Home Blog Page 4

Trump’s Saudi nuclear pact explained: Can Riyadh now enrich uranium for a bomb?

Divya Bharti
-
0
Trump’s Saudi nuclear pact explained: Can Riyadh now enrich uranium for a bomb?

US President Donald Trump has approved a major civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia. This move could reshape energy ties between the two countries while also triggering concerns over nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East.

The proposed agreement, expected to remain in force for 30 years and valued at tens of billions of dollars, will allow American companies to play the leading role in building Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear programme. At the same time, the deal could pave the way for the kingdom to enrich uranium on its own soil under certain conditions, marking a significant shift in US policy toward nuclear cooperation in the region.

The Trump administration is expected to send the agreement to the US Congress in the coming days for review.

A 30-year nuclear partnership

At the heart of the package is a “123 Agreement,” the legal framework that governs US nuclear cooperation with other countries. Such agreements are required under the US Atomic Energy Act before American companies can transfer nuclear technology or equipment abroad.

Under the proposed arrangement, US firms will build nuclear power reactors and supply other civilian nuclear technologies to Saudi Arabia. The deal is also designed to give American companies a dominant position in the Saudi nuclear market while limiting opportunities for competing suppliers from countries such as Russia and China.

Administration officials argue that this approach will strengthen US-Saudi relations, support America’s nuclear industry and keep Washington closely involved in Saudi Arabia’s nuclear programme rather than allowing rival powers to fill that role.

Uranium enrichment provision draws attention

One of the most closely watched parts of the agreement is its approach to uranium enrichment.

Unlike many countries that import enriched uranium for use in civilian nuclear reactors, Saudi Arabia could eventually be allowed to enrich uranium within its own territory.

According to the agreement, American and Saudi officials will first conduct a joint two-year study to determine whether domestic uranium enrichment is commercially practical and necessary for the kingdom’s civilian nuclear programme.

If the study concludes that local enrichment is justified, the United States would build the enrichment facility in Saudi Arabia. The plant would reportedly operate under a “black box” arrangement, meaning sensitive enrichment technology would remain under American control and would not be transferred to Saudi authorities.

Trump administration officials say this model would allow Saudi Arabia to produce fuel for civilian reactors while preventing the misuse of enrichment technology for military purposes.

The agreement also states that if Washington decides not to proceed with uranium enrichment after the study, Saudi Arabia would not be allowed to build an enrichment facility independently or with another foreign partner for the next 10 years.

Missing safeguards raise concerns

Despite these assurances, the agreement has attracted criticism because it leaves out several safeguards that have traditionally been part of US nuclear cooperation agreements.

Most notably, Saudi Arabia has not accepted the so-called “Gold Standard.” This provision, included in the US nuclear agreement with the United Arab Emirates, requires a country to permanently give up uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

The Saudi agreement does not include that commitment.

It also does not require Saudi Arabia to adopt the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Additional Protocol. The Additional Protocol gives the UN nuclear watchdog wider inspection powers, including the ability to conduct inspections at undeclared nuclear sites if concerns arise.

Instead of following this internationally recognised inspection system, the United States and Saudi Arabia are expected to establish their own bilateral safeguards for monitoring nuclear activities linked to the agreement.

But many Middle East experts have alleged that these arrangements may not provide the same level of transparency as the IAEA’s enhanced inspection regime.

Why uranium enrichment matters

The debate over the agreement centres on uranium enrichment because it has both civilian and military uses.

Low-enriched uranium is commonly used as fuel in nuclear power plants to generate electricity. However, if uranium is enriched to much higher levels, it can become the key material required for nuclear weapons.

Another pathway to building a nuclear weapon involves reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to separate plutonium. For this reason, uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing are considered the two main routes to producing fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Most countries operating civilian nuclear reactors import enriched uranium under strict international oversight instead of producing it themselves. Allowing a country to enrich uranium domestically without internationally accepted safeguards is often viewed as increasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Saudi Arabia says programme is for peaceful purposes

Saudi Arabia has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is intended only to meet the country’s growing energy needs.

The kingdom hopes to use nuclear power to generate electricity, allowing it to consume less oil at home and export more crude oil to international markets. Saudi officials also believe the programme could help develop the country’s uranium resources and diversify its energy mix.

However, concerns remain because Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in 2018 that if regional rival Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would pursue one as well.

That earlier statement continues to shape international concerns over any proposal that gives Riyadh greater access to sensitive nuclear technologies.

Trump administration defends the agreement

The Trump administration argues that keeping American companies deeply involved in Saudi Arabia’s nuclear programme is the safest approach.

Officials say US participation would ensure that enriched uranium is used only for civilian purposes and that spent nuclear fuel cannot be diverted for weapons production.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who discussed the agreement with Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman during a visit to the kingdom in April 2025, is expected to sign the agreement alongside his Saudi counterpart formally.

In a statement, Wright said the agreements maintain the highest standards of nuclear safety and non-proliferation while using advanced American nuclear technology.

Supporters also argue that the deal could revive the US nuclear industry, create business opportunities for companies such as Westinghouse Electric, and prevent Russia or China from becoming Saudi Arabia’s primary nuclear partners.

Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor, capable of producing around 1,100 megawatts of electricity, is expected to be among the leading technologies offered under the agreement.

Critics warn of wider regional impact

Many nuclear experts and lawmakers remain unconvinced. They argue that allowing Saudi Arabia to develop uranium enrichment capability even under American supervision could encourage other countries in the Middle East, including Turkey, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, to seek similar rights.

Some analysts believe this could trigger a regional competition in nuclear technology, increasing long-term security risks.

Others point out that the agreement comes as Washington continues to pressure Iran to limit its nuclear programme and give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Critics say helping Saudi Arabia expand its civilian nuclear capabilities while demanding strict limits on Iran creates a difficult diplomatic balance.

The Trump administration rejects that argument, saying the Saudi programme will remain peaceful because of US oversight and agreed safeguards.

Israel no longer linked to the agreement

The agreement also marks a departure from the approach taken by the previous Biden administration.

The Biden administration had been willing to pursue civil nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia but linked the proposal to Riyadh establishing diplomatic relations with Israel as part of a broader regional agreement.

Those efforts stalled following Hamas’ October 2023 attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza.

The Trump administration has continued to encourage Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords but has not made normalisation with Israel a condition for the nuclear agreement.

Congressional review ahead

The agreement will now be submitted to the US Congress, where lawmakers will have an opportunity to review it.

Although some members of Congress are expected to challenge the proposal because of its approach to uranium enrichment and nuclear safeguards, blocking the agreement would be difficult. Under US law, opponents would need enough votes to pass a joint resolution and, if necessary, override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority.

As debate begins in Washington, the agreement is likely to become one of the most closely watched international nuclear deals in recent years, with supporters highlighting its strategic and economic benefits, while critics warn that relaxing long-standing safeguards could increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation in an already volatile region.

‘Peaceful movement’ or growing hostility? From Times Now to OpIndia, journalists face repeated attacks at CJP’s Jantar Mantar protests

Shriti Sagar
-
0
‘Peaceful movement’ or growing hostility? From Times Now to OpIndia, journalists face repeated attacks at CJP’s Jantar Mantar protests

What began as what the organisers describe as a “peaceful” movement, the protest by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) is increasingly witnessing disturbing incidents of violence and intimidation on the ground. Over the past several weeks, multiple journalists from different media organisations were heckled, threatened, manhandled and even physically attacked while covering the CJP protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.

The latest incident, involving a Times Now reporter, has once again raised serious concerns about the safety of journalists reporting from the protest site.

Times Now reporter assaulted by mob while covering protest

The latest incident took place on Tuesday, 21st July, when Times Now reporter Dev Kotak was assaulted by a large mob while covering the ongoing CJP protest at Jantar Mantar. According to Kotak, he and his cameraman, Rajesh Sharma, had gone to interview CJP co-founder Saurav Das, whom he had interviewed several times during the last 23 days of continuous reporting from the protest site.

Kotak said Das was speaking on stage when they reached the venue, so the media team decided to wait for their turn. As the atmosphere at the protest site became tense, volunteers advised them to leave temporarily and return after an hour. After that, Kotak and his cameraman started walking towards the Jantar Mantar garden side, where they were surrounded by protesters.

“Just as we were getting out and going towards the Jantar Mantar garden side, we started getting heckled,” Kotak recalled. According to the reporter, the situation quickly escalated from verbal abuse to physical assault. “What began as verbal heckling quickly turned into physical violence,” he said, adding, “There were slaps, kicks, punches and even water bottles thrown at us.”

Kotak further explained that more than 100 people became part of the attacking mob. According to him, protesters repeatedly accused the media of being dishonest and shouted, “You don’t tell our story. You are dishonest.”

Having reported from the protest since its first day, Kotak said he personally knew many organisers and volunteers, having interviewed two of the three co-founders, including Saurav Das and Abhijeet Dipke, on multiple occasions. Despite this, he said that he was left exposed while volunteers remained behind the barricades.

“It was a case of mob lynching. They kept hitting and punching me throughout as I tried to make my way out. More people kept coming,” he said. The reporter added that his shirt and jeans were torn during the assault. His wristwatch was reportedly snatched, his mobile phone went missing, and his spectacles were forcibly taken away.

“I wear glasses all the time and pleaded with them to leave them because I cannot see without them. But they snatched them away. At one point, I could feel someone pulling my phone out of my pocket,” Kotak said. He added that he was eventually knocked to the ground while trying to escape. According to Kotak, a few protesters later intervened, formed a human shield around him and helped him leave safely.

The incident has once again sparked debate over the safety of journalists covering protests and whether media personnel can perform their professional duties without fear of violence.

Female journalists groped and attacked

In another incident that has gone viral online, two female journalists were groped and attacked while covering the second day of the “Sansad Chalo” protest on Tuesday, 21st July.

The women journalists were assaulted while carrying out their professional responsibilities as demonstrations continued in the national capital. While complete details about the incident and possible injuries are still emerging, the videos circulating online have added to growing concerns over the treatment of journalists, especially women reporters, at the protest venue.

Attacks on journalists have been reported since Day 1 of the protest

The latest incidents are not isolated. Journalists’ intimidation and harassment at the CJP protest have been almost since the movement began on 6th June.

On the very first day of the protest, OpIndia journalist Anurag Mishra had a similar experience while trying to interact with CJP supporters about their demands. Mishra had asked a simple question: why the turnout at Jantar Mantar appeared relatively small despite CJP claiming to have millions of followers on social media.

The question angered several supporters, who surrounded him and began shouting slogans of “Godi Media”. Mishra was repeatedly heckled and intimidated even though he was simply conducting interviews as part of his reporting assignment.

The incident became one of the earliest examples of journalists facing hostility at the protest despite CJP supporters claiming to be fighting for freedom of expression.

Another journalist from Zee News also reportedly faced a similar situation at the protest site. While covering the demonstrations, several protesters charged towards him while shouting “Godi Media” slogans. The situation became tense before Delhi Police personnel intervened and escorted the journalist away from the crowd.

ABP News reporter also targeted by protesters

Another case that has resurfaced in recent days involves an ABP News reporter who was manhandled while covering the same protest.

Although the incident dates back to early June 2026, the video regained widespread attention on social media on 19th and 20th July as the CJP protest intensified.

The viral footage shows the ABP News reporter being surrounded by a large group of protesters who repeatedly shouted “Godi Media Go Back!” slogans. The crowd booed him, interrupted his reporting and physically manhandled him, creating what many described as an intimidating and near-lynching-like situation.

The video has once again drawn attention as fresh allegations of attacks on journalists continue to emerge from the protest site.

Left-liberal journalists criticised over reactions to attacks

As the video of CJP protestors manhandling the ABP reporter went viral online again, the left liberal media and the extended anti-BJP cabal cheered and justified the attack. 

Reacting to one of the viral videos on X on 19th July, The Wire’s Arfa Khanum Sherwani wrote, “It hurts to see reporters in this state. When star anchors spread hatred and Modi propaganda day and night in the studio, the junior reporter in the field has to pay the price.”

Screengrab via X

Arfa’s “it hurts” remarks should not be mistaken for genuine concern but a deranged enjoyment of watching those not ideologically aligned with her getting heckled by a frenzied mob that claims to be protesting against a ‘fascist’ government. 

Similarly, Vijaita Singh, Deputy Editor at The Hindu, responded to another video by urging people to distinguish between “hate-spewing TV news anchors/presenters/senior journalists and TV reporters, most of whom are extremely hardworking.”

Screengrab via X

Singh justified the mob lynching of journalists she and her ideological cabal declare “hate-spewing”. This is blatant glorification of ‘mob justice’, which the Islamo-leftists vehemently criticise when carried out by mobs not aligned with them ideologically. 

The social media posts by Arfa Khanum Sherwani and Vijaita Singh were not about the danger the non-left journalists were in, or that outrageous mob assault against journalists; it was about issuing a cleverly worded justification for the mob’s attack. 

With repeated allegations of journalists being heckled, assaulted and intimidated, from the first day of the protest to the latest attack on the Times Now team, the incidents have reignited concerns over press freedom, the safety of reporters on the ground and the growing hostility faced by media personnel while covering public protests.

Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan, AAP, SP and the coaching mafia: How the Cockroach violence was politically orchestrated, not organic

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan, AAP, SP and the coaching mafia: How the Cockroach violence was politically orchestrated, not organic

On the 20th of July 2026, Delhi witnessed a near-redux of the 2020 Delhi riots during the Cockroach Janta Party protests. The façade of ‘peaceful’ protests fell apart, and political players desperate to watch the country burn stepped in with their “Nepal bana denge” agenda. Stones were pelted at police officials during the Parliament March, vehicles were vandalised, and police were painted as heartless brutes thrashing ‘students’ at the behest of the Central government.

Anti-Modi leftist elements dominated the weeks-long CJP gimmick, and yet it was framed as an organic ‘student protest’: Inorganic protest, ‘organic’ label

For weeks, the mainstream media, the leftist propaganda factory, and the Cockroach Janta Party itself have painted the protests to seek resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over NEET UG paper leak as an organic ‘student protest’. The framing, however, was in sharp contrast to the reality of Sonam Wangchuk’s weeks-long hunger strike.

Sonam Wangchuk, the Phunsukh Wangdu who never was, became the face of the CJP protest, lending credence to the claims that an ‘education reformer’ is leading the ‘student protest’ and the CJP is fighting for the ‘future’ of India.

However, it has been seen that the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar became a “Jamghat” of anti-BJP/Modi elements from all walks of life.

Since the beginning of the CJP protest, numerous journalists have been nearly assaulted by the protesting cockroaches. In some incidents, police had to intervene and rescue the journalists. A common pattern? “Godi Media” slogans, fury over critical questions, gherao, and near-assault.

Islamo-leftists like Kunal Kamra have delivered derogatory remarks against Maa Sita from CJP’s protest stage; CJP member Vijeta Dahiya has made Hinduphobic remarks; Delhi University professor Nandita Narayan sang “Bas naam rahega Allah ka” and glorified Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s Islamic supremacist poem “Hum Dekhenge”; anti-national slogans of “Azadi-Azadi” and “Brahmanwad se azadi” have been raised.

In fact, the protesting cockroaches even raised “Modi Murdabad”, “Arvind Kejriwal ki Jai”, and even “Umar Khalid ki Jai” slogans during the protest on 21st July.

Though offensive, the “Modi Murdabad” slogan can still be excused; “Arvind Kejriwal ki Jai” slogans give away the fact that the CJP protest has little to do with student issues, exam irregularities, or seeking accountability from the government, but about preparing political ground and garnering lost popularity for the Aam Aadmi Party. What further confirms the fact that the CJP protest is not about students is the support of people who back and glorify 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots accused mastermind Umar Khalid.

Cockroaches raising ‘Umar Khalid ki Jai’ slogans are not surprising given CJP’s chief spokesperson, Saurav Das, himself is a big fan of Umar Khalid. In fact, Delhi Riots accused Yogendra Yadav and lawyer Prashant Bhushan have also backed the CJP protest.

Protestor-for-hire, Yogendra Yadav was seen expressing joy over CJP cockroaches successfully “occupying” Jantar Mantar and the streets leading to the Parliament.

Unsurprisingly, Dipke is also a supporter of 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots accused Umar Khalid and has lamented his prolonged incarceration without trial, suggesting that somehow Khalid has been deliberately made to rot in jail. 

The supposed organic ‘student protest’ has been joined by left-wing student activism groups like SFI, AISA, bsCEM, and other such entities, who were also active during the November 2025 pro-Naxal protests.

In June this year, the members of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) were seen actively participating in the gathering. Carrying daflis and dhols, the activists raised slogans such as “Azadi, Azadi,” “Haq Hamari Azadi,” and “Jaan Se Pyari Azadi”, drawing attention from those present at the protest site.

The CJP ‘student protest’ has also received support from rabid Modi haters like Prakash Raj, Swara Bhasker, Shabana Azmi, Arundhati Roy, and Nivedita Menon, who desperately yearn for a ‘revolution’ against the Modi government and actively partake in any such attempts, be it the 2020 anti-CAA protests or the ongoing CJP protests.

The Cockroach Janta Party was created in May 2026, as an online satirical response to CJI Surya Kant’s courtroom remarks about jobless youth, lawyers, journalists and RTI activists. The CJP amassed millions of followers on Instagram within days, winning initial support from a neutral and apolitical populace as well. However, the CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, a former Aam Aadmi Party worker, began pushing his anti-BJP and anti-Modi government agenda.

The CJP launched its website and carefully embellished the platform with Gen-Z-appealing and ‘cool’ membership criteria like being “unemployed”, “lazy”, “chronically online” and able to “rant professionally”.

To stay relevant and capitalise on the massive following the CJP built on social media, Dipke, still in the US, picked the NEET UG paper leak issue, as what could be better than exploiting a burning issue that directly concerns Gen-Z.

In no time, the online activism pivoted to ground protest with CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke arriving in New Delhi. The CJP launched its ground ‘peaceful’ protest on 6th June, with its core demand being the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Youth-centric issues, particularly those concerning students, are always sensitive. The CJP chose to rely on ‘students’ as their marketing strategy for the protest because, just like ‘women and children’ during Shaheen Bagh, any state action against political hooligans can be painted as an ‘assault on students’, and by extension, an attack on democracy, the Constitution, and whatnot.

It was seen how it was the protesting cockroaches who first attacked the police personnel on duty and even hurled stones during the ‘Chalo Sansad’ protest march on 20th July, and yet when police retaliated with tear gas and batons to bring the situation under control, the left liberal cabal painted it as an ‘attack on students’.

Just as it was seen during the 2019-2020 anti-CAA protests, the international media selectively painted the protesting pro-CJP hooligans as outright victims, and the police as ‘oppressors’ silencing dissent with violence.

Cockroach Janta Party has managed to “stir things up” by making the NEET paper leak issue a melting pot for all genuine and even politically agenda-driven grievances and complaints people have against the government.

The additional aspect that helps paint these politically and ideologically driven protests as organic student-led ire is the Gen Z propaganda, aided by what happened in Bangladesh and Nepal. The violent ‘student’ protest in Bangladesh had also begun with a genuine quota issue but was dominated by political outfits Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami. By August 2024, protestor violence and anger reached their peak, resulting in Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s unceremonious ouster. What followed Hasina’s departure was an Islamist pogrom against the country’s Hindu minorities.

Despite the communal-political nature of the protests, the international media painted it as a “student protest” or even a “revolution” against an oppressive regime. Now the same BNP that was at the forefront of the protests rules Bangladesh.

Similar scenes were witnessed in Nepal last year, when the “Gen-Z” took to the streets against the KP Sharma Oli-led government, over accusations of rampant corruption. Nepali streets witnessed violent protests and police crackdowns; Nepali parliament was burnt, public property vandalised, and the country burnt for days. Eventually, elections were held and the same people, Balen Shah, Sudan Gurung, and others, who spearheaded the ‘Gen-Z revolution’, won elections and rule Nepal.

The violent regime changes in Bangladesh and Nepal rekindled hopes of a despondent political opposition in India. For months, the Congress party has been manoeuvring to sow distrust against the Election Commission of India and the integrity of the electoral process. When this could not deter public trust, the opposition began exploiting caste fissures. However, seeing none of the ‘EVM hacked, VVPAT tampered, Vote Chori’ bogey work, the opposition pinned hopes on violent protests.

In mid-April, when violence and arson broke out during protests by industrial workers in Noida over wages, the Congress party expressed glee over the country finally beginning to “stir”. The party must be the happiest at this point, even though it is the AAP ecosystem that remains unofficially central to the CJP, as this time things have stirred beyond their expectations.

Although, unlike the anti-CAA protests wherein Congress leader Sonia Gandhi directly gave the “aa rya paar ki ladaai” calls to incite violence, Congress has maintained support for the ongoing CJP protests. Even though the possibility of a Nepal-Bangladesh kind of violent regime change in India remains scarce, having the near-invincible Modi government in a tough spot is always a delight and opens doors of opportunity for the opposition.

Despite the apolitical packaging, the CJP protest has essentially been political in nature. Sonam Wangchuk, who is an education reformer by the day and a climate activist by the night, joined the CJP protest not only to seek Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation. Wangchuk’s core demand has been the Sixth Schedule for Ladakh. The son of a former Congress MLA sat on a hunger strike last year as well for the same demand. Sixth Schedule for Ladakh remains a heated political issue in Ladakh, and even violence had erupted over this in September 2025.

In addition to left student groups and Islamo-leftist ‘prominent citizens’, the CJP protest has also garnered support from anti-BJP political parties.

The Cockroach Janta Party received its first political endorsement from the Aam Aadmi Party. In fact, CJP appears to be a B-team of AAP only. Not to forget, Abhijeet Dipke was AAP’s social media coordinator and a disciple of Manish Sisodia.

During the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, one media report described him as a 23-year-old from Pune who was behind AAP’s social media transformation. In August 2019, the Legal Rights Observatory filed a complaint against then AAP Pune leader Abhijeet Dipke for “spreading lies of Indian atrocity in Kashmir and provoking ‘hurriyat-like separatism’ among Kashmiris”. It was alleged that Dipke was peddling seditious propaganda after the Modi government scrapped Article 370.

Among the first non-AAP politicians to support the CJP protest were Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, and Azad Samaj Party MP Chandrashekhar Azad. However, as the protest gained momentum and the parliament session neared, Aam Aadmi Party and Samajwadi Party leaders flocked to Jantar Mantar.

Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Sanjay Singh, and other key AAP leaders expressed solidarity with Abhijeet Dipke and his cockroach comrades recently.

Interestingly, the so-called ‘student protest’ on 20th July was also joined by MACOCA-accused AAP-linked gangster Haji Afzal.

What is even more amusing and concerning at the same time is that AAP has imported its leaders from Gujarat and other states to pretend to be genuine protesters in Delhi. One such AAP leader masquerading as a protester by faking his identity as a businessman is Brijraj Solanki.

Most prominent of the Samajwadi Party leaders to visit the CJP protest site are Dimple Yadav, the Kannauj MP and wife of SP supremo Akhilesh Yadav. She not only met Sonam Wangchuk but was also seen comforting distressed protestors.

In fact, Samajwadi Party workers and supporters of Chandrashekhar Azad were present in large numbers during the protests on 20th July.

OpIndia ground reports revealed how slogans of ‘Jai Bhim’ echoed at a supposed ‘student protest’.

Our ground reporters observed that the protestors appeared well-organised, as if protestors were trained about to what extent they have to provoke, agitate, and how they have to respond to media questions, etc.

(ANI Photo)

OpIndia ground reporter Anurag Mishra revealed that most of the protestors who joined CJP’s parliament march were from Uttar Pradesh.

During the protest, our ground reporters observed that the violence was led by Chandrashekhar Azad. A day before (19th July), Azad had even said that he could organise as many people as needed for the “Chalo Sansad” protest.

Some of the Samajwadi Party workers like Bhanu Dubey who participated in the ‘student protest’ have been identified.

During the protests, a person openly threatened to “destroy the Parliament” and issued “Nepal bana denge” threats.

The man seen in the video has been accused of being associated with the Samajwadi Party.

The SP leaders are desperately looking for opportunities to exploit ahead of assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh, and appearing pro-youth by backing CJP protests can significantly help the party sway youngsters in UP.

In addition, Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPIM] leaders M.A. Baby, senior leader Brinda Karat, and Politburo members Vijoo Krishnan, Arun Kumar, and Mariam Dhawale joined the CJP at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on 20th July. The key CPIM leaders had earlier visited CJP’s protest stage and met Abhijeet Dipke and Sonam Wangchuk just a day after meeting Chinese officials at their embassy in Delhi.

Besides politicians, the coaching mafia also played a significant role in inciting violent protests. There are videos of Abhinay Sharma, popularly known as “Abhinay Maths”, giving a speech a few days before the 20th July protest. He was at the Rahul Gandhi rally as well, inciting people and raising Azadi slogans. Abhinay is known for his one-sided criticism of the BJP government under the garb of raising student issues.

Similarly, educators from online coaching giant Physicswallah, “Pankaj Sir”, “Vipin Sir”, and “MR Sir”, among others, attended the CJP protest before the 20th July march and delivered provocative speeches.

Clearly, from politicians, political party workers, caste activists, Hinduphobic leftist student groups, to coaching teachers, etc, had a wider presence at the CJP protest than actual NEET aspirants, the real sufferers of the paper leak, and students angered by exam irregularities.

Foreign media that itched for Nepal-Bangladesh-like violent regime change in India is now painting violent CJP protestors as victimised heroes

For many months since regime change events in Bangladesh and Nepal, there have been several op-eds calling for such regime change in India. From Indian leftist propaganda portals to the UK-based BBC, the left-liberals across the world itched to witness a replication of the Nepal-Bangladesh template of violent Gen-Z-led regime change in India.

In apparent hopes that the Cockroaches could pull off a Bangladesh-like regime change against the Modi government, the international media is pushing a one-sided victim-oppressor narrative, framing all protesting cockroaches as innocent students and the Delhi Police as ‘oppressors’ brutalising students.

CJP protest was a political plan that followed the anti-CAA protests playbook

The NEET paper leak, its impact on students and overall integrity of exams in India is real and concerning. However, the CJP protest, despite its portrayal as an apolitical, youth-centric marketing, is essentially a political plan and followed the usual playbook. Start by seeding discontent and pick up a genuine issue to mobilise sentiments and then use it for violence and political gains.

It is unmissable that when the CJP protest reached its pinnacle on 20th July, its key faces were missing from the ground for a long time. Sonam Wangchuk was already shifted to hospital as per court orders, Abhijeet Dipke was holed up in a truck and, now-ousted from CJP, Vijeta Dahiya was devouring a burger away from the police lathi charge, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were playing talks-talks with Health Minister JP Nadda, and while Sonam Wangchuk was in the hospital, pretending to end his fast and then claiming he won’t.

However, there should be no doubt that the Central government is not sacrosanct either. In fact, the Centre could have prevented the entire fiasco by taking the right decisions at the right time.

The NEET UG paper leak is real; lakhs of students suffered due to it, and at least 20 students allegedly committed suicide. In fact, many genuine students and parents of some of the students who allegedly committed suicide after the NEET 2026 paper leak also participated in the ongoing protest. They are not tied to any political ideological agenda but with the hope that the government will not shut the doors of communication in their face and deliver justice and some accountability.

The students, the genuine NEET aspirants, deserved accountability from the government and the National Testing Agency. It is not that the police did not arrest the persons behind the paper leak or the authorities did not acknowledge a leak. Arrests were made, a probe was handed over to the CBI, the paper was cancelled, and new dates were announced. Later, re-NEET was held without leaks and results have also been declared.

However, there were communication gaps and apparent insensitivity.

While NTA director Abhishek Singh had audaciously claimed that the guess paper had “a few questions which were matching with the questions which were asked and not the whole paper was leaked, Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan did not even care to take media questions about the NEET UG exam paper leak.

The first and foremost step by the Central government should have been ensuring that the Education Minister publicly acknowledged the “ghor paap” of the NEET paper leak that Prime Minister Narendra Modi acknowledged on 21st July. Paper leaks have been a constant issue, and not confined to NEET alone; it was high time for Dharmendra Pradhan to acknowledge the systemic failures and resign. Now a political-ideological ‘movement’ has hijacked a genuine students’ issue and is exploiting it for its own gains while the government is finding it hard to sail its ship through this preventable storm.

Now, if the Central government accepts CJP demands of Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, Rs 1 crore compensation to students who died by suicide allegedly due to NEET paper leak, and ‘return’ Sonam Wangchuk, they would be handing a victory to the opposition. If not, the protests will go on, intensify, and likely snowball into a full-fledged redux of the 2020 Delhi Riots.

When youthful delulu meets hard power

Sanghamitra
-
0
When youthful delulu meets hard power

Visuals of young protestors clashing with the police, some throwing stones and getting lathi-charged in return, trying to break barricades and being hit by water cannons have been dominating news screens since yesterday. Some of them are there for politics, some are there to lend support to their peers, some have been genuinely aggrieved by the rampant paper leaks and corruption in recruitment exams. Some may even be there for fun and socialising. All of them are the inevitable victims of the socio-political consequences of their own biological age. 

Because that’s how societies work. 

“War is young men dying and old men talking.” – Odysseus (in Troy, the movie)

“Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.” – George Orwell.

This is a pattern so predictable and consistent that it appears less like an accident of history and more like the property of civilisation itself. Every generation believes it is uniquely wise. Every generation also believes its struggles are unprecedented. Yet, if one steps back from the emotional impact and tunnel vision of current events, the pattern makes itself clearly visible.

The slogans keep changing, ideologies keep changing. But the age factor in power structures hardly changes. Regardless of the era, political, military, financial, and institutional power overwhelmingly rests with the older generation, while the young supply the energy, bodies, and often the blood. They rarely inherit the levers of real control; they get used as pawns and cannon fodder in elite political clashes, then sidelined as the system stabilises itself, transferring power from one set of old men to another.

The reasons behind this tragedy are also rather simple, if one thinks about it. The pattern is not some grand conspiracy of older folks against the young of their society. It is the inevitable dividend of accumulated resources, networks, institutional knowledge, and risk aversion that the older folks gather in the course of ageing. 

Power is also sticky; it attaches itself invariably to wealth, alliances and established bureaucratic systems. 

The script is same, though centuries

Across eras, youth fuel disruption while elders direct and ultimately consolidate outcomes. From ancient Troy to the World Wars and countless wars in between, it is the young blood that is spilt, while older generals sit and decide their fate under orders from even older politicians. Revolutions, no matter how romanticised, follow the same pattern. French radicals and sans-culottes ignited change and flooded the streets, only for the monarchy to be dislodged by anarchy and terror under the likes of Robespierre, followed by the corrupt Directory and eventually a Napoleonic dictatorship. 

Russian Bolshevik youth helped topple the Tsar, yet Lenin and Stalin built the new authoritarian elite. India’s long struggle for independence was no different; it saw fiery young martyrs like Bhagat Singh executed, popular leaders like Netaji Subhash deliberately sidelined while established older Congress leaders negotiated the transfer of power.

Whatever political benefit the CJP protestors and the so-called students are hoping for, it will inevitably be reaped by the Congress, AAP, Samajwadi Party, or even Chandrashekhar Ravan, to be used as capital for their next elections. Whether the ‘cockroaches’ admit it or not, the political narrative and outcome of their protest are already hijacked by powers that are older than them. Pun intended.

Coming back to more recent times, the so-called student leaders led from the front to clash with government forces of Sheikh Hasina, only to be ruled by a geriatric Mohammad Yunus and eventually paving the way for the old political family of Khaleda Zia to come back to power in the form of Tarique Rahman. The same story got repeated in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Kenya, and even in the Arab Spring. 

Spanning across generations and decades, across borders, the ‘system’ always wins. When it does, the foot soldiers, the blood and energy givers, the cannon fodder are invariably sidelined. The system is old, pun intended again. 

This makes sense and has been proven even from an evolutionary perspective. Human societies have always evolved around an asymmetry of resources rather than an asymmetry of physical capability. The young march, the old negotiate. The young fight, the old rule.

This is how the wheel turns

Survival is always rewarding. Age comes with wealth, institutional memory, political networks, and social legitimacy. The young have kinetic energy; the ones who survive into old age adapt to consolidate potential energy among their peers. In the thermodynamics of politics, the former is always converted into the latter, and the latter instigates the former whenever it wants. This is how the wheel turns.

Orwell’s generational delusion sustains the cycles of the wheel; each group believes it will finally break the pattern through superior insight or technology. Gen Z outrages over boomer or Millennial failures on climate, debt, and social injustice. But they fail to realise that the real power will continue to ‘stick’ to old systems. The old may enjoy the benefits of political unrest, but they forget that the very system that empowers them can be swept away from under their feet if the young blood protesting on the streets reaches a critical mass. The power discrepancy keeps the wheel turning. 

All of this may sound rather depressing, but it is not. This is how societies stay functional. The streets of Delhi are today flooded with CJP protestors. Tomorrow there will be some other group. Violence may look all good and revolutionary for Insta handles, but jail cells are harsh. The rich kids will escape arrest and find foreign colleges to flex their revolutionary credentials. The not-so rich will suffer for a while before either losing interest and carrying on with their colleges and jobs. A certain kind of young men and women, who believe too much in heroes and ideals, will stay longer. Another kind of youngsters will just enjoy the free food and attention while it lasts. 

Protests demanding Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation in the UK not organic: Before you fall for The Wire’s propaganda, read how SFI is mobilising crowds

Anurag
-
0
Protests demanding Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation in the UK not organic: Before you fall for The Wire’s propaganda, read how SFI is mobilising crowds

On 20th July, leftist propaganda portal The Wire claimed that the student protest in India had “reached London” and shared photographs of people gathering outside the Indian High Commission after reports of police action against the Cockroach Janta Party-led (CJP) protest in Delhi. Notably, Delhi Police had not granted permission for the protest, and the protesters had turned violent, indulging in stone-pelting and attacking police personnel before the police retaliated.

Source: X

In its post on social media, The Wire declared, “Youth protest reaches London as protesters show up at Indian High Commission.” It claimed that people had appeared “in big numbers” outside the High Commission as news spread about the police action in Delhi and other cities. The portal presented the gathering as a spontaneous response from Indians living in Britain and completely omitted the fact that the Students’ Federation of India’s (SFI) UK chapter had called for the protest outside the High Commission of India in London.

The protest had been announced in advance by SFI UK, and details were all over its social media platforms. The organisation fixed the venue and time, circulated promotional material, listed the demands and called upon supporters to participate. SFI committees had also been holding similar protests at other locations in the UK, including Leeds and Edinburgh, for weeks.

A social media user who participated in the Manchester protest later confirmed that the demonstration there had also been organised by SFI UK.

The Wire presents an SFI protest as a spontaneous diaspora gathering

The way The Wire presented the SFI protest outside the High Commission as a response to reports of the confrontation in Delhi is concerning, as the protest had already been announced on 19th July, a day before the march towards Parliament in Delhi.

Source: X

Its poster carried the call, “Cockroaches of London unite” and asked people to “rise in protest” outside India House in London at 6 pm on 20th July. The poster listed three main demands. It asked supporters to stand with students on hunger strike, support activist Sonam Wangchuk and demand the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

At the bottom, it explicitly stated that the London gathering was being organised “in solidarity with 20 July march to Parliament in Delhi”. Therefore, people did not simply “show up” after watching the news, as The Wire suggested. They had been called to a pre-announced protest by a structured political organisation.

After the gathering, SFI UK itself wrote that thousands of Indians in London had answered “our call for action”. It said the demonstration had been organised in solidarity with the Indian student movement and saluted the struggle of its “comrades in India”. While SFI UK claimed that “thousands” of people had gathered, the video it shared showed a much smaller number of protesters crammed into a small space.

While those who attended the protest in the UK may or may not have been members of SFI, the call, publicity, venue, messaging and speeches came from SFI UK. The Wire removed all of that context and transformed an SFI-organised event into what appeared to be an organic uprising by the Indian diaspora.

SFI UK had been mobilising supporters for weeks

The London demonstration was not an isolated protest planned after the confrontation at Jantar Mantar. SFI UK had been running a coordinated campaign against Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan since at least the beginning of June.

On 4th June, the organisation posted photographs from a protest organised by its Leeds committee against what it called the mismanagement of national examinations, including NEET, CUET, UGC NET and CBSE examinations. The organisation said the gathering reflected anger and disillusionment among young people over the Indian education system.

Source: X

Another post from the same day said that SFI UK Secretary Somiha and other members had demanded the immediate resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan. The organisation promised to continue its protests until its demands were accepted.

SFI’s central leadership had issued a nationwide ultimatum

The overseas mobilisation was taking place alongside a campaign by SFI’s central organisation in India. On 9th June, the SFI Central Executive Committee issued a ten-day ultimatum to the Union Government. Its demands included the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, the scrapping of the National Testing Agency and the decentralisation of examinations.

Source: X

It also demanded the cancellation of the OSM evaluation system in CBSE examinations and an independent judicial inquiry into the NEET and CBSE examination controversies.

The organisation warned, “See you on the streets.”

On 14th June, SFI claimed that protests had taken place at 623 centres across 22 states. It claimed that 753 people had been arrested and 16 had been jailed. SFI UK reposted the message while declaring that the organisation’s “spirit” remained unbowed.

Source: X

These posts show a continuing organisational campaign. The protests in Britain were part of that wider mobilisation, not an unplanned reaction by disconnected individuals.

Source: X

Leeds and Edinburgh committees organised separate demonstrations

SFI UK’s social media activity also shows how its local committees were mobilised around the same demands. On 14th July, its Leeds committee issued a call for a protest outside Parkinson’s Building. The poster carried the hashtag “PradhanGoBack” and declared, “Cockroaches gather at Parkinson’s Leeds.” The promotional material included photographs of protesters, SFI symbols and the demand for the resignation of the Education Minister.

On 18th July, SFI UK said that its Edinburgh committee had organised a protest in solidarity with the Jantar Mantar hunger strike and the student movement in India. The organisation identified its Edinburgh president, Swarna, as one of the speakers and said that the gathering had stressed the need for collective and organised movements.

Source: X

The same day, its Leeds committee organised another demonstration at the University of Leeds. SFI UK said that the protesters demanded accountability from the government and the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan.

Source: X

It also identified Secretary Somiha and Leeds Secretary Gayathri as speakers at the gathering. The organisation said that its solidarity would continue until the demands were met. These were not crowds that independently assembled after coming across news about Delhi. They were committee-led demonstrations with named office-bearers, common banners and repeated political demands.

Manchester protester confirms that SFI UK organised the gathering

A social media user named Kamal also posted footage of a demonstration in Manchester and demanded the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan.

When another user asked whether a similar protest could be organised in Birmingham, Kamal responded that the Manchester gathering had been organised by SFI UK and suggested following its Instagram account for further updates.

Source: X

This provides further confirmation that SFI was using its network to organise demonstrations in multiple British cities.

SFI UK is not an informal group created after the Delhi protest

SFI UK describes itself as the first international committee of the Students’ Federation of India. Its website claims that it has over 600 members in Britain and more than ten subcommittees. It also claims to operate active units across British universities and says that it regularly organises campaigns, cultural programmes, fundraising activities and student welfare initiatives.

Its constitution states that SFI aims to organise students in India, as well as Indian students studying abroad, under one banner. It calls for building a “democratic and socialist society”, organising students alongside workers, peasants and other “progressive forces”, and extending solidarity to movements seeking socialism across the world.

The constitution also provides for overseas units, membership fees, affiliation to the SFI Central Executive Committee and committees at several organisational levels.

SFI is student wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI(M). Several senior CPI(M) leaders, including former general secretary Sitaram Yechury, emerged through the organisation and held senior positions in it before joining the party leadership.

Therefore, SFI UK is not an informal WhatsApp group of students that emerged during the Jantar Mantar agitation. It is part of an established Left-wing political network with members, committees, office-bearers and an ideological programme.

BBC and Al Jazeera frame the agitation as a Gen Z uprising

While The Wire removed SFI from its portrayal of the London demonstration, international media organisations framed the agitation in Delhi as a wider Gen Z rebellion against the Modi government.

The BBC promoted an explainer “Jantar Mantar: What is the Gen Z CJP protest in Delhi about?” Its accompanying social media post asked why thousands of people were protesting in the capital.

In another report, the BBC described CJP as a youth-led protest movement seeking education and employment reforms. It called the agitation one of the most visible expressions of public dissent against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in recent years.

Al Jazeera used the dramatic headline “‘Now or never’: Students defy Delhi lockdown to march on India’s parliament”.

It described CJP as a major challenge to the Modi government and claimed that thousands had answered the organisation’s call. The report highlighted police action, quoted protesters and cited commentators who sought to portray the agitation as evidence of deeper dissatisfaction over education, employment, inflation and poverty.

Amnesty International and HRW amplify the crackdown narrative

Amnesty International USA also declared that peaceful dissent was being suppressed in India. Its statement relied on “images and reports” from Jantar Mantar and alleged unnecessary and excessive force by Delhi Police. It demanded an investigation into allegations involving batons, tear gas and stone-throwing by police personnel.

Source: X

Amnesty identified CJP as the organisation leading the protests and repeated its demands concerning examination irregularities, compensation and the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan.

Human Rights Watch similarly called the agitation one of the biggest anti-government protests in recent years. It asked the authorities to exercise restraint, restore mobile internet services near the protest and ensure that people could demonstrate peacefully.

Source: X

The framing by Amnesty and HRW contributed to an international narrative in which the agitation was presented almost entirely as an organic uprising of young Indians being suppressed by the government.

A well-orchestrated attempt to build a narrative against the Indian government

The manner in which SFI UK, left-liberal Indian media, international media outlets and NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have presented the protests creates an impression that they were entirely organic. It also helps build a narrative that the Indian government is opposed to students’ welfare. Before accepting this narrative, it is essential to examine how these protests were organised and presented.

Not all students at Jantar Mantar were part of the propaganda, but innocent students ultimately face lathi charges and legal cases for participating in unlawful protests. The so-called leaders, including Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and others, were either standing far away from the batons and tear gas or were not even present at the protest sites.

Amid all this, the narrative being pushed on international platforms needs to be scrutinised and countered.

If the Kisan Mahapanchayat was really about farmers, why protest the India-US trade deal stalled over farmer interests?

Rukma Rathore
-
0
If the Kisan Mahapanchayat was really about farmers, why protest the India-US trade deal stalled over farmer interests?

On 21st July (Tuesday), a protest is scheduled to take place at Delhi’s Kisan Ghat. It was announced by the Desh Bachao Morcha against the proposed trade deal between United States and India. According to the organisers, nearly 550 unions of farmers and social groups would attend the event from all over the nation.

However, the Haryana government has sealed the Shambhu border ahead of this gathering which triggered an agitation on the location which has a heavy police presence. Barricades were built and cement blocks were positioned at the bridge over the Ghaggar River.

The farmers charged both Punjab and Haryana governments with obstructing their march to the purported “Kisan Mahapanchayat.” They charged that the Haryana police erected roadblocks on Punjab’s territory, but the latter did nothing to stop them. Buses were set to transport farmers from various parts of the border state to the national capital.

On 16th July (Thursday) morning, convoy carrying around 1000 farmers departed from Gurdwara Sri Fatehgarh Sahib and reached Madhopur close to Sirhind on the Grand Trunk (GT) Road. Afterwards, they started their journey to Shambhu border.

Gurnam Singh Charuni, the head of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Charuni) was reportedly arrested by police in Kurukshetra on his way to Delhi for the Mahapanchayat, a day earlier. Prince Waraich, the organisation’s spokesperson, had stated that many of its members were being held by the cops in an effort to prevent them from participating in the demonstration.

The farmers from Haryana made their way from Ambala, Kurukshetra and other places to reach their destination. Sarwan Singh Pandher, a representative of the Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee (KMSC) stated that people from his outfit, Kisan Mazdoor Morcha (Punjab Chapter), Azaad Kisan Morcha (AKM) and Bharti Kisan Union (BKU) Ekta Sangharsh had proceeded from multiple areas of Punjab.

Pandher accused the centre of not involving any “stakeholders” regarding US-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which he claimed was being inked signing “in a secret way as the government tells us nothing about it.” He insisted, “All that we get to know is from the US side through their press releases,” remarking that they are going to Delhi to ask Prime Minister Narendra Modi about it.

Pandher added, “People from Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand are also coming for this one-day rally.” He declared that they wished for the deal to be completely scrapped.

Pandher highlighted that the two nations in a February joint release agreed to work towards drafting the first tranche of a mutually beneficial, multi-sector bilateral trade agreement (BTA) by fall. He expressed that this suggested the deal could even extend to include agriculture, dairy, industry, digital trade, e-commerce, government procurement, intellectual property rights and services.

He stated that prior US trade paperwork and yearly related reports have continuously advocated enhanced market access in India’s dairy and agricultural industries. These documents have pushed for lower tariffs on soybeans, corn (maize), cotton, ethanol, apples, almonds, and other agricultural commodities alongside more market access for its dairy products, poultry, fruits, fisheries products, coconuts and other commodities in India.

Germanjit Singh Bandala, the leader of the Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee Punjab, claimed that the agreement will negatively impact Indian labourers, farmers, small merchants and the general public. He asserted that it disregarded the interests of India’s small and marginal cultivators in favour of American businesses and farmers.

According to Bandala, US agriculture is conducted on a considerably greater scale, with farms spanning thousands of acres and receiving significant government subsidies. On the other hand, the majority of Indian farmers receive much less financial assistance and only possess two to two and a half acres of land. He argued that the low-income community would find it difficult to compete if the arrangement allowed cheaper agricultural imports from the US to enter the country’s market which would prompt a dramatic drop in their earnings.

Bandala stressed that New Delhi was proceeding with the pact under pressure from Washington while previous governments shielded the agricultural sector from undue foreign interference, mentioning that the repercussions could hamper small businesses and employment opportunities in other industries as well.

Farmer groups conveyed that approval of cheaper agricultural imports under the deal would badly affect farmers, workers, livestock rearers, small traders, micro industries and the agricultural sector. Bandala described the demonstration as “only the beginning” and threatened escalation if their demands were not met.

The Desh Bachao Morcha pressed the government to refrain from accepting any contracts without conducting thorough discussions with farmers, workers, dairy producers, small traders and other stakeholders. They also wanted all documents pertaining to the planned FTA to be made public.

The authenticity of the claims

It is important to realise that India-US FTA has not yet been ratified despite the uproar, supposed vulnerabilities and agitations to protect the interests of farmers. Union Minister Piyush Goyal recently informed that negotiations are underway to achieve a “good deal” that satisfies both nations. However, the charges seem to be based more on insinuations, suspicions and doubts rather than on the facts that clearly point to strict protections for Indian sensitive farming sectors.

The government has already explained that the pact “fully safeguards India’s agricultural interests, particularly those of the farm and dairy sectors.” Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan outlined that “no sudden or disruptive entry of foreign products will take place in the Indian market.” He emphasised that all important crops, food grains, fruits and dairy products remain secure and no market segment has been opened in a manner that could hurt Indian farmers.

The centre assured that the deal would put pressure on domestic farmers and the protections for significant agricultural commodities continue to be in place in relation to contention about greater availability of American farm products in local markets.

Furthermore, the statement issued by India and US in February addressed the removal and reduction of tariffs on Dried Distillers Grains, red sorghum for animal feed, tree nuts, fresh and processed fruits, soybean oil, wine, spirits and similar other products. India already imports them to fulfill domestic demand gaps.

However, it did not mention any major staple crops such as rice, wheat or maize. The reductions are specifically aimed at industrial and supplementary goods that do not compete with the core agricultural products of Indian farmers. Hence, any claims to the contrary are incorrect.

Last year, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick even lashed out, “India brags that they have 1.4 billion people, then why wouldn’t they buy one bushel of corn from us? Doesn’t that rub you the wrong way. That they sell everything to us, and they won’t buy our corn. They put tariffs on everything,” in an interview. His comment exuded frustration, but it also underscored the government’s refusal to succumb to pressure while maintaining the welfare of its farmers at the forefront.

Notably, PM Modi echoed the same sentiment when he stated, “For us, the interest of our farmers is our top priority. India will never compromise on the interests of farmers, fishermen and dairy farmers. I know we will have to pay a heavy price for it, and I am ready for it. India is ready for it.” He has consistently provided these reassurances to alleviate authentic concerns.

Washington is indeed interested in gaining wider access to Indian markets, yet New Delhi has repeatedly turned down their demands, prioritising its own farmers and other sectors associated with the industry. This has contributed to the delay in finalising the agreement.

However, how can facts be permitted to impede propaganda? Thus, a similar situation has taken shape in yet another demonstration in the name of farmers, featuring emotional appeals, anger and allegations that bear no relation to the reality. Of course, they are also not concerned with the disruption of public life or the inconvenience caused to commuters.

Farmers or self-interest groups

These entities, created under the guise of upholding interests of farmers have surfaced as their biggest opponents as evidenced during the agitation against the three farm laws. The ordinance, which had the potential to transform the agricultural sector, was ultimately repealed due to the unyielding protests and violence instigated by these organisations.

The laws would have enabled the farmers to bypass the state-controlled Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) mandis and sell directly to private buyers, corporations and supermarkets as well as ended the role of traditional middlemen who dominated this system and dictated lower prices to them. This would have also prevented crop loss and low-price wastage by facilitating direct sales to private players, contract farming and improved private storage.

However, a massive agitation was launched to mislead the unsuspecting public by asserting that the government intends to seize the land of farmers and transfer it to industrialists, who would then dominate the sector, ultimately destroying the livelihoods of those associated with it. These outfits were fighting to keep the middlemen in mandis who are infamous for their exploitative practices against farmers.

They ruined a crucial opportunity that could have revolutionised the agricultural sector and improved the lives of farmers instead of participating in a dialogue and pursuing a mutually agreeable solution. Moreover, their violent antics at the Lal Qila, brutal assault on cops and the associated loss of life and property were apparent to everyone.

Now, as India stands on the brink of a major advancement with the FTA, they have once again awakened from their slumber to halt yet another progressive and advantageous move for the country.

These groups appear to be solely focused on aggressive actions aimed at compelling the government to yield to their demands, driven by their egos and ulterior motives under the pretext of representing farmers. Otherwise, they would have opted for dialogue instead of repeatedly taking to the streets and fostering confrontational scenarios. In essence, they function like pressure cartels, pursuing their own financial and political gains while masquerading as champions of farmers and their interests to deceive the masses.

The objective has remained consistent, from rejecting the critical farm laws to protesting against the trade deal, which is still under negotiation and has yet to reach a final agreement.

NTA debunks lies about ‘discrepancy’ in NEET marks, exposes 5 students who digitally altered their OMR sheets: Here is what happened

Shriti Sagar
-
0
NTA debunks lies about ‘discrepancy’ in NEET marks, exposes 5 students who digitally altered their OMR sheets: Here is what happened

On Monday, 20th July, the National Testing Agency (NTA) issued a detailed clarification rejecting allegations made by several NEET-UG 2026 candidates who claimed that their OMR sheets had been changed, interchanged or incorrectly evaluated. The agency said it examined the complaints and found that many of the documents being circulated on social media were “fabricated, digitally altered or AI-generated” and did not match the official records maintained by the NTA.

The clarification comes after several students alleged discrepancies in their OMR sheets and scorecards following the declaration of the re-NEET results. Some candidates claimed their answer sheets had been swapped with those of other students, while others alleged that their marks had suddenly changed or that the OMR sheets uploaded by the NTA did not match the answers they had marked in the examination.

Addressing the controversy, the NTA issued case-specific clarifications for five candidates whose allegations had gone viral on social media platforms, especially X. These candidates are Avaneesh Srivastava, Pratibha Trivedi, Abhay Yadav, Lakshya Singh and Arya Singh.

The agency said all five cases were thoroughly verified and that the OMR sheets of all five candidates had been correctly evaluated.

“After verification, it has been found that the score of each of these candidates stands exactly as declared. The images being circulated are digitally regenerated or altered versions of the candidates’ genuine OMR sheets,” the NTA said.

Avaneesh Srivastava case: NTA says there was no OMR sheet mix-up

One of the most widely discussed cases was that of Avaneesh Srivastava, whose family alleged that the OMR sheet uploaded by the NTA belonged to another student named Ajeet Singh. The allegation was later amplified by the Congress, which questioned the credibility of the re-NEET examination and claimed there had been another major lapse after the earlier paper leak controversy.

The NTA, however, categorically denied any interchange of answer sheets.

According to the agency, a forensic examination showed that the viral image was not an official OMR sheet but a digitally altered version of Avaneesh’s own answer sheet. It said only the identity-related fields had been changed, while the barcode, booklet number, test booklet code and answer pattern remained the same as the genuine OMR sheet.

The agency also pointed out several signs of digital manipulation. These included spelling mistakes such as “Roll Ne” instead of “Roll No.”, “correctly Nilled” instead of “correctly filled”, garbled words like “partic alam”, “signaroen”, “OFFICF Copy” and “hureby desloxa”, along with incorrect field labels and abnormal question numbering.

According to the NTA, these are common indicators of AI-based document generation, where software often creates meaningless text while reproducing documents.

The agency further clarified that no NEET-UG 2026 candidate named “Ajeet Singh, son of Shri Lakhan Singh and Smt. Reena Singh” exists in its database. “A search of the complete candidate database found no such registered candidate. This is not a case of two candidates’ OMR sheets being interchanged. It is a fabricated image presented as an official record,” the NTA said.

It also noted that the viral image had nearly six times the resolution of the original institutional scan, the colour of the answer markings had changed from black to blue-purple, and the thumb impression appeared as a saturated colour block without natural ridge details.

The agency added that Avaneesh’s genuine OMR sheet, containing his correct name, parents’ names, signature and thumb impression, had been evaluated through the standard process and that his result remains unchanged.

Pratibha Trivedi’s OMR sheet was ‘significantly altered’

The NTA also rejected the allegations made by candidate Pratibha Trivedi regarding her OMR sheet.

According to the agency, the genuine OMR sheet was already available with the NTA and had also been emailed to the candidate during the official OMR Response Key challenge window.

However, the image now circulating on social media is not the same document. “The image being circulated is a digitally altered version of the genuine OMR sheet. It is not the sheet held on record with the NTA and has been significantly modified,” the agency said.

After verification, the NTA stated that Pratibha’s score of 38 marks had been digitally verified and “stands as declared.” The agency also warned that creating or circulating forged OMR sheets is an offence under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

Abhay Yadav’s claim contradicted official records 

The NTA also dismissed the allegations made by Abhay Yadav regarding his OMR sheet and final result.

According to the agency, Abhay had publicly claimed that he left only five questions unanswered and should have received 634 marks in the examination. However, the NTA said its official records tell a completely different story.

After verifying the original OMR sheet and the calculation sheet, the agency found that Abhay had actually left 44 out of 180 questions unanswered. “The candidate’s public claim is not supported by the official record. The OMR sheet and calculation sheet are fully consistent, and the score of 164 marks stands as declared,” the NTA said.

Like Pratibha’s case, the agency said the genuine OMR sheet had already been emailed to Abhay during the challenge window. It also warned that circulating forged documents or making claims contrary to official examination records could attract action under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

Lakshya Singh’s viral OMR is “digitally forged” 

The NTA also addressed allegations made by Lakshya Singh.

According to the agency, the OMR sheet being circulated online had been digitally manipulated by adding response markings that did not exist on the genuine answer sheet. “The image being circulated shows response markings that are absent on the genuine OMR sheet. Additional answer bubbles have been shaded digitally to create a forged document,” the NTA said.

The agency clarified that Lakshya’s original OMR sheet had been correctly evaluated and that his declared score remains unchanged.

Arya Singh’s allegations and NTA’s response

Another case that attracted significant attention was that of Kanpur candidate Arya Singh.

Arya had alleged that when the OMR sheet was first uploaded on 13th July, the order of questions was incorrect. After matching her answers, she claimed her expected score should have been 609 marks and submitted an objection through the official challenge process.

According to Arya, the NTA later uploaded a revised OMR sheet with the corrected question sequence, but the marks still did not match her expectations. She further claimed that when the re-NEET results were declared on the night of July 16, the portal initially displayed her score as 540 marks before it allegedly changed to 167 marks after repeated page refreshes.

She has described the issue as either a technical glitch or an evaluation error and said she had submitted complaints to both the NTA and the Ministry of Education along with screenshots.

Responding to the controversy, the NTA said the image circulating online was a digitally altered version of Arya’s genuine OMR sheet. “The recorded signature time of one invigilator has been changed from 3:45 PM on the genuine sheet to 2:45 PM on the altered image. Several other signs of digital manipulation are also visible,” the agency stated. The NTA reiterated that Arya’s original OMR sheet had been correctly evaluated and that her score “stands as declared.”

NTA explains how fake OMR sheets were created 

Along with the case-specific clarifications, the NTA also explained the methods it found being used to create fake examination documents.

According to the agency, one method involved AI-powered image generation tools that recreated the printed sections of genuine OMR sheets.

Another involved digitally replacing candidate details such as names, signatures and thumb impressions while leaving the barcode and answer bubbles unchanged so that the document appeared authentic. The agency also found scorecards in which marks or response counts had been changed digitally without altering the embedded QR code or barcode.

In some cases, fabricated OMR sheets even contained names of candidates who did not exist in the NEET-UG 2026 database.”A fabricated image may appear genuine, but it cannot change the official records securely stored on NTA and NIC servers,” the agency said.

NTA warns of legal action 

The agency has advised students, parents and guardians to submit only original documents downloaded from the official NTA portal while raising grievances.

It warned that creating, possessing, circulating or submitting forged, digitally altered or AI-generated OMR sheets, scorecards or examination documents is a cognisable offence under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

The NTA also said legal proceedings may be initiated not only against candidates but also against third parties involved in preparing or circulating fake documents.

At the same time, it assured students with genuine grievances that they can approach the agency through the official helpdesk by providing their application number, roll number and details of the discrepancy. The agency also clarified that no re-evaluation or revision of results will be carried out on the basis of fabricated images.

The News Minute misrepresents to weave a narrative? The report on ONGC donating CSR funds to ‘RSS-linked orgs’- what it leaves out

Dhruv Mishra
-
0
The News Minute misrepresents to weave a narrative? The report on ONGC donating CSR funds to ‘RSS-linked orgs’- what it leaves out

On July 19, 2026, The News Minute published a report about ONGC, the government-owned oil and company. The report found that ONGC gave ₹670.97 crore to 20 organisations that have links to the RSS, with this money being given starting from 2013. Most of this amount, ₹668.01 crore, was given between 2015 and 2025.

In that same period, ONGC spent ₹4,531 crore in total on CSR. It covered more than 2,000 organisations and projects across India. So the money given to RSS-linked organisations works out to about 14.7% of ONGC’s total CSR spending over that decade.

The News Minute report

The News Minute divided the 20 organisations into three groups. Nine are directly connected to the RSS, nine were started by or are run by people connected to the RSS, and two have worked with the RSS in the past. The two organisations that received the most money were BAVP (Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya Pratishthan), which got about ₹434 crore to build a 300-bed hospital in Sivasagar, Assam, and DATSAS (Dr Aabaji Thatte Seva Aur Anusandhan Sanstha), which got about ₹140 crore for a cancer hospital in Nagpur. These numbers come straight from ONGC’s own CSR annual reports, which anyone can find on the ONGC website. These facts are correct, and it’s important to say so clearly before adding anything else.

The other 85%

The 14.7% figure doesn’t show the full picture. Out of ONGC’s ₹4,531 crore CSR spend, about ₹3,863 crore, a little over 85%, went to organisations that have no connection to the RSS, spread across more than 1,980 other organisations and projects.

If we look at ONGC’s yearly CSR reports, which are publicly available since 2018-19, it becomes clear how wide this spending actually is. In the financial year 2024-25 alone, ONGC funded medical equipment for S.M. Dev Civil Hospital and Karimganj Civil Hospital in Assam, including anaesthesia workstations, ICU ventilators, and digital radiography systems along with an auditorium for a nursing college in Haridwar, seven Anganwadi buildings for child development services in Coimbatore, a solar power plant for the Brahma Kumaris’ retreat centre in Gurugram, and an AI-enabled machine to help clean garbage from a lake in Thane. None of these organisations has any RSS connection; they range from government-run civil hospitals to a Sikh charitable trust running an ambulance service in West Bengal.

ONGC’s FY2018-19 records show the same pattern on a larger scale. HelpAge India received over ₹7 crore for mobile medical units serving elderly citizens across the country. The Akshaya Patra Foundation got funding for vehicles to deliver school meals in Rajasthan and Jharkhand. During the Kerala floods, ONGC funded relief work through Habitat for Humanity, and after Cyclone Gaja hit Tamil Nadu, it funded emergency food and solar-light distribution through local relief groups. Thousands of smaller grants that same year went toward building toilets in villages across Bihar, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh, installing handpumps and solar streetlights in remote areas, and supporting Kendriya Vidyalaya schools nationally, the latter alone receiving over ₹53 crore in a single year.

This spending also touches groups that have nothing to do with ideology at all: the Wildlife Trust of India and Wildlife Conservation Society India for conservation work, the Indian Mountaineering Foundation for training and expeditions, Sulabh International for sanitation projects across multiple states, and organisations supporting the disabled, such as the Bhagwan Mahaveer Viklang Sahayata Samiti, which is known for providing artificial limbs at low or no cost.

Taken together, this shows an organisation whose CSR spending is genuinely broad, covering healthcare, education, disaster relief, sanitation, wildlife protection, and support for marginalised communities, delivered through everyone from national NGOs to local Gram Panchayats. The ₹668 crore figure The News Minute reported is accurate. But it represents a small part of a much larger CSR budget that mostly goes elsewhere, to a very different mix of recipients. It’s simple math, and that’s exactly why it’s the strongest piece of context to start with.

Concentration, not distribution

It’s worth looking closely at how the ₹668 crore is actually spread out among the 20 organisations. Almost all of it, about ₹574 crore, or roughly 86%, went to just two organisations: BAVP and DATSAS. The other 18 organisations together received the remaining ₹94 crore or so, in amounts ranging from about ₹1 crore to ₹15.53 crore each.

This matters because hospitals and cancer institutes are expensive to build. A single large healthcare project can easily cost hundreds of crores, while most other kinds of CSR work, like schools, hostels, and disaster relief, cost far less. So when two hospital-building projects account for the bulk of the RSS-linked total, the 14.7% figure is really being driven by the scale of two specific projects rather than by RSS-linked organisations broadly receiving large sums across the board. The News Minute report was trying to hide this information.

The institutions behind the nnumbers

BAVP was established in 1989 and runs several functioning hospitals, including Dr. Hedgewar Hospital in Aurangabad and the newer hospital in Assam, which is a 300-bed facility with 21 specialities and is empanelled under the government’s Ayushman Bharat health insurance scheme. It offers care at low, published rates, including discounts for patients below the poverty line. DATSAS built the National Cancer Institute in Nagpur, a 470-bed facility that opened in 2023.

Both organisations are registered and have a real, documented history of medical work. The News Minute reported the leadership and founding history of both organisations do have RSS ties, But it’s useful to hold both facts at once: these are functioning institutions doing real healthcare work, and they also have documented links to the RSS. One doesn’t erase the other.

What the organisations say

Uday Kuntal, Akhil Bhartiya Prachar Pramukh of Rashtriya Sewa Bharati, said he did not have complete knowledge of the specifics of The News Minute’s report and was not in a position to confirm its findings without seeing the facts directly.

He pushed back on the framing that RSS itself is not a single registered entity operating at the district level, but that the organisations associated with it, including Rashtriya Sewa Bharati, are separately registered and publish their information on their own websites. He said it becomes easy to target nationalist organisations simply for being labelled as such, when in reality they are working for the country.

Kuntal said it was misleading to suggest that CSR funds were given specifically to RSS-linked organisations because of that link. According to him, organisations like his own work in areas such as hospitals and charity, and the CSR data reflects the projects they’ve undertaken, not an ideological allocation. He said framing it as money being deliberately routed to RSS was inaccurate and manipulative.

He also pointed out that his organisation runs training programmes on how to use CSR funding effectively for social work across India for the first time, and noted that several large organisations have also declined or cancelled CSR partnerships with them in the past, which he offered as evidence against the idea of an easy or automatic funding pipeline.

Conclusion

Both things are true, and neither cancels the other out. ONGC directed ₹668 crore, 14.7% of a decade’s CSR spending, to organisations with documented RSS links. That is not a rounding error or a technicality. It is a substantial sum, and two organisations alone, BAVP and DATSAS, absorbed the bulk of it. The News Minute’s numbers hold up under scrutiny, and no amount of context should be used to quietly wave that away.

But precision cuts both ways. A ₹668 crore figure driven almost entirely by two hospital-building projects is not the same story as ₹668 crore spread thinly across twenty organisations as a pattern of ideological favouritism, and conflating the two, even unintentionally, misleads readers about what actually happened. Large capital healthcare projects cost hundreds of crores by nature; that is, arithmetic, not apologetics. Meanwhile, the ₹3,863 crore sitting alongside that figure, 85% of the total, tells a different story than the headline number alone suggests, funding sanitation, schools, disaster relief, and disability welfare through more than 1,980 organisations with no RSS connection at all.

Neither fact is a rebuttal of the other. A reader who takes away only “ONGC funnelled money to the RSS” due to TNM’s headline and their own bias has missed the shape of the spending.

How did Saurav Das fly a drone in a high-security, no-drone area? What are red zones and how CJP’s action was illegal

Anurag
-
0
How did Saurav Das fly a drone in a high-security, no-drone area? What are red zones and how CJP’s action was illegal

At around 10 am, a drone shot showed Jantar Mantar packed with protesters responding to the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) “Sansad Chalo” call ahead of the proposed march towards Parliament. Notably, Delhi Police did not grant permission for the protest. The aerial footage captured the gathering from above and was circulated to demonstrate the number of people who had assembled at the protest venue.

Source: CJP/X

Another video was shared at around 1 pm.

Source: CJP/X

Another video was shared by CJP’s spokesperson Saurav Das at around 2:30 pm.

The video shared by Das was also shared with national and international media houses, and was further amplified through their social media handles. However, the footage has also raised serious questions over the legality of the drone flight.

Source: RT India/X

A check of the Government of India’s Digital Sky airspace map shows Jantar Mantar inside multiple red zones. Under the Drone Rules, 2021, no person can operate a drone in a red zone without prior permission. A red zone is the most restricted category on the map, and drone operations inside it can be permitted only by the Central Government. Any unauthroised drone flight in red zone is a serious national security concern.

The black pin on the map is the location of Jantar Mantar. As depicted by the circles around it, the location falls under multiple red zones. Source: Digital Sky

Therefore, unless the operator had secured prior permission from the Central Government, the drone used to capture the CJP protest footage was flown illegally.

The question for CJP and the person who recorded or uploaded the footage is straightforward, that is, who authorised the drone flight over Jantar Mantar, and under which Central Government permission was it conducted?

Considering that CJP did not seek permission for the protest, it is hard to believe that the person who operated the drone had obtained permission to fly it in the restricted area.

Jantar Mantar falls inside a red zone

According to the Drone Rules, 2021, the remote pilot is required to verify the flight path on the Digital Sky platform before commencing any flight. The pilot must check whether any notification or restriction applies to the intended area of operation.

According to Rule 22 of the Drone Rules, no person can operate an unmanned aircraft system in a red or yellow zone without permission. Only a flight conducted in a green zone is exempt from prior permission, and even there, the pilot is required to verify the latest restrictions before taking off.

For those who are unfamiliar with the zoning mechanism, it must be understood that it is not fixed. The zoning is dynamic, and the Central Government can update the Digital Sky map and change the status of an area when and where required. This means an operator cannot rely on an old map, a previous flight or an assumption that a location is open for drones. The map must be checked before every flight.

The Ministry of Civil Aviation describes a red zone as a “no-drone zone”. According to the ministry, drones can be operated in such an area only after obtaining permission from the Central Government. The ministry also says that anyone planning a drone operation must check the latest Digital Sky map for changes in zone boundaries.

The purpose of the flight does not alter the restriction. A drone does not become exempt merely because it is being used for protest publicity, photography, journalism, social media content or recreational recording.

Similarly, keeping the drone at a relatively low altitude does not make the operation legal. Once the location is marked as a red zone, prior Central Government permission is required for the flight itself.

What green, yellow and red zones mean

The Digital Sky airspace map divides India’s airspace into green, yellow and red zones. The colours determine whether prior permission is needed and which authority is competent to issue it.

How Red, Yellow, and Green Zones appear on the map. Source: Digital Sky

Green zone

A green zone generally covers airspace up to 400 feet, or 120 metres, above an area that has not been designated as yellow or red.

There is a separate height restriction near operational airports. In an area situated between 8 kilometres and 12 kilometres from an operational airport’s perimeter, only airspace up to 200 feet, or 60 metres, is treated as green.

Prior flight permission is not required in a green zone. However, this does not mean that all other regulations disappear. The drone may still need registration, the operator may need a remote pilot certificate, and the pilot must check the Digital Sky map before the flight.

Yellow zone

A yellow zone is restricted airspace where drone operations require prior permission from the concerned Air Traffic Control authority.

Depending on the airspace, the competent authority may be the Airports Authority of India, the Indian Air Force, the Indian Navy, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited or another designated air traffic authority.

The airspace above 400 feet in an otherwise green zone becomes yellow. Around an operational airport, different altitude and distance restrictions also apply. The Ministry of Civil Aviation says that yellow-zone permission must come from the concerned ATC authority.

Red zone

A red zone is airspace in which drone operations are allowed only with Central Government permission.

The Drone Rules define it as airspace of specified dimensions over land, territorial waters, specified installations or notified port limits where the Central Government may allow drone operations in exceptional circumstances.

A local organiser, private security agency, police officer, photographer or drone service provider cannot independently authorise a red-zone flight. Permission from another authority also cannot replace the permission specifically required from the Central Government.

Temporary red zone

A state government, Union Territory administration or law enforcement agency can declare a temporary red zone when there is an urgent need to prohibit drone flights in an area.

Such a temporary restriction can remain in force for up to 96 hours at a time. It must be declared by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or an equivalent officer.

The authorities may attempt to inform registered drone owners located within five kilometres of the temporary red zone. However, failure to receive such an alert does not excuse the pilot. The responsibility to check Digital Sky remains with the person operating the drone.

A small camera drone is not exempt from red-zone rules

Civilian drones are classified according to their maximum all-up weight, including the payload carried by them.

A nano drone weighs up to 250 grams. A micro drone weighs more than 250 grams but not more than 2 kilograms. A small drone weighs more than 2 kilograms but not more than 25 kilograms.

A medium drone weighs more than 25 kilograms but not more than 150 kilograms, while a large drone weighs more than 150 kilograms.

Many camera drones commonly used to record political programmes, weddings, public gatherings and social media videos fall under the nano or micro categories. It is generally assumed that because a drone is lightweight, it would be exempt from obtaining permission to record in a red zone, which is false. Their lower weight does not permit them to enter a red zone.

The exemption available to some small drones concerns the remote pilot certificate, not restricted airspace. A remote pilot certificate is not required for operating a nano drone. It is also not required for a micro drone being used for non-commercial purposes. The Drone Amendment Rules, 2022, replaced the earlier term “remote pilot licence” with “remote pilot certificate”, which is issued by an authorised remote pilot training organisation.

However, Rule 22 does not create a nano-drone or micro-drone exception for red zones. Even a drone weighing less than 250 grams requires Central Government permission before it can be flown inside a red zone.

The nature of the footage may also become relevant while determining whether a micro-drone operation was genuinely non-commercial. A drone commissioned by an organisation or media team for promotional or professional footage cannot automatically be treated as a private, non-commercial recreational flight.

Registration, pilot certification and other requirements

Red-zone authorisation is only one part of drone compliance. The Drone Rules generally prohibit a person from operating a drone without first registering it on the Digital Sky platform and obtaining a Unique Identification Number (UIN), unless the drone or operation has been granted a specific exemption.

The UIN is linked to the drone’s manufacturer-provided serial number, flight-control module and remote pilot station. The person operating the aircraft is also responsible for ensuring that it conforms to a valid type certificate where such certification is required.

Where a remote pilot certificate is necessary, the person flying the drone must possess a valid certificate applicable to the relevant category, sub-category and class of unmanned aircraft system.

The rules also prohibit the operation of a drone in a manner that directly or indirectly endangers the safety and security of any person or property. Drones must remain clear of manned aircraft and cannot interfere with their right of way.

Flying above a tightly packed gathering does not automatically prove that the safety rule was violated. However, it creates an additional issue that the authorities may examine. A malfunction, loss of control, battery failure or collision could cause a drone to fall upon the people assembled below.

Third-party insurance requirements also apply to drone operations, although nano drones are exempt from the insurance requirement.

India liberalised drone use, but did not remove security restrictions

The Drone Rules, 2021, were introduced by the Government of India as part of an attempt to simplify the civilian drone regime and encourage the legitimate use of unmanned aircraft systems. According to the government, the framework is based on trust, self-certification and non-intrusive monitoring. With the rules, the number of forms was reduced from 25 to five, and the number of different fee categories was brought down from 72 to four.

Digital Sky was developed as a user-friendly, single-window system. Several approvals were abolished, and green-zone operations were freed from prior flight permission. The yellow-zone radius around airports was also reduced from 45 kilometres to 12 kilometres. However, liberalisation did not mean that anyone could fly a drone anywhere.

The government removed unnecessary restrictions from low-risk green-zone operations while maintaining strict control over airports, defence establishments, government buildings, strategic locations, densely populated areas and other sensitive airspace.

The rules preserved mandatory zoning, pre-flight verification, registration, certification and safety obligations. They also enabled law enforcement agencies to impose temporary restrictions where an urgent security threat emerged.

This is where the distinction becomes important. Flying a drone inside a red zone is not simply a failure to complete an ordinary form in an otherwise unrestricted area. It amounts to entering airspace where civilian drone operations are barred unless the Central Government grants permission.

Why even ordinary camera drones are treated as a security concern

A civilian quadcopter may appear to be nothing more than a flying camera. However, the same basic platform can be used for purposes extending far beyond photography.

Modern camera drones can transmit live video, record high-resolution footage, hover over a location, follow programmed routes and return automatically to their launch point. Depending on the model, they can also carry objects in addition to the camera installed on them.

Such capabilities can be used lawfully for surveying, agriculture, mapping, rescue operations, filmmaking and infrastructure inspection. They can also be misused to observe security deployments, identify access routes, record sensitive installations or carry prohibited payloads.

Authorities cannot determine the operator’s intention merely by looking at a drone in the sky. A machine used to record a public gathering may outwardly resemble another drone being used for reconnaissance or carrying an unauthorised object.

This is why the regulations focus on the location, aircraft, operator and permission rather than accepting the claimed purpose of the flight after the drone has already entered restricted airspace.

Drones have changed the character of modern warfare

Drones are playing a significant role in modern warfare. Earlier, military air power was dominated by fighter aircraft, helicopters and large surveillance platforms. Drones were primarily viewed as specialised systems used by technologically advanced militaries. Cheap commercial quadcopters, first-person-view drones, loitering munitions and autonomous systems have changed that equation.

Small drones can observe enemy positions, relay targeting information, strike vehicles, attack soldiers or force expensive air-defence systems to respond to comparatively inexpensive threats. Their low cost allows military units to deploy them in large numbers without risking a pilot.

However, fighter jets have not become obsolete. They continue to dominate deep-penetration missions, air superiority, electronic warfare, high-speed operations and strikes requiring larger payloads.

The emerging model combines manned and unmanned aircraft. Drones can fly ahead, locate targets, absorb defensive fire and conduct strikes while the manned aircraft remains at a safer distance. Warfare is increasingly being shaped not only by speed and firepower but also by data, signals, software, electronic warfare and autonomous systems.

The development of drone warfare nevertheless explains why governments do not treat unidentified drones near sensitive locations as harmless toys merely because they carry cameras.

Operation Sindoor demonstrated the offensive and defensive use of drones

Operation Sindoor showed how drones now operate on both sides of a modern conflict. According to an official government account, Pakistan attempted to target several military locations in northern and western India with drones and missiles on the night of 7th and 8th May 2025.

The attempted attacks covered locations including Srinagar, Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Bathinda, Chandigarh and Bhuj. India’s Integrated Counter-UAS Grid and air-defence systems detected and neutralised the threats.

Pakistan subsequently carried out drone and unmanned combat aerial vehicle attacks against Indian airbases and logistics infrastructure. The attacks were countered by India’s layered air-defence network and integrated command-and-control systems.

India also used drones offensively during the operation. The government said that loitering munitions were used to locate and destroy important targets, including radar and missile systems. Such systems are also described as kamikaze or suicide drones because they remain in the target area before striking an identified objective.

Long-range drones and guided munitions formed part of India’s precision-strike capability. Indian forces also recovered or identified Turkish-manufactured UAVs, long-range rockets, quadcopters and commercial drones used during Pakistan’s attempted attacks.

The response involved a combination of counter-UAS systems, electronic warfare equipment, shoulder-fired weapons, older air-defence guns and modern missile systems.

Therefore, Operation Sindoor showed the complete cycle of drone warfare. Drones were used for surveillance, attempted attacks and precision strikes, while electronic warfare and counter-drone systems were used to detect, jam and destroy them.

What penalties can apply

The Drone Rules provide for action against those who violate the regulations. The authority can impose a penalty of up to Rs 1 lakh after giving the person concerned an opportunity to be heard.

The DGCA can also suspend or cancel a certificate, authorisation or approval if the holder is found to have violated the rules. The rules, as notified in 2021, classified the contravention of the prior-permission requirement under Rule 22 as cognisable and non-compoundable.

The Aircraft Act, 1934, under which the Drone Rules were originally issued, was replaced by the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, which came into force on 1st January 2025. However, Section 43 of the new law preserves rules, permissions, certificates and other actions taken under the repealed Act, provided they are not inconsistent with the new legislation. The Drone Rules, therefore, continue to operate under the corresponding provisions of the new law.

The Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam also separately provides punishment where an aircraft is wilfully flown in a manner that endangers a person or property. Such an offence can attract imprisonment of up to two years, a fine of up to Rs 1 crore, or both. Whether that provision applies would depend on the circumstances of the flight and the evidence available to the authorities.

CJP must disclose who authorised the drone flight

The video shared by CJP from Jantar Mantar shows that a drone was operating above the protest venue at around 9 am. The Digital Sky map places the location inside multiple red zones. Under the Drone Rules, the flight could be legally conducted only after prior permission from the Central Government.

The drone’s size, the fact that it was recording a political programme and the claim that it was used only to show the crowd do not replace the legally prescribed authorisation.

CJP and the person who published the footage should disclose the drone’s model, weight and registration number, the identity and certification of its operator, and the Central Government permission under which it was flown.

In the absence of such permission, the drone flight used to capture the ‘Sansad Chalo’ gathering was unauthorised and violated India’s red-zone drone regulations, and the authorities must take necessary action before this gives the impression that such activities are allowed in red zones.

India gets its first dengue vaccine: How it strengthens India’s position as a global vaccine hub

Rukma Rathore
-
0
India gets its first dengue vaccine: How it strengthens India’s position as a global vaccine hub

On 20th July (Monday), the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) has allowed market authorisation to Takeda Biopharmaceuticals India Private Limited for a dengue prevention vaccination “QDENGA” in a significant breakthrough in the fight against the fatal disease.

According to the company, pre-vaccination screening including blood-test is not necessary for this live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine which means that it protects against all four dengue virus serotypes (DENV 1, 2, 3 and 4) and can be administered irrespective of prior dengue exposure in contrast to certain other dengue vaccines like Dengvaxia.

Takeda, a Japanese pharmaceutical entity teamed up with Hyderabad-based Biological E vaccine manufacturer in 2024 to increase QDENGA production in line with “Make in India” mission. Furthermore, the former has set a target of producing 100 million doses yearly for the world by the end of the decade. The goal would be aided by this partnership which intends to build a manufacturing capacity of 50 million doses annually.

The vaccine can be provided to individuals between the ages of 4 and 60. More than 40 countries such as the European Union, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Indonesia and Argentina have already given a nod to the vaccine and India has followed suit as dengue turns out to be among its worst seasonal public health risks.

Mahender Nayak, Head of Intercontinental Markets at Takeda expressed, “Since its launch in 2022, QDENGA has been approved in 43 countries, with more than 32 million doses distributed globally. This approval marks an important step forward in strengthening dengue prevention in India.”

It is intended to boost immunity against all four dengue virus serotypes, minimising the likelihood of severe illness that can lead to hospitalisation and symptomatic dengue. The vaccination is given in two doses of 0.5 milliliter spaced three months apart by subcutaneous injection.

World Health Organisation (WHO) has advised its usage in regions with a high dengue transmission prevalence as part of a global dengue control plan alongside incorporation in public immunisation programs in high-transmission areas without needing pre-vaccination verification.

How useful is QDENGA

The firm mentioned that long-term data gathered over a seven-year period demonstrated that the vaccination remains effective in providing protection against hospitalisation and dengue infection triggered by all four dengue virus serotypes.

The results of Takeda’s worldwide clinical research program, which comprised 19 Phase I, II, and III clinical trials with over 28,000 individuals in both dengue-endemic and non-endemic countries, served as the foundation for the acceptance. The Phase III DEN-302 clinical trial in India, which examined the vaccine’s safety and immunological response in individuals aged 4 to 60 in India, provided further support for the conclusion.

Over 20,000 children and adolescents from 8 dengue-endemic nations engaged in the crucial TIDES Phase III trial, which generated positive long-term outcomes. The review consisted of 4.5 years of monitoring which illustrated that the vaccine showcased 84.1% protection against hospitalisation due to dengue, 90.4% efficacy against dengue-related hospitalisation after 18 months and overall, about 61% protection against dengue with virological confirmation.

Furthermore, efficency varied by dengue serotype but both persons with and without prior dengue infection had sustained protection against severe dengue. The WHO’s recommendation and other worldwide regulatory licenses were influenced by these findings. Nayak conveyed, “Dengue is a growing public health challenge, and India needs sustained, evidence-based prevention.”

Empirical substantiation and ongoing pharmacovigilance to improve knowledge of the vaccine’s safety and efficacy further advance these clinical aims.

The significance for India

The permission comes as India continues to record one of the largest dengue cases in the world and the four virus serotypes circulate at the same time in various places within its borders. The tally has risen dramatically as a result of population expansion, urbanisation, shifting mosquito habitats and climate change.

The reports have surged more than 11-fold over the past 20 years with India accounting for about one-third of worldwide dengue epidemic. Hospitals continue to be under tremendous strain from seasonal outbreaks, especially during the monsoon and post-monsoon seasons. Control of mosquitoes, removing breeding grounds, personal safety precautions, early diagnosis and supportive care were prescribed to counter the menace. However, the vaccine has added another crucial layer to tackle the issue.

Goh Choo Beng, Medical Affairs Head for Takeda’s Southeast Asia and India Cluster pointed out, “Its approval represents an important step in strengthening India’s comprehensive approach to dengue prevention, alongside vector control, surveillance, community awareness and other public health measures.”

QDENGA has been prequalified by the WHO, indicating that it satisfies international standards for efficacy, safety and quality as well as validates the vaccine for purchase by global entities like the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) and United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF).

Local production might boost supply and cut off dependence on imports. The cost of the vaccine will also vary subject to whether it is first solely available on the commercial market or if it is subsequently introduced to government immunisation schemes.

The way forward

The prevention of mosquito bites and the management of mosquito reproduction cannot be replaced by vaccination. WHO highlighted that it should be implemented as part of an integrated approach that consists of control of mosquitoes, awareness of the community, early diagnosis, obtaining healthcare and monitoring.

However, Dengue cannot be totally eradicated by extremely effective vaccinations because 4 distinct virus serotypes are simultaneously transmitted, infection is continuously spread by mosquito populations which are flourishing due to urbanisation and climate change. According to experts, vaccinations should assist with current public health initiatives rather than take their place.

During seasonal outbreaks, QDENGA could lessen hospital admissions, acute medical conditions and the load on healthcare systems if it is extensively implemented. Moreover, India is presently positioned as a key manufacturing location for the world’s supply of dengue vaccines owing to the agreement between the two sides which could also prove advantageous for the country.

India at the forefront of vaccine development

India’s capability for vaccine research and development is accelerating as it continues to be an essential part in the creation of critical new vaccines. The nation is one of the world’s leading producers of vaccines and its stature in this field was recently evident during the Covid-19 pandemic.

India had built its first domestic vaccine “Covaxin” which was created by pharmaceutical firm Bharat Biotech and government-funded Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Institute of Virology (NIV) at the time.

On the other hand, Pune’s Serum Institute of India (SII) made Covishield, a variant of the AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID-19 vaccine along with Covovax XBB.1.5 and Covovax (developed by Novavax). The vaccines were also exported to other countries as part of New Delhi’s “Vaccine Maitri”(Friendship) campaign and flew at least more than 298 million vaccines to about 100 countries worldwide.

SII also developed and produces “Cervavac” which is an indigenous Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that protects against its 4 HPV types (6, 11, 16, 18). India’s Department of Biotechnology, the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation were also involved in the project. The vaccine is used to prevent genital warts and cervical cancer. It was recognised by the drug controller general of India in January 2023.

India has also developed vaccines for polio, rabies, Hepatitis B, Swine flu, Meningitis, Cholera, Japanese Encephalitis and Rotavirus Gastroenteritis, among others.

“India accounts for 60 per cent of global vaccine production making it the largest vaccine producer in the world. India is also one of the biggest suppliers of low-cost vaccines in the world and is the largest provider of generic medicines globally, occupying a 20% share in global supply by volume,” an estimate suggested in 2023.

1...345...7,623Page 4 of 7,623