Scheduled Castes (SCs) converts to Islam, he should be treated as BC Muslim and should be given reservation benefits meant for the community. In other words, the government order provided that converts who enjoyed reservation benefits before conversion to Islam can continue to avail reservation benefits after conversion.

The High Court saw through the Tamil Nadu government’s appeasement tactics

The Madras High Court saw through the fraud being committed by the Tamil Nadu government on the established order by passing the order. The court pointed out that the judicial position was clear that a reservation cannot be granted merely based on religion because the Constitution permits affirmative action only for socially and educationally backward classes and specified constitutional categories.

The Court cited precedents and explained that after converting to Islam, a convert’s place in the Muslim community will not necessarily correspond to his status before conversion. His position within the Muslim community will not be determined by the caste to which he belonged before converting to Islam. He ceases to be a member of his pre-conversion caste. The High Court further explained that the seven Muslim categories recognised for reservation in Tamil Nadu are historically identified communities and membership in those communities is ordinarily determined by birth, not conversion.

The Division Bench called out the Tamil Nadu government for rewarding conversion to Islam through its flawed order. The court pointed out the latent appeasement of the Tamil Nadu government, which went to the extent of overriding judicial precedents prohibiting reservation benefits for converts to Islam, in order to please the Muslim community. The court emphasised that the legislature cannot declare a binding judicial precedent void or ineffective by passing a law. It also pointed out how the government order went against the principles of Islam, which claims to be an egalitarian religion, free from caste hierarchies, by introducing hierarchies in it.

The High Court clearly explained and emphasised in its decision by quoting judicial precedents that established law prohibits reservation benefits for converts to Islam, and the Tamil Nadu government order was flawed and unconstitutional. However, the Tamil Nadu government went ahead to challenge the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, utilising the opportunity to appease the Muslim community in the state, even if that amounts to disregarding the established law.

Instagram Influencer Mohsin Kazmi, lies against India: A propagandist and Islamist

‘China has encroached our territory, but Vishwaguru is silent’. After several opposition leaders, some Instagram influencers are peddling false and alarmist claims that the Chinese forces have advanced 60 km inside Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh and that the Modi government is too ‘weak’ to stop China. In this vein, a Muslim man named Mohsin Kazmi published an Instagram video peddling fake claims about a Chinese incursion into Indian territory.

On 7th July, Mohsin Kazmi from Jharkhand’s Jamshedpur, who claims to be working at Jindal Steel in Odisha’s Sambalpur, uploaded a video on his Instagram page with more than 3 lakh followers.

In the video, Mohsin Kazmi claimed that Chinese forces have not only infiltrated into Indian territory but also encroached on over 60 kilometres of land area in Arunachal Pradesh. He further claimed that India claims to be a Vishwaguru but remains silent on China’s audacious misadventures.

“Chinese Army has entered Arunachal Pradesh deep inside 60 kilometres and taken our military under control. The country [India] that calls itself Vishwaguru, why is it not opening its mouth in front of China? And, why is the Godi media not showing this reality? Our country may or may not become Vishwaguru, but it will soon become China’s slave,” Kazmi claimed.

Kazmi’s video features overlaid footage of a military column in green terrain with “Arunachal Pradesh” labels and text claiming a Chinese advance of 60 kilometres inside India.

Another video shows humiliating scenes of Indian soldiers in front of Chinese PLA troops.

In addition to Mohsin Kazmi, several X users have also shared the viral video with claims that Chinese troops had crossed approximately 60 kilometres into the Taksing sector of Upper Subansiri district in Arunachal Pradesh. According to the viral narrative, the PLA had established camps inside Indian territory, and India had either failed to respond or was suppressing information about the incident.

PIB debunked ‘China 60 km inside India’ lies

However, Mohzin Kazmi’s claim has already been debunked by the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check unit and categorically labelled the claim as fake.

The PIB Fact Check confirmed that the videos being circulated do not show any recent Chinese incursion into Arunachal Pradesh. Instead, the visuals are either unrelated military footage or videos that have previously circulated online under entirely different contexts. The fact-check noted that the videos had been misrepresented to create the impression of a fresh Chinese advance into Indian territory.

Prior to the PIB’s fact-check, the Indian Army had dismissed reports alleging Chinese encroachment and the construction of PLA camps inside Arunachal Pradesh.

In response to similar claims regarding the Taksing sector, the Army stated that reports of Chinese encroachment and establishment of military camps were “incorrect and without any basis.”

The video claimed to be showing Chinese troops ‘entering’ Indian territory is an old one showing Thai military and not Chinese troops in India. The video has nothing remotely to do with India. However, this clip is recycled time and again by Pakistani bots, pro-China propagandists, and ideological adversaries of the Modi government in India.

Amidst online backlash, Mohsin Kazmi quietly deleted his Instagram post peddling fake news against the Indian Army.

This time, the circulation of ‘China 60 km inside India’ claims came at a time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi was on a high-profile visit to Indonesia, where India and Indonesia are deepening their strategic partnership in the Indo-Pacific. The two countries, much to China’s dismay, agreed on the export of BrahMos cruise missiles, Astra air-to-air missiles, cooperation on critical minerals, and the joint development of Sabang Port, located near the strategically vital Strait of Malacca. 

Meanwhile, the other clip showing Indian troops humiliatingly doing sit-ups while holding their ears in front of Chinese soldiers is AI-generated.

Mohsin Kazmi: From peddling fake news against Indian Army to being an Islamist

As per one of Mohsin Kazmi’s videos, he works at or worked at Jindal Steel in Odisha’s Sambhalpur. Kazmi has published around 820 posts on Instagram. His online shenanigans reveal his Islamist and anti-BJP ideological moorings.

While Mohsin Kazmi peddles false and alarmist narratives about the Indian Army and India’s territorial integrity, he extends wholehearted support to Iran and mourned the slain Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

When Iran confirmed in late March that the Strait of Hormuz would be open for the friendly nation of India, Mohsin Kazmi discredited the Indian government’s role in securing unrestricted access to energy supplies via the Strait of Hormuz and claimed that this happened because of the donations made by Indians, mainly Muslims, to Iran.

Kazmi’s Instagram page is replete with pro-Iran posts coupled with narratives critical of the Modi government.

Unsurprisingly, Mohsin Kazmi is also a strong Palestine supporter and stands in solidarity with his co-religionists against Israel.

Mohsin Kazmi is a big supporter of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, and has earlier lauded the Congress government in Karnataka for allowing Hijab in schools.

Mohsin Kazmi has also glorified Haji Mastan, the infamous don, calling him “King of Ocean”.

Notably, Haji Mastan was a dreaded don in Mumbai who had a pact with Karim Lala and Varadarajan Mudaliar which divided Mumbai into three parts where each operated their ‘businesses’ in order to avoid conflict. Together, the trio was referred to as the “three dons of Mumbai”.

Mohsin Kazmi has also published multiple videos inciting hatred against activist Nazia Elahi Khan over her remarks about the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Why Ayodhya’s ‘compensatory mosque’ is struggling for funds: The ‘Babri Zinda Hai’ mindset behind the Muslim community’s disinterest

For decades, Muslims fought tooth and nail to claim ownership of the Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya. In 2019, the Supreme Court gave the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site to the Hindus and directed the state government to allot a distant site to Muslims for the construction of a mosque. It has been over half a decade; a grand Ram Mandir has been constructed and opened for devotees; however, the compensatory mosque is not in sight.

It has been reported that the alternate mosque project in Ayodhya has been drastically scaled back due to a severe funding crunch and lack of support from the Muslim community.

The Indo-Islamic Cultural Foundation (IICF), the trust set up by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, has confirmed that it has abandoned the original ambitious plans to construct a mosque on the allotted 5-acre plot in Dhannipur village. The original plan included a grand mosque, a 300-bed multi-speciality hospital, library, community kitchen, and other facilities.

Scaling back from the original plan, the IICF now intends to construct only a small mosque.

As per a Reuters report, the IICF Chairman Zufar Ahmad Faruqi has stated that there is “certainly a disinterest from the community and the donations received are not enough. We now plan to build a mosque much smaller than the one originally proposed.”

Faruqi said that the Foundation will need Rs 3 to 5 crores for the construction of a smaller mosque. However, only Rs 1.5 crores have been collected so far.

Denial of defeat: Why Muslims are not ‘interested’ in the compensatory mosque?

On the surface, a Muslim lack of interest in and support for the alternate mosque in Dhannipur is amusing, and has even attracted mockery that ‘Muslims cannot even raise decent funds for their mosque’; this disinterest, however, warrants serious reflection on the depth of their Islamic fanaticism.

This is not a story of mere insufficient donations. The Muslim community’s refusal to widely donate for the construction of the alternate mosque a unignorable illustration of a deeper, intransigent mindset that treats religious land claims essentially as non-negotiable zero-sum struggles.

A significant section of Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent considers the creation of Pakistan, a Muslim-exclusive land, as their biggest Islamic victory in centuries. Pakistan has fought around four conventional wars against India, a Hindu-majority nation, and lost all of them.

However, Pakistani Muslims do not recognise any of these clear defeats as defeats at all, including the 1971 war. Reason? The loss of land. In 1971, India, along with Bengali freedom fighters, liberated East Pakistan and created Bangladesh. Pakistanis, for long, tried to cover up the surrender of its 93,000 soldiers; however, losing control over the land claimed in the name of Islam has been a lingering wound. However, because Bangladesh remained Muslim-majority, Pakistani Islamic fanatics were content that at least the lost land did not lose Islamic dominance. Thus, it was not a defeat Islamically.

In 1965, Indian forces reached Lahore and practically took over, defeating Pakistani jihad-driven forces. However, in the Tashkent Agreement, India returned the conquered land; thus, Pakistanis declared it a victory.

Be Kargil war, the Balakot air strike, or the May 2025 conflict, India inflicted severe blows to Pakistan; however, since their land was not lost, Pakistan convinced its populace of a victory. For Muslims, loss of territory in possession is a bigger loss than loss of lives, since for Muslims this world is temporary, only a stoppage in the journey to the ultimate world, Akhirah or afterlife in Jannah (Jannat).

For Muslims, land is the ultimate signifier of victory or victory in process, since the Islamic concept of war has no space for defeat or acknowledgement of defeat.

Be it Pakistan, for which Jinnah said that “there is no power on earth that can undo Pakistan”, or Palestine, or Babri Masjid, Islamists believe in the Quranic concept that once a land, no matter as vast as a country, or a mosque, is claimed under Darul Islam or Islamic rule, it becomes the property of Allah on the day of judgment.

This belief also reflects in the saying “once a Waqf, always a Waqf”. According to Islam, the property marked as Waqf is now available only for (Islamic) religious or charitable purposes, with any other use or sale prohibited. According to Sharia law, once a Waqf is established and property is dedicated to Allah, it becomes Waqf property till Qayamat.

The Palestinian Islamic terror group Hamas declared Israel, the entire Jewish country, as ‘Waqf’ property in its 1988 ‘Hamas Charter’ and vowed to continue Jihad against the Jewish state until the ‘waqf of Israel’ is brought under the periphery of Darul Islam.

Apparently, for this reason, Israel directly holds control of the land from the Temple Mount to Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

Many Islamic scholars boast and encourage Muslims in ‘kufr’ countries to convert more and more non-Muslims to Islam as a replacement for every Muslim life lost in Palestine. Basically, land claimed under Islamic rule must not be lost, while loss of Muslim lives can be compensated with luring in more converts to Islam.

Take a look at Afghanistan: for over two decades, America bombed and killed thousands of Afghan Muslims, occupied their land, and established its military settlements there. However, as soon as America made a policy blunder of withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan, the Taliban took over and declared that they never lost; rather, they defeated ‘superpower’ America since they did not lose their land.

Muslims mourn the loss of Spain even today, which in the Islamic world is better remembered as Andalusia or al-Andalus. Islamists across the world still harbour the dream that one day, either through war and conquest or through the ongoing tactic of migrate, alter, demographics, and establish Islamic dominance, they will re-Islamise Spain.

Why does Indian Jammu and Kashmir remain the ‘jugular vein’ of Pakistan? Because it is a question of territory. A Muslim-majority territory that could have been a part of the 78-year-old Islamic Republic but is governed by Hindu Kafirs.

Babri Zinda Hai: As long as Muslims cling to the concept of ‘once a waqf, always a waqf’, they will never truly accept a compromise or forfeit their claim

Islam’s definition of defeat is essentially loss of land.

This mindset is that once a land, no matter how, is claimed of and for Islam and Allah, no way it can be handed back into the hands of kafirs, and the claim, even if illegitimate, is not relinquished for any reason.

To be absolutely honest, beyond the apparent attempt at placating Islamist intransigence, it makes no sense that the Supreme Court allotted even 5-acre land to the Muslim side for a mosque.

The Indian Muslims, including the Muslim petitioners, are not descendants of Mughal invader Babur; they are not the inheritors or custodians of Mughal ‘legacy’ or structures erected in that era by virtue of being Muslims. The majority of the Muslims residing in the Indian Subcontinent, regardless of current borders, essentially are converted descendants of Hindus.

Despite this, the broader Muslim refusal to rally behind and fund the alternate or compensatory mosque, even though it is a judicially granted right, is rooted in the prioritisation of perpetual grievance and symbolic reclamation.

Intransigent Muslims would rather donate for a fake Babri Masjid in West Bengal than have any part in the construction of the “mosque of compromise” in Dhannipur.

Why? Because a significant section of Muslims, be it ordinary people in India and Pakistan or politicians, view the original Babri structure built after demolishing the Hindu temple at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi site as inalienably theirs regardless of what the court ruled.

Babri Zinda Hai is not a mere social media trend that pops up every year on 6th December or political rhetoric or means of mass mobilisation. It is a deep belief and hope that many Muslims harbour that one day, when the Nizam will change, the Ram Mandir will be demolished and Babri Masjid will be ‘reinstated’.

This belief is rooted in the Quranic idea that Islamic sanctity of certain sites transcends secular courts, democratic processes, or archaeological evidence.

In this framework, compromise is weakness and acceptance of an alternate mosque essentially means surrender. Thus, for Islamists, they did not lose the Shri Jamnbhoomi land dispute case to Hindus; rather, they treat it as only a setback that will one day be overturned by force.

Till then, the issue must remain ‘alive’ indefinitely, since finality would amount to conceding that Islamic claims over a territory are absolute or perpetual. This would open Pandora’s box, with Hindus reclaiming all their fully or partially destroyed or repurposed-as-mosques temples, be it Kashi Vishwanath, Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi, or Sambhal’s Harihar Mandir.

As Canada admits “no evidence” against India in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, read how Modi govt was attacked globally on the basis of lies and “credible allegations”

The prolonged geopolitical witch hunt against India, which was unleashed in the wake of the assassination of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Burnaby, has recently been exposed after Canada accepted that “no evidence” was discovered to substantiate the claims pertaining to the Modi government’s role in the incident.

“There is no evidence to suggest that, through this organised crime syndicate investigation and the charges laid forward, that Indian government officials would be charged or involved in this. Nothing has come out to link the Indian government,” highlighted Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Deputy Commissioner, Lisa Moreland.

The admission took place after the officials in the United States released an indictment accusing imprisoned gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and his North American accomplice Goldy Brar of planning Nijjar’s murder. The case is part of a larger action on organised criminal networks in the United States, Canada and Europe. However, the charges made by the US personnel did not point to any involvement of New Delhi in the matter.

Operation Hardball: Indian agencies help the US

On the contrary, India even cooperated in the probe. US law enforcement officers met with many central agencies in the Asian nation prior to “Operation Hardball” exchanging and confirming intelligence about mobsters Bishnoi, Brar, Rohit Godara, Jaggu Bhagwanpuria and their allies, reported The Indian Express. The operation is a multinational offensive led by federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Los Angeles, in collaboration with the RCMP and European authorities.

Insiders revealed, “After the deportation of gangster Anmol Bishnoi from the US (in November last year), who is wanted as the main plotter in the murder of NCP (Nationalist Congress Party) leader Baba Siddique, coordination between India’s central agencies and US law enforcement agencies improved significantly.”

They are reported to have given US officials access to a list of aides of Bishnoi and Brar alongside information about potential hiding places, during their latest communications. The sources mentioned, “In the last five years, several of their associates have been arrested here, and, during questioning, many of them unveiled details about Lawrence Bishnoi, his partners and their activities abroad. On the basis of their disclosures and technical surveillance, evidence was gathered against them.”

US authorities even visited the National Investigation Agency (NIA) headquarters in Delhi last year. The former discussed about connections between Indian-origin mafia and US drug cartels. They also requested for help in taking action against these culprits and offered a compilation of names. According to a central agency officer, inquiries into many cases had shown that the majority of these gangsters in US were in contact with smugglers in Pakistan for both targeted killings and the transportation of massive amounts of drugs into India through sea and drones.

Sources stated, “They are currently using VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) to mask their locations and encrypt communication, making it difficult to trace them. They also use encrypted messaging apps for secure communication, and it is difficult to track their channels.” 

The United States had aligned itself with Canada in its debunked opposition of India. An indictment submitted by Damian Williams, the former counsel for the Southern District of New York asserted that Nikhil Gupta, who was apprehended in a so-called conspiracy to eliminate banned Sikhs for Justice supremo Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, reportedly recognised that he was also involved in Nijjar’s murder and there were multiple other targets.

Now, the current legal breakthroughs have turned the original political narrative on its head which was built on dubious confessions and ludicrous charges of “transnational repression” against New Delhi.

When the Canadian government used “credible allegations” to attack India

Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau undertook a deliberate effort to attack India shortly after 45-year-old Nijjar’s death in 2023. Interestingly, the accusations were founded on “credible allegations” rather than empirical proof, terming it as a breach of his nation’s sovereignty. RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme announced that evidence has been uncovered tying the “agents of the Modi government” to homicides and other violent acts in the country.

However, India firmly denied the outrageous allegations and maintained that Canada has failed to back the same with evidence. It retorted that human traffickers and murderers have been granted refuge in the country. David Cohen, the American ambassador to Canada, conveyed that “shared intelligence among Five Eyes partners,” including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, was the basis of the charges.

Afterwards, a series of tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions unfolded as Ottawa was forced to withdraw 41 diplomats and their families after New Delhi threatened to revoke their diplomatic immunity, as the row resulted in a fast deterioration of ties. Canada temporarily stopped conducting in-person operations at its consulates in Bengaluru, Chandigarh and Mumbai.

The entire Canadian government rallied together to consistently criticise the Modi government, even going so far as to directly accuse the Minister of Home Affairs, Amit Shah, of orchestrating plots against Sikh separatists on Canadian territory. Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister David Morrison took his name while talking to “The Washington Post” and verified it before a parliamentary panel.

He and National Security Adviser Nathalie Drouin had revealed sensitive intelligence in relation to India’s “criminal activities” on Canadian soil with the media outlet. Moreover, the then Indian High Commissioner, Sanjay Verma, was identified as a person of interest in the investigation.

He and five other diplomats and consular officials were expelled as well as labelled as “persona non grata.” Canada had formally requested India to waive their diplomatic immunity in order to interrogate them over their supposed participation in violent criminal activity.

However, the submission was rejected. Indian officials were reduced to the position of criminals by the Trudeau government for political interests and to cater to the Khalistani voting bloc in the country. The Modi government also emphasised that it was necessary to repatriate them as it had lost confidence in the Canadian government’s commitment to their security, citing its support for extremism, violence and separatism against India.

It told Canada to withdraw several diplomatic staff and suspend visa services. India directed six Canadian diplomats, including acting High Commissioner Stewart Ross Wheeler, to leave the country.

Duheme argued that there had been “over a dozen credible and imminent threats to life” which were “specifically” targeting individuals linked to Khalistan movement. Hence, RCMP’s public intervention was needed and they “reached a point where we felt it was imperative to confront the government of India.”

Canada even released a report blaming “pro-Modi media” and “social media handles” for attacking Trudeau, the country’s high commissioner and its Sikh community. It contended that “propaganda” and “disinformation” about Nijjar’s murder were propagated by these media outlets. However, India remained firm on its stand and repeatedly rubbished all these remarks as “absurd, motivated and baseless.”

India-Canada relations were essentially in a state of free fall due to the policies of the Trudeau government, and began to mend only after Mark Carney replaced him last year, including the appointment of new high commissioners. The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations, which were also halted during this period, have been resumed at the G20 Summit in November.

“In the files that we have that involve transnational repression, we’re not seeing any connection right now with any foreign entity, based on the criminal information, the investigations that we have presently,” Duheme underscored in a startling confession in March.

USCIRF invokes “transnational repression of religious minorities”

How could the global anti-India coalition miss any chance to portray the country negatively, and they certainly did not disappoint. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) was “alarmed by India’s increased transnational targeting of religious minorities and those advocating on their behalf.”

Its Commissioner Stephen Schneck stressed that India’s purported part “in the killing of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada and the plot to kill Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in the United States was deeply troubling” in 2023. He added, “We call on the Biden administration to acknowledge the Indian government’s perpetration of particularly severe religious freedom violations and designate it as a country of particular concern (CPC).”

USCIRF has already gained notoriety for its hostility towards India and has repeatedly wanted the latter to be regarded as a “country of particular concern.” It also demanded a ban on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW). Gunisha Kaur, a fan girl of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale has been appointed to the commission in May. Hence, it is not surprising that they do not bother themselves with minor details like evidence to endorse their propaganda against India which has been disproven time and again.

Liberal media’s campaign to demean India

The liberal media, an inseparable element of this nexus, capitalised on the prime opportunity to assail India and commenced to portray the country as culpable in their articles. Hannah Ellis-Petersen of The Guardian, infamous for her hit jobs on the Modi government, Aakash Hassan and Shah Meer Baloch, authored an “investigative piece” insisting that the Indian government had been orchestrating the eliminations of terrorists outside its borders.

However, the article itself was discovered to contain glaring inaccuracies, which appear to stem not only from gross negligence but also from a perverse desire to depict the nation as a violator of international norms and standards. Pannun was not only declared deceased similar to Nijjar, but the responsibility was attributed to a “rogue agent” of R&AW by the British daily.

“Both men had been major advocates of the Khalistan movement, which seeks to create an independent Sikh state and is illegal in India. India denied any involvement in the killing of Nijjar, while according to a recent report, India’s own investigation into Pannun’s death concluded that it had been carried out by a rogue agent who was no longer working for Raw,” the article read.

Bloomberg also projected Nijjar and Pannun as “campaigners for Khalistan” in a dramatic article as if they had committed their lives to a for higher purpose, rather than being associated with terror conspiracies that seek to create bloodshed and challenge India’s integrity. The article functioned as a means of image rehabilitation, striving to reframe those accused of terrorism into icons of dissent while depicting India as a repressive entity trying to stifle their voices.

The Atlantic categorised Nijjar and Pannun as “Sikh nationalists” who are just against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and suggested that India’s potential hand in neutralising terrorists in other countries might please his admirers, but he cannot afford to damage ties with Canada and US. The burden of fostering these diplomatic links apparently lies exclusively with India as other nations can open aggressive diplomatic front without any credible proof.

The New York Post described the demand for the balkanisation of a nation which was divided on religious lines as “freedom” while admonishing India for branding Khalistanis as terrorists. It stated that the movement has “largely fizzled out decades ago” but the government continues to consider it “as a threat to national security – for reasons more mundane but no easier to weed out.”

Nijjar was just presented as a Sikh leader involved in “extortion schemes and other gang-related activities” as his profound history of terror was conveniently masked. The column then quoted Gunisha Kaur who also serves as the medical director of the Weill Cornell Center for Human Rights.

She claimed, “The threat of terrorism is used to exploit fear and justify the suppression and silencing of minorities,” remarking that the community has been targeted with “impunity” triggering the demand for an independent state. It even gave space to Pannun who also cried about “transnational terrorism.”

Pointing fingers at India and R&AW while providing cover for Khalistani terrorists

The Washington Post facilitated pro-Khalistan “journalists” such as Gerry Shih who utilised their pen as tool for their agenda in addition to whitewashing separatists. He was the New Delhi Bureau Chief for the media company before he was kicked out when over 300 staff members were laid off in February.

Shih and Greg Miller were behind the article on Canada’s allegations dragging Amit Shah and Verma following a tip-off from Drouin and Morrison. “We know they are involved in the Nijjar killing, in other murders and in ongoing violence – actual violence – in Canada,” it read, citing a senior Canadian official.

According to WaPo’s sources, India was running a coercive plot to press people of Indian origin to “act as informants” against “Sikh activists” and threatening them with deny visas as well as “physical threats to them and their families in India.” It added that “the information is being sent to India at almost the highest level.”

The article blamed “a senior official in India and a senior official in RAW,” for authorising attacks on Khalistanis. Canada used WaPo fundamentally as a shoulder to fire shots at India, but there was a complete dearth of proof from the two as their only goal was to spread propaganda much farther from the truth.

CNN host Fareed Zakaria, who advocated for US interference in India, downplayed Khalistani terrorism and criticised India for engaging in jingoism regarding the allegations from Canada. The son of former Congress Minister Rafiq Zakari insinuated that the subject of Khalistani terrorism was being overstated for political advantage by PM Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as the 2024 Lok Sabha elections approached.

These media organisations persistently tried to imply that government might be involved in Nijjar’s assassination and even implied that R&AW could be expanding its strategies for operations in Western countries and using criminal networks to carry out such assaults, all without any proof. India was unequivocally blamed while the Khalistanis were represented as activists, leaders and dissenters despite the substantial evidence to the contrary.

The brown sepoys of Indian media were equally active, as “The Quint” applied the charges made against Nikhil Gupta in the US as a mark of Canada’s vindication.

“How credible this is would eventually depend on the extent to which Gupta’s collusion with Indian officials gets established. The proof or the lack of it regarding India’s alleged involvement in Nijjar’s killing would be clear only when the evidence is presented when the case comes up in a court in Canada,” it conveyed since such claims have to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the misleading headline was intentionally placed to deceive the readers.

Islamo-leftist propaganda portal “The Wire” also referenced the same premises to attack the Modi government arguing that its “recklessness” was detrimental to the national interest. The article stated that the conversation between Gupta and Indian government official Vikash Yadav which were conducted through encrypted messages but were accessed by the US investigators could possibly represent the “credible allegations” referred by Trudeau, drawing such a preposterous link where none exists and would never have been even considered by him.

It mocked Indian intelligence agencies for failing to cover their tracks and asserted that Yadav provided incriminating evidence regarding the murder of Nijjar.

Conclusion

India has been consistently targeted by Canada and its allies, including the United States, who were resolutely over Nijjar’s demise. Media outlets, which already harbour significant bias against New Delhi and the Modi government, eagerly participated in the narrative, producing numerous articles insisting that India landed in diplomatic trouble owing to assassination attempts in other countries.

Trudeau severely compromised his country’s ties with India in his blind pursuit to appease Khalistanis for short-term political goals. He never supplied any convincing facts to corroborate his comments nor did those who backed the same. The entire foundation was constituted on dramatics, sensationalism and ambiguity.

The stark lack of evidence was conveniently brushed aside in favour of anti-India rhetoric as the nation was judged and convicted without proof while the terrorists were depicted as victims suffering because of the Modi government’s oppression. Canada and the US, known for its history of eliminating threats to its national security, saw detractors of India exercising their “freedom of speech” in separatists and extremists.

Their heinous actions were glossed over by this entire faction. Furthermore, this very cabal chooses to maintain a defensive silence when Khalistanis frequently attack not only Hindus and their places of worship but also Indian high commissions and diplomatic missions, which are just as vulnerable to their violent antics.

A bogus narrative was constructed on these falsehoods which has eventually collapsed under the weight of the truth. Of course, no one from Trudeau to the media houses or the US will be willing to acknowledge their grave errors and offer an apology. However, they might very well be devising another scheme against India as this specific effort has proven unsuccessful obviously with the unwavering support of Islamo-leftists and those whose resentment for PM Modi has morphed into a broader contempt for India.

India seals Uranium pact with Australia: How PM Modi achieved what eluded India for two decades

In a major diplomatic breakthrough, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has secured an agreement for Australia to export uranium to India for civilian nuclear use, ending nearly two decades of Australian resistance rooted in New Delhi’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The agreement was signed after bilateral talks between PM Modi and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Melbourne. Announcing the deal, PM Modi said, “We have signed an important agreement today on nuclear energy. This will pave the way for uranium supplies from Australia to India and give our clean energy objectives fresh momentum.”

The two countries said the arrangement would facilitate long-term uranium exports for “exclusively peaceful purposes” under safeguards monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The agreement marks a remarkable shift in Australia’s policy, which for nearly 20 years had consistently refused to sell uranium to India solely because it was not a signatory to the NPT.

Australia’s first ‘No’ came in 2006

Australia’s opposition to uranium exports to India began in March 2006, immediately after the landmark India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement announced by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush.

Although Washington agreed to cooperate with India’s civilian nuclear programme after New Delhi accepted international inspections of its civilian reactors, Australia refused to follow the US lead.

Then Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer made it clear that Canberra would not alter its long-standing policy of selling uranium only to countries that had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“If we were to export uranium to India, that would constitute a significant shift in our policy,” Downer had said, arguing that doing so would also raise questions about exports to countries such as Pakistan and Israel.

He further asserted that Australia preferred to support the NPT and hoped India would eventually become a signatory before any uranium trade could take place.

Ironically, while refusing to sell uranium to India, Australia continued negotiations to export the mineral to China, citing Beijing’s status as an NPT signatory.

2008: Labour government formally shuts the door

Australia’s position hardened further after the Labour Party came to power in late 2007.

In January 2008, then Foreign Minister Stephen Smith informed India’s special envoy Shyam Saran that Australia would not authorise uranium exports to India unless it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The decision effectively reversed the previous John Howard government’s 2007 in-principle willingness to consider uranium exports to India, subject to stringent conditions, including IAEA safeguards, consensus within the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), completion of the India-US nuclear agreement and additional safeguards.

Smith reiterated that refusing uranium exports to non-NPT countries had always been the Australian Labour Party’s policy.

2010: ‘No prospect for a change’

Australia maintained the same position even after the India-US nuclear deal had become operational.

In April 2010, Canberra once again ruled out selling uranium to India, insisting there was “no prospect for a change” in its policy because India remained outside the NPT. Then Trade Minister Simon Crean reiterated that Australia could not supply uranium to countries that were not signatories to the treaty. 

For years, successive Indian governments argued that uranium imports were essential for expanding clean energy generation and that India’s nuclear record was responsible despite its non-NPT status. Canberra, however, remained unmoved.

Modi-era breakthrough

The agreement signed in 2026 marks the most significant reversal in Australia’s uranium policy towards India.

Despite India continuing to remain outside the NPT, Australia has now agreed to supply uranium under IAEA safeguards exclusively for peaceful civilian use, reflecting the strategic trust that has developed between the two countries.

Australia possesses around 28 per cent of the world’s known uranium reserves, making it one of the largest holders of the critical resource.

For India, the deal is expected to support its target of achieving 100 GW of nuclear power capacity by 2047, an important pillar of the country’s clean energy transition.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the arrangement would help increase India’s share of non-fossil-fuel electricity generation.

Beyond uranium

The uranium agreement formed part of a broader package of strategic initiatives announced during Modi’s visit.

The two leaders agreed to deepen defence cooperation, strengthen supply chains for critical minerals and establish a temporary Indian space tracking terminal on Australia’s Cocos (Keeling) Islands to support Indian space missions.

India is now Australia’s fifth-largest trading partner, with bilateral trade in goods and services reaching AUD 54.4 billion (USD 37.7 billion) during the 2024-25 financial year.

For India, the significance of the uranium agreement extends beyond energy security. It marks the culmination of a diplomatic journey that began with repeated Australian refusals in 2006, was reaffirmed in 2008 and 2010, and has finally ended in 2026 with Canberra agreeing to export uranium to India despite New Delhi continuing to remain outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Why Australia changed course after two decades

Australia’s decision to supply uranium to India is not merely an energy agreement;it reflects a profound transformation in Indo-Australian ties and the changing geopolitical landscape of the Indo-Pacific.

A key factor has been PM Narendra Modi’s sustained diplomatic outreach, which has elevated India-Australia relations from a transactional partnership to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Over the past decade, bilateral engagement has expanded significantly across defence, maritime security, critical minerals, technology, trade and intelligence sharing, fostering unprecedented strategic trust between Canberra and New Delhi.

The agreement also reflects the convergence of strategic interests between the two democracies. Both India and Australia increasingly view a stable, rules-based Indo-Pacific as vital to their national interests and have emerged as key partners in platforms such as the Quad.

The broader geopolitical environment has also altered Australia’s strategic calculations. China’s growing military assertiveness and economic coercion in the Indo-Pacific have prompted Canberra to diversify its strategic and economic partnerships. At the same time, uncertainty over the long-term reliability and consistency of the United States under Trump as a security guarantor has encouraged middle powers such as Australia to build stronger partnerships with like-minded countries, with India emerging as one of the most important.

These changing realities have diminished the relevance of Australia’s earlier objections based solely on India’s non-signatory status to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. While India continues to remain outside the NPT, it has built a strong international reputation as a responsible nuclear power with an impeccable non-proliferation record and civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards.

For Australia, the uranium agreement also serves an economic purpose. Home to nearly 28 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves, the country is seeking to diversify export markets beyond its heavy dependence on China. India, meanwhile, aims to achieve 100 GW of nuclear power capacity by 2047 as part of its clean energy transition.

The uranium pact, therefore, represents more than the resolution of a long-standing policy dispute. It signals Australia’s recognition of India’s growing strategic weight and reflects how geopolitical realities have reshaped a policy that remained unchanged from 2006, through 2008 and 2010, before finally giving way in 2026.

Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra in govt schools? Chhattisgarh HC says yes for now, but leaves the door open for future challenges

The Chhattisgarh High Court has given the green signal to the State Government’s order requiring government-run schools to include the recitation of the National Anthem, National Song, Deep Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, Guru Mantra, Shanti Mantra, and stories about the lives of great personalities at the start of the school day. The court has upheld the state government’s decision, saying that the order does not force students to act against their religious beliefs or conscience. 

The court dismissed a petition challenging the government’s 12th June 2026 circular, calling it “premature” because there was no evidence that any student’s fundamental rights had actually been violated or that anyone had suffered direct harm because of the policy.

Delivering the order, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that the circular, when read in its entirety, did not contain any compulsory or coercive direction requiring students to take part in activities that go against their faith.

“A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 12.6.2026 reveals that it does not contain any mandatory or coercive direction compelling students to act in a manner contrary to their respective religious beliefs, conscience or faith,” the court said.

An excerpt from the Judgement

What does the government order say?

The dispute relates to a circular issued on 12th June this year by the School Education Department of the Chhattisgarh government for the academic session 2026-27. Under the order, students in government-run schools are expected to begin the school day with the National Anthem, National Song, Deep Mantra, Saraswati Vandana, Guru Mantra, Shanti Mantra and short accounts of the lives of great personalities or “Mahapurushas”.

On top of that, at the end of the school day, students are expected to recite the Rajya Geet, Gayatri Mantra and Shanti Mantra. 

The state government has argued that the initiative is aimed at promoting discipline, cultural awareness, focus and values among students and should not be viewed as religious instruction.

Petitioners argued the circular violates constitutional rights

The petition was filed directly before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking cancellation of the circular and a declaration that compulsory recitation of the prayers would be unconstitutional.

The petitioners included a former chairman of the State Waqf Board, a former minister handling minority affairs in the state and the district president of a religious action trust.

Represented by advocate Dr Aamir Khan, the petitioners argued that the inclusion of Saraswati Vandana, Gayatri Mantra, Guru Mantra and Shanti Mantra amounted to religious instruction in state-funded schools, something that is prohibited under the Constitution.

They argued that the circular violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), 25 (Freedom of Religion), 28(1) (which prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds), 29 (protecting the cultural and educational interests of minorities and citizens) and 30 (empowering religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions) of the Constitution. They also alleged that it creates a situation where students from minority communities could feel pressured to participate in prayers and practices that do not belong to their faith.

According to the petitioners, India’s constitutional commitment to secularism means that no student can be directed to follow or practice the customs of a particular religion in a government educational institution.

Court says Article 28 does not prohibit moral instruction

One of the main questions before the court was whether the prayers and mantras mentioned in the circular amounted to “religious instruction” under Article 28(1) of the Constitution.

Article 28(1) states that no religious instruction can be provided in educational institutions that are fully funded by the State. However, the High Court said the phrase “religious instruction” has a limited and specific meaning.

“However, a plain reading of clause (1) of Article 28 makes it clear that the provision does not ban moral instruction, disassociated from any denominational doctrines, which remains an essential part of training in citizenship, maintenance of law and order in the State and growth of social cohesion. In light of the foregoing, this Court believes that the petition is entirely premature, based on mere apprehension rather than any actual grievance. Thus, at this stage, the reliefs sought by the petitioners cannot be granted”, the court observed.

An excerpt from the judgement

The bench noted that teachings related to values, discipline and social responsibility cannot automatically be treated as religious instruction simply because they have roots in ancient Indian traditions.

State says the policy promotes culture and values, not religion

The Chhattisgarh government, represented by Deputy Advocate General Anand Dadariya, argued that the challenge was based entirely on assumptions rather than actual incidents.

The state maintained that the policy was in line with the objectives of the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP), which encourages the inclusion of Indian Knowledge Systems in education to strengthen cultural understanding and awareness.

Government lawyers argued that verses such as the Shanti Mantra and other traditional invocations promote universal well-being, gratitude towards nature and ecological balance rather than any particular religious doctrine.

The state also informed the court that students who choose not to participate in the recitations would not face punishment, disciplinary action or any negative consequences.

Officials further stated that the policy had already been implemented and no complaint of coercion or discrimination had been received from any student or parent.

Court leaves the door open for future challenges

After considering the arguments from both sides, the High Court concluded that the challenge was based on apprehension rather than evidence of actual harm. The court said, “In light of the foregoing, this Court thinks that the petition is entirely premature, based on mere apprehension rather than any actual grievance. Thus, at this stage, the reliefs sought by the petitioners cannot be granted.”

An excerpt from the Judgement

At the same time, the court made it clear that the petitioners would be free to approach the judiciary again in the future if any instance of coercion or violation of rights emerges during implementation of the policy.

For now, the state’s school prayer policy will continue to remain in force across government schools in Chhattisgarh.

Why the Nashik Court invoked Lord Krishna while granting bail to ‘pregnant’ Nida Khan, accused of forceful religious conversion in TCS case

A Nashik court recently invoked Lord Krishna while granting bail to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Nashik BPO sexual harassment and religious coercion case accused Nida Khan, citing her pregnancy as the reason for releasing her. Additional Sessions Judge KG Joshi granted Nida Khan bail, observing that social stigma will be attached to her child if it is born in prison. Nida Khan, who is five months pregnant, was arrested earlier in May.

The Additional Sessions Judge went on to compare the situation to the birth of the Hindu God Krishna, who was also born in a prison. The court described the birth of a child while the mother is in prison as a “painful situation”. “The trauma of taking birth in prison, like Lord Krishna or the social stigma attached to it, is not something that anyone can bear. To avoid such a painful situation and to welcome the newborn baby and the overall welfare, it would be just and proper to exercise judicial discretion in favour of the applicant accused,” ASJ Joshi noted in the bail order dated 6th July, as reported by Bar and Bench.  

The court further justified the bail, citing that the investigation in the case was complete and the chargesheet had been filed. Therefore, there was no reason to keep her in custody. “There is no pending seizure or discovery of any property. The prosecution has not sought her custody for further investigation. No purpose will be served by keeping the applicant in jail,” the court stated in the 10-page order. 

After securing bail, Nida Khan filed an application for the modification of the bail order, which required her to submit a surety of ₹75,000. Khan told the court that she was pregnant and poor and could not pay the said amount. She said that no one was available at her house to submit the security amount immediately and requested the court to reduce the amount of surety. The court partly allowed her application and allowed her to be released on executing a personal bond of ₹75,000 and depositing a provisional cash security of 50,000 immediately. The court granted her four weeks to furnish the original security amount of ₹75,000.

What is the case against Nida Khan?

Nida Khan was arrested on 7th May, almost one-and-a-half months after the FIRs were filed against seven accused for sexual harassment and religious persecution of Hindu female employees at a Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) Nashik BPO in Nashik, Maharashtra. Her anticipatory bail plea was earlier rejected by the court.

Khan’s co-accused, Tausif Attar, was also granted bail, while the bail plea of another co-accused, Danish Shaikh, was rejected. According to the complaint filed against Nida Khan, she provided a burqa, shared religious material, installed Islamic applications on the complainant’s phone, and visited her home to impart religious practices.

The case emerged in March 2026 when a Dalit woman employee of a TCS BPO unit in Nashik filed a complaint against Danish Sheikh, accusing him of rape on the pretext of marriage, sexual exploitation, harassment and forcing her to convert to Islam. More women came forward soon, levelling serious allegations of workplace sexual harassment, molestation, abuse and insult to their Hindu faith by certain employees of the same BPO. Nine FIRs were filed in the matter, and it was mentioned by the victims that their attempts to raise complaints with the BPO’s management were ignored by the HR and the concerned authorities.

‘Son of a B**ch’: Why Paraguayan Senator Celeste Amarilla is locked in a bitter feud with France star Kylian Mbappé

The 2026 FIFA World Cup has produced its fair share of dramatic footballing moments, but one of the tournament’s biggest controversies has unfolded far away from the pitch. What began as anger over a post-match handshake has spiralled into a diplomatic row involving accusations of racism, sexism, legal threats, government interventions, and international condemnation.

At the centre of the storm are Paraguayan Senator Celeste Amarilla and France captain Kylian Mbappé. The feud reached a fresh low when Amarilla called the French footballer a “son of a b**” during a speech on the Senate floor, days after Mbappé allegedly described her as a “despicable woman and unworthy of her office.”

What exactly triggered the unprecedented exchange? Why has the controversy attracted the attention of FIFA, the United Nations, the French government, and Paraguay’s own administration? Here’s everything that has happened so far.

The match that sparked the controversy

The dispute traces its origins to France’s tense 1-0 victory over Paraguay in the FIFA World Cup Round of 16.

The encounter was fiercely contested, with Mbappé eventually scoring the decisive goal from the penalty spot to send France into the quarter-finals. However, instead of discussions centring on the football, attention soon shifted to an alleged incident after the final whistle.

According to Amarilla, Mbappé refused to shake hands with Paraguay goalkeeper Orlando Gill, who had reportedly approached him after the match. The senator claimed the French forward shouted at the goalkeeper and dismissed his gesture.

Whether the interaction unfolded exactly as Amarilla described remains disputed, but she has repeatedly cited the alleged snub as the principal reason behind her criticism of the French striker.

Speaking in Paraguay’s Senate, Amarilla said:

“When Orlando Gill, a boy who was surely setting foot in a World Cup for the first time, in Europe for the first time, was playing before the world and extends his hand with all the humility of a Paraguayan, and this son of a b**** refuses to shake his hand and yells in his face, that is not French. A Frenchman would never have done that.”

The remarks represented yet another escalation in an already bitter public feud.

The controversy began with racial remarks

The senator’s latest insult came only after she had already attracted global condemnation for making racial comments against Mbappé.

In a series of social media posts following Paraguay’s defeat, Amarilla described the French captain as a “colonised Cameroonian” who had merely “pretended to be French.”

She further labelled him arrogant, embittered, ugly, nouveau riche, and cowardly.

She also mocked his education and repeatedly questioned his French identity despite Mbappé being born and raised in France.

The remarks immediately drew outrage across Europe and Latin America.

Critics pointed out that questioning a French citizen’s nationality because of his African heritage echoed a form of racial discrimination that many European footballers have faced throughout their careers.

Mbappé hits back

Unlike many footballers who choose to ignore political criticism, Mbappé publicly responded.

The France captain accused Amarilla of racism and said she had brought embarrassment to Paraguay rather than honour.

He reportedly wrote that the senator was unworthy of the office she occupies and stressed that she did not represent Paraguay or its people.

Mbappé also argued that Amarilla’s comments had overshadowed Paraguay’s impressive World Cup campaign.

He added that he would never allow racism and hatred to spread unchecked, regardless of who expressed it.

His response only intensified the confrontation.

Amarilla demands an apology, and threatens legal action

Instead of withdrawing from the dispute, Amarilla published an extraordinary open letter addressed directly to Mbappé.

While she admitted that some of her earlier comments had been made “in the heat of the moment” and acknowledged deleting several offensive posts, she demanded that Mbappé apologise to her.

She argued that calling her “despicable” and “unworthy” amounted to gender-based political violence.

The senator claimed she could initiate legal proceedings against the footballer under laws dealing with violence against women in politics.

She wrote:

“This is gender-based violence, plain and simple.”

She insisted that Mbappé retract his remarks or face possible legal consequences.

In another dramatic warning, Amarilla invoked the case of Brazilian football legend Ronaldinho, who was detained in Paraguay in 2020 over passport-related offences.

“Don’t mess with Paraguayans,” she warned.

The “son of a b****” remark

Far from calming the situation, Amarilla reignited the controversy this week by using even stronger language inside the Paraguayan Senate.

Referring once again to the alleged handshake incident involving Orlando Gill, she called Mbappé a son of a b**.”

She also sought to distinguish the French footballer from France itself.

According to Amarilla, France represents the intellectual traditions of philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, René Descartes and Montesquieu, writers like Victor Hugo, and thinkers including Simone de Beauvoir.

“I refuse to reduce all of that great France and that enormous cultural, artistic and democratic legacy to Mbappé,” she declared.

United Nations condemns Amarilla’s remarks

The controversy soon moved beyond football.

The United Nations Human Rights Office condemned Amarilla’s comments, describing them as racist and dehumanising.

UN human rights spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan stated that the senator’s remarks were “despicable” and highlighted the persistence of racism directed at footballers around the world.

The intervention by the UN significantly elevated what had initially appeared to be a sporting controversy.

Paraguay distances itself from its own senator

The Paraguayan government also moved quickly to clarify that Amarilla’s views did not represent the country’s official position.

The country’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement condemning her comments and reaffirming Paraguay’s commitment to human dignity, equality, human rights, opposition to racism, and opposition to xenophobia.

The ministry further expressed solidarity with those offended by Amarilla’s statements and reiterated Paraguay’s respect for France.

Such public distancing from a sitting senator is relatively rare and underscored the seriousness with which the government viewed the diplomatic fallout.

FIFA and France respond

The controversy also prompted reactions from football authorities.

Gianni Infantino said FIFA unequivocally condemned the racist abuse directed at Mbappé.

Meanwhile, the French Football Federation announced plans to pursue criminal legal action over Amarilla’s comments.

The federation described the senator’s remarks as unacceptable and contrary to football’s commitment against discrimination.

France’s public prosecutor also reportedly opened an investigation after receiving complaints relating to aggravated public insult and incitement to hatred.

President Macron backs Mbappé

French President Emmanuel Macron also entered the debate.

Posting on social media, Macron wrote:

“Another goal for Kylian Mbappé. Against racism this time.”

He added that France’s response would always be rooted in dignity, fraternity and respect.

The presidential intervention reflected how the controversy had evolved from a football dispute into an issue touching national identity and racial discrimination.

France coach says Mbappé remains focused

Despite the growing off-field drama, France manager Didier Deschamps insisted the controversy had not affected his captain.

Ahead of France’s World Cup quarter-final against Morocco, Deschamps told reporters:

“Kylian is in a good place mentally. He’s ready for tomorrow.”

France have attempted to keep the matter from becoming a distraction during their World Cup campaign.

Another controversy involving Paraguay

Interestingly, Amarilla was not the only Paraguayan public figure to attract criticism during the World Cup.

Former Paraguay goalkeeper José Luis Chilavert also sparked outrage before the France match by suggesting Paraguay would face “a squad from Africa” rather than France.

His comments were widely criticised as racially insensitive and further intensified scrutiny of anti-Black rhetoric surrounding the tournament.

Beyond football: Where criticism crosses the line

Sport naturally evokes passion. Players can be criticised for poor performances, controversial conduct or perceived arrogance. If Mbappé indeed refused a post-match handshake, fans and commentators are entitled to debate whether that reflected poor sportsmanship.

However, there is a fundamental distinction between criticising behaviour and attacking someone’s race, ancestry or identity.

Amarilla’s initial comments did not merely question Mbappé’s conduct. By referring to him as a “colonised Cameroonian” who was only “pretending to be French”, she challenged his legitimacy as a French citizen because of his ethnic background. That is precisely why her remarks drew condemnation from the United Nations, FIFA, the French government and even Paraguay’s own administration.

Her subsequent attempt to partially retract the racial insults while simultaneously escalating the personal feud, culminating in calling Mbappé a “son of a b****” in Parliament, has done little to repair the damage.

Likewise, if Mbappé indeed described the senator as “despicable” and “unworthy of office”, those remarks reflect the heated nature of the exchange. But equating criticism from a footballer with gender-based political violence while continuing to use abusive language herself has struck many observers as contradictory.

A controversy that overshadows football

Paraguay’s remarkable World Cup campaign should have been remembered for exceeding expectations and reaching the knockout stages. France’s victory should have been discussed in terms of Mbappé’s match-winning performance and Les Bleus’ march towards another World Cup title.

Instead, the tournament has become engulfed in a row that has drawn in politicians, football administrators, international organisations and heads of state.

With criminal complaints reportedly under consideration, diplomatic statements issued by governments, and global condemnation of racist rhetoric, what began as a dispute over a handshake has transformed into one of the most extraordinary off-field controversies of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Whether the exchange ends with apologies, legal proceedings or continued public confrontation, it has already demonstrated how quickly sporting rivalries can spill into politics, and how remarks made in the heat of the moment can overshadow achievements on the football pitch.

From calling Ramayana ‘cartoon’, making gaumutra jibes to harassing TMC critics with FIRs: Meet Nilanjan Das, the henchman of Mamata Banerjee who was thrashed by the public

It has been two months since the BJP ended the 15-year tyrannical rule of the Trinamool Congress; however, the public anger against TMC leaders has not yet subsided. After Abhishek Banerjee and Kalyan Banerjee, TMC leader Nilanjan Das has reportedly met the blunt end of the ire of Bengali people. On 8th July, TMC IT Cell head and spokesperson Nilanjan Das was assaulted by locals in Kolkata’s Bhowanipore area.

Several videos have surfaced online, showing Nilanjan Das being confronted by a group of people, who also thrashed and dragged him. Meanwhile, the TMC IT Cell head is seen crying and begging at times.

In the video, angry locals could be heard calling Nilanjan Das “chor chor”.

Nilanjan Das getting manhandled in Kolkata’s Bhawanipore is politically significant. Bhawanipore is considered TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee’s stronghold.

Das was dragged by angry locals while he was interacting with a journalist. However, a police official intervened and escorted the TMC leader away.

From threatening FIRs against critics for a sport to facing public fury: Who is TMC leader Nilanjan Das?

Nilanjan Das is a prominent TMC leader and the party’s spokesperson making regular appearances on TV news debate programs. Das serves as State General Secretary and head’s TMC’s IT and Social Media Wing.

The TMC leader has an opprobrious record of threatening FIRs against anyone who criticized his party or Mamata Banerjee.

Nilanjan Das is a close aide of TMC motormouth MP Mahua Moitra.

In December 2025, the TMC State General Secretary, IT & Social Media Wing, Nilanjan Das filed a complaint against Shashank Singh, the man behind the popular X handle “Befitting Facts” over his posts criticising the TMC government over the gross mismanagement during the visit of global football icon Lionel Messi in Kolkata. The X user had also published critical posts against Mahua Moitra.

Singh was arrested after Das had filed a cyber complaint on 11th December, accusing Befitting Facts and another X user, Subham, of circulating “fake, fabricated and defamatory posts” accusing TMC MP Mahua Moitra of smoking e-cigarettes inside the parliament.

Sharing the complaint on his X handle, Nilanjan Das wrote, “Filed a complaint against BJP IT cell morons @subhsays @BefittingFacts for posting baseless, defamatory tweets against MP @MahuaMoitra.”

Nilanjan Das’s verified X handle was suspended by X at that time.

In April this year, Nilanjan Das got an FIR registered against an X user for posting a cartoon of then West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

An X user criticised Das’s hounding tactics, saying that India is a democracy, and that the TMC leader should be ashamed.

In response, Nilanjan Das issued a veiled threat and wrote, “You’ll see democracy in action after 4th May.”

Das was apparently talking about TMC’s post-poll violent political retribution against the BJP and its supporters. However, the Bengali people handed a grand victory to the BJP and a humiliating defeat to the TMC.

Over recent years, Nilanjan Das has targeted numerous critics of the TMC regime through online intimidation and FIRs.

Back in June 2024, the people of a housing society in Kolkata were being punished by the TMC government for voting in favour of the BJP.

Garbage was being dumped outside ‘Sunrise Heights’ in the Beleghata neighbourhood of Central Kolkata as 543 residents of the housing complex voted against TMC.

Demonstrating peak shamelessness, Nilanjan Das ubbed the action of dumping garbage outside the housing society as a ‘non-violent means of revenge.’

The Trinamool Congress is home to several Hinduphobe politicians be it Sayoni Gosh or Mamata Banerjee herself who boasts of fighting Hindu Kafirs. Nilanjan Das is also among the TMC’s top Hinduphobes.

Back in 2020 when the nation was observing a lockdown in the wake of Covid pandemic, Nilanjan Das published an X post derisively referring to Ramayana, the Hindu epic, as a cartoon. He also hurled the ‘gomutra’ jibe.

In another post, Nilanjan Das echoed what Congress said in 2007 when it questioned the existence of Lord Ram. “What God? A mythological character in Ramayana epic,” Das wrote.

In addition to online Hinduphobia, and issuing FIR threats against critical voices, Nilanjan Das also has track record of insulting ideological adversaries.

In July 2025, when popular actor and BJP leader Rupali Ganguly criticised then CM Mamata Banerjee’s governance, Nilanjan Das came to Banerjee’s defence. Das, however, did not counter Ganguly’s remarks, rather he dismissed her as a “flop soap actress”.

“The seniormost stateswoman of India doesn’t need lectures from a flop soap actress. FO!,” Das wrote on 19th July 2025.

Demonstrating his goon-like behaviour, Das called senior government advisor Kanchan Gupta an “old hag” during a live TV debate on post-poll violence in Bengal.

After May 4 election results in West Bengal, reports emerged at least two FIRs were filed against Nilanjan Das, one in Serampore in Bengal, and the other in Assam. Das had temporarily deactivated his X account back then.

Unsurprisingly, many people on social media are calling the assault against Nilanjan Das in Kolkata as “Karma”, for he is finally facing the same threats and intimidation he subjected his party’s critics to for years.

Australia’s biggest retirement fund is investing in India’s infrastructure fund to seek better returns for pension savers, read details

On 9th July, Prime Minister Narendra Modi shared on social media platform X that AustralianSuper had invested AU$500 million into the National Investment and Infrastructure Fund (NIIF). He added that the announcement was made by AustralianSuper Chief Executive Paul Schroder in Melbourne. PM Modi described the investment as another sign of global confidence in India’s growth story. PM Modi is currently in Australia as part of his 5-day trip to Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand.

In his post, PM Modi said, “India welcomes the AU$500 million investment from AustralianSuper, announced by their Chief Executive, Mr Paul Schroder this morning in Melbourne. This is yet another glimpse of the global confidence in India’s growth and reform trajectory. It also reflects the immense opportunities that our dynamic economy offers global investors.”

According to the press release issued by AustralianSuper, it will deepen its commitment to India’s NIIF with the fresh AU$500 million investment. With this, the fund’s overall holdings in India across all asset classes will rise to AU$3.3 billion.

Why Australian retirement money is looking beyond Australia

AustralianSuper is Australia’s largest superannuation fund. It manages more than AU$410 billion in retirement savings for over 3.6 million members. It is not a government provident fund like India’s EPFO. It is a profit-for-member fund which invests workers’ retirement savings across asset classes to generate long-term returns.

The retirement system in Australia works differently from India’s EPFO-style structure. In Australia, employers are required to pay superannuation contributions into an eligible employee’s super fund. Most employees can choose their own fund. If they do not choose one, it is the responsibility of the employer to check if the employee already has a “stapled” super fund. If that is not the case, the employer pays into a default fund. This makes the system competitive rather than centralised.

The scale of the retirement system is massive. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) data showed total Australian superannuation assets at AU$4.4 trillion as of March 2026. Out of this, AU$3.1 trillion was in APRA-regulated funds. Employer contributions alone stood at AU$159 billion in FY 2025-26. It means Australian super funds constantly need large and stable investment opportunities to keep members’ retirement money growing.

This is why domestic investments have limitations. Australia has shares, bonds, property and infrastructure opportunities. However, its superannuation pool has grown faster than the domestic economy and capital market. According to AustralianSuper, the country’s superannuation industry is equivalent to 159% of Australia’s GDP and 129% of the total ASX market capitalisation. In simple terms, the retirement savings pool has become bigger than what Australia’s own market can comfortably absorb.

That is why Australian super funds are increasingly investing overseas. According to Deutsche Bank, by the end of 2024, 48% of Australian super fund assets were held internationally. It said funds were moving offshore for greater liquidity, more diverse investment opportunities and because their growth was outstripping the domestic economy. It also noted that super funds already own just under a quarter of the ASX.

For large funds like AustralianSuper, India offers exactly the kind of long-term growth market they need. Infrastructure, equities and private markets in India give them avenues that are difficult to find at the same scale in Australia alone. AustralianSuper’s fresh AU$500 million commitment to NIIF comes after its earlier AU$240 million investment in 2019 became one of its best-performing infrastructure assets. The fund’s total India exposure will now rise to AU$3.3 billion.

In other words, this is not a routine foreign investment announcement. One of Australia’s biggest pools of retirement money is looking at India as a serious long-term wealth creation destination. For ordinary Australians, their retirement savings are being placed in Indian infrastructure because the fund sees better returns, policy stability and growth opportunities here.

What AustralianSuper has to say about the investment

The latest investment is an addition to AustralianSuper’s original AU$240 million commitment to NIIF in 2019. According to the company’s statement, that investment became one of its best-performing infrastructure assets for the members of AustralianSuper.

The company added that the strong performance of the previous investment was one of the reasons behind the fresh commitment. AustralianSuper Chief Investment Officer Shaun Manuell said that the fund’s investment in NIIF has been one of its most successful partnerships.

He said, “AustralianSuper’s investment in the NIIF has been one of our most successful partnerships and that’s why we’re excited to invest again to help drive returns for members.”

Manuell added that the experience with NIIF showed what could be achieved when long-term capital was combined with visionary policy, trusted institutions and strong partnerships.

Policy consistency helped India attract the fund

The investment by AustralianSuper shows that policy consistency in India played a key role in its decision to invest further. Manuell said India remained an attractive investment destination because of its strong economic growth and expanding middle class.

He added that the Indian government had made it easier for institutions to deploy capital successfully. The company said it was making a second investment in NIIF because India’s fundamental strengths were still intact and it saw the potential for more returns for its members.

“India is an attractive place to invest due to its strong economic growth and expanding middle class, and the Indian government has made it easier for institutions to deploy capital successfully,” Manuell said.

What is NIIF

The National Investment and Infrastructure Fund was established in 2015 to attract investors from across the world and deploy capital into infrastructure development in India. Its headquarters are located in Mumbai, India.

The governing council of NIIF comprises Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs Nirmala Sitharaman, Secretary of Department of Economic Affairs Anuradha Thakur, Secretary of Department of Financial Services M Nagaraju, Chairman of State Bank of India Challa Sreenivasulu Setty, Chairman of DSP Group Hemendra Kothari and Founder and Director of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Uday Kotak.

According to NIIF’s website, its Investment Committee (IC) is the key pillar of the governance structure. It is responsible for all investment and divestment decisions and reviews investment performance regularly. The managing director and CEO and the CIO are the team members of the IC.

In 2017, NIIF Sustainable Infrastructure Fund, also known as Master Fund-1, achieved its first close with a commitment of USD 300+ million. The final close of the fund came in December 2020 at USD 2.34 billion. This particular fund is the largest domestic infrastructure fund and invests in high-quality businesses and assets across core sectors including ports, airports, renewable energy and digital infrastructure. The investments have been made in five states including Rajasthan, Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.

In February 2021, NIIF Private Markets Fund’s final close came with total capital commitments of USD 600 million. In 2023, NIIF launched around USD 600 million bilateral India-Japan Fund. The Government of India and Japan Bank for International Cooperation were the anchor investors. Today, NIIF has USD 4.9 billion in AUM across its funds.

Global pension and sovereign funds looking at India

The Modi government has increasingly tried to attract large global retirement, pension and sovereign wealth funds to India in recent years. Apart from AustralianSuper, funds from Canada, Quebec, Norway and the Netherlands have also increased their exposure to India in different sectors.

The latest AustralianSuper investment adds to that trend. It shows that India is no longer being seen only as a consumption market. For major global funds, India is also becoming a serious destination for long-term infrastructure and retirement-linked capital.