Home Blog Page 5

Who is Vijay Thottathil: Kerala Congress media cell functionary removed after “resign now” post controversy targeting CJI Surya Kant

Shriti Sagar
-
0
Who is Vijay Thottathil: Kerala Congress media cell functionary removed after “resign now” post controversy targeting CJI Surya Kant

The Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) has removed Vijay Thottathil from his position in the party’s media cell after a controversial X post targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant. The controversial post, published on 12th October on the official X account of Congress Kerala, sparked intense criticism, prompting the KPCC to tender an unconditional apology to the Chief Justice on Tuesday, 27th October.

The controversy erupted during a march to the Supreme Court organised by the opposition INDIA bloc, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. When the Chief Justice indicated that he could not meet the alliance leaders due to legal constraints, the Kerala Congress handle posted remarks calling for his resignation: “Dear Surya Kant, if law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.”

Following a legal notice received on 21st October, KPCC president Sunny Joseph alleged that the post was published by Vijay Thottathil without the knowledge or authorisation of the party leadership. 

Joseph stated that Thottathil had been removed from his post and directed to issue a public apology. Withdrawing the remarks and expressing regret, the KPCC asserted respect for the Constitution and judicial independence, stating that “the demand for resignation and the suggestion of finding a replacement for the Chief Justice were inappropriate and should not have appeared on an official party platform.”

Who is Vijay Thottathil?

Vijay Thottathil is an active political volunteer and digital media cell member for the Congress party in Kerala. Calling himself a social media activist, he has been a prominent face in managing and shaping online propaganda for the party in the state. He is also a columnist for the leftist media website ‘The News Minute’.

This latest incident is not the first time the Kerala Congress social media handle has landed in trouble during Vijay Thottathil’s tenure in the media cell. In 2024, a major political storm broke out over another controversial post made from the party handle regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with Pope Francis at the G7 summit in Italy.

The post featured a photo of PM Modi alongside the Pope with the caption, “Finally, the Pope got a chance to meet God!”, wilfully misconstruing an earlier statement by PM Modi about being sent by God for a purpose. 

Facing severe outrage from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and accusations of disrespecting religious sentiments, the Congress unit had to delete the post, and the party later issued an apology for causing “any emotional or psychological distress to Christians,” while adding that political leaders remain subject to criticism. Reports at the time highlighted that a 26-member team led by Kozhikode-based Vijay Thottathil was operating the handle.

Defence of Kashi Art Café row

More recently, Vijay Thottathil posted several comments surrounding the social media storm over Fort Kochi’s ‘Kashi Art Café’. The café, named after a Hindu god, attracted controversy online after a vlogger highlighted that it displayed portraits of Pakistan’s founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah alongside Mahatma Gandhi while serving beef dishes.

Thottathil took to X to aggressively defend the establishment while launching an all-out attack on people raising genuine concerns, writing: “Now the problem is that Sanghis are jealous of Kerala & its people who live in peace and harmony; they just want to destroy it.”

Rather than addressing the genuine public outrage over the café’s decision to display the portrait of Pakistan’s founder alongside Mahatma Gandhi or the controversy surrounding its name, Thottathil dismissed legitimate criticism by framing it as a regional and political conspiracy. He went on to malign content creators from other states, posting in another contentious tweet, saying, “A few Sanghi bloggers from North India are coming to Kerala, making videos claiming the state needs to be ‘saved’ from Muslim control. Any attempt to spread fake news & create communal tensions will be dealt with seriously by Kerala Police.”

These statements sparked significant backlash for weaponising state law enforcement as a tool to silence independent commentary, while using polarising, anti-North Indian rhetoric to shut down public debate over cultural and historical sensitivities.

Notably, Kerala Chief Minister V. D. Satheesan also accused vlogger Amrit Singh Darren of spreading communal hatred after he uploaded the video. The Chief Minister saw nothing objectionable in displaying Jinnah’s portrait alongside beef options on the menu of an establishment named after a Hindu deity, choosing instead to target the vlogger for raising the issue.

Post following Kharge’s remarks on PM Modi

Thottathil also amplified the recent controversial statements made by Congress leadership. Following Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge’s derogatory remark aimed at Prime Minister Modi, stating “Modi ka baap bhi jayega”, Thottathil backed the sentiment on social media by drawing parallels with recent international presidential elections.

Comparing the Indian political scene to global political shifts, Thottathil wrote on X: “Right-wing (RW) rule has been dramatically rejected by the people in both Brazil and Serbia, but in India people alone can’t do it as Modi has CEC with him! Jana To Padega..”

Allegations surrounding the Rafale Deal

His history of aggressive political commentary online extends back several years. In 2021, Thottathil was among the Congress leaders actively promoting reports alleging corruption and bribery in the Rafale fighter jet deal.

Targeting the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption plank, he posted on his X account: “& Modi says, he is a Chowkidar who will stop all corruption! ED/CBI were all awake and kept quiet; what a sad state of affairs. India is a Banana Republic now.” He routinely accompanied his posts with campaign slogans and hashtags such as #Chowkidarchorhai.

Thottathil even tried to portray Rahul Gandhi as a political martyr after he was convicted by a Surat court for defaming the socially backward ‘Modi community’ and subsequently disqualified from the Lok Sabha. He wrote, “Rahul Gandhi vacates his house, says I’m paying the price for speaking the truth. We are with you in this fight, dear Rahul.”


Thottathil has repeatedly courted controversy, and his actions now appear to have caught up with him after he took aim at the judiciary.

Cyclone Arnab explained: What it is, why it formed, its impact, and India’s preparedness

Balendu Singh Angad
-
0
Cyclone Arnab explained: What it is, why it formed, its impact, and India’s preparedness

India’s southern coast has seen the landfall of Cyclone Arnab. Thousands of people were evacuated from Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. It triggered widespread alerts from the national capital down to the eastern seaboard. The storm, classified as a “very severe cyclonic storm,” has brought ferocious winds and torrential rain. So far, at least three people have lost their lives.

The threat of significant flooding looms over some of India’s most densely populated coastal regions.

Here is a breakdown of the cyclone, its origins, its impact, and the massive preparedness effort it has prompted.

What is Cyclone ‘Arnab’ and why did it form?

Cyclone Arnab is a powerful tropical cyclone that formed over the Bay of Bengal. According to the India Meteorological Department (IMD), it intensified into a cyclonic storm on 26 October and ultimately made landfall as a “very severe cyclonic storm” near Yanam, close to Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh, during the early hours of 28 October. At its peak, the storm packed maximum sustained wind speeds of 125–135 kmph, with gusts reaching up to 150 kmph.

Bangladesh proposed the name “Arnab” to the official list of tropical cyclone names for the North Indian Ocean. The word is commonly associated with the “ocean” or “sea” in Bengali. The naming system, coordinated by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), uses a pre-approved list of 169 names contributed by 13 countries, assigned sequentially to storms as they develop.

It originated from a low-pressure area in the eastern Bay of Bengal that gradually consolidated and intensified. Its main fuel was abnormally warm sea surface temperatures, which exceeded the 26°C threshold considered favourable for cyclone development. The absence of strong atmospheric wind shear allowed the system to organise and strengthen without being torn apart. Climatologically, the storm’s formation aligns with conditions typical of an El Niño year. It is marked by abnormal warming of the equatorial Pacific, which can influence cyclone activity in the Indian Ocean.

How is it impacting Indian states and cities?

The impact has been most severe in Andhra Pradesh, where landfall occurred. Coastal districts including Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam, Kakinada and Konaseema have been battered by extremely heavy rain. Kannuripalem in Anakapalli recorded 259 mm of rain, while wind speeds of 130 kmph were recorded at Maruteru. Kakinada experienced severe conditions, with heavy waves, uprooted trees and disrupted power lines. Storm surges of up to 2.5 metres were warned for near Kakinada and Yanam (Puducherry).

Odisha has faced heavy to very heavy rainfall in southern districts including Gajapati, Ganjam, Rayagada, Koraput, Nabarangpur and Malkangiri. The IMD and disaster authorities also flagged Telangana, Chhattisgarh and Yanam (Puducherry) for heavy rain and potential flooding. Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were placed on alert as the system moved inland. Parts of West Bengal, including Kolkata, felt indirect effects through strong moisture incursion and changed weather.

How Prepared Were the States?

The National Crisis Management Committee reviewed preparedness and directed central agencies and states to minimise damage.

Andhra Pradesh earmarked ₹27 crore for emergency relief and identified 2,199 cyclone shelters. Over 2,360 pregnant women were shifted to medical facilities, more than 84,000 people were evacuated to 290 relief shelters, and at least 609 schools became rehabilitation centres. NDRF and SDRF teams were deployed, with police, fire and medical teams and the Navy and Coast Guard on standby.

Odisha closed schools, colleges and Anganwadi centres in six vulnerable southern districts on 28-29 October, banned fishing and restricted tourist entry to hills, waterfalls and dams. It deployed NDRF and ODRAF teams, focusing on shifting people in thatched houses and low-lying areas.

NDRF deployed 31 teams across India. 12 teams deployed in Andhra Pradesh, nine in Odisha, four in Chhattisgarh, four in Telangana and two in Yanam, with 72 SDRF teams in affected areas. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard kept rescue teams, ships and aircraft ready. As the storm weakens inland, focus shifts to restoring power, clearing roads and assessing damage, but the large pre-landfall evacuation appears to have been crucial in protecting lives.

‘Free Kashmir’, ‘Free Sharjeel Imam’: Islamist slogans raised as Jamia protests escalate despite University concessions; echoes of 2019 anti-CAA violence resurface

Shriti Sagar
-
0
‘Free Kashmir’, ‘Free Sharjeel Imam’: Islamist slogans raised as Jamia protests escalate despite University concessions; echoes of 2019 anti-CAA violence resurface

The campus of Jamia Millia Islamia remains on high alert following days of intense agitation. On Tuesday, 27th October, police officials have enforced Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) outside the university campus to prohibit unlawful gatherings and assemblies. The move came after a fresh call for agitation at the university gates by the All India Students’ Association (AISA), a left-wing group affiliated with the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation. 

Even after 20 hours of continuous demonstration, the administration’s appeals and the student signatures on agreement papers failed to break the deadlock. Central police forces, including the CRPF, CISF, and ITBP, have been heavily deployed outside the gates, where barricades now display notices warning about Section 163 restrictions. This fresh wave of security deployment was triggered when protesting students outrightly rejected the terms of an agreement offered by the university on Monday, 26th October.

Jamia administration accepts key demands, but students refuse to call off protest

Despite the standoff, the university administration has accepted several key demands raised by the students. On Monday, 26th October, Jamia Millia Islamia announced its decision to restore student union elections after nearly 20 years, responding to persistent student demonstrations demanding an elected representative body. 

Jamia Registrar Mahtab Alam Rizvi arrived at the protest spot around 4:30 AM on Monday to hold talks with the demonstrators, presenting the official order and asking them to end the agitation since their primary concerns had been addressed. However, the protesters refused to back down, arguing that the notice fails to provide a concrete, time-bound deadline for approving the union constitution or holding the elections, nor does it address their demand for the Proctor’s resignation.

As per the official notification issued by the Competent Authority of Jamia Millia Islamia on 26th October, the university outlined three major directives:

  1. The Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union Election will be held 15 days from the date of approval of the constitution of the Students’ Union of Jamia Millia Islamia.
  2. Suspension and Show-Cause Notices issued to students during the period of protest are hereby revoked.
  3. A Committee shall be constituted to enquire into the actions of security staff during the period of protest.

Furthermore, the official notice stated that the protesting students agreed to issue a public apology for any defamatory statements or social media posts made against the university administration during the course of the protest, and promised that all such posts would be taken down immediately. While the administration maintained that the protest was formally called off with this order and that compliance would be closely monitored, student groups maintained their stance, insisting on a fixed timeline.

Chaos on campus and the shift to online classes

The continuous disruption forced the university to shift all classes online after protesters created chaos on the campus. On Saturday, 24th October, the university shifted classes to online mode amid security concerns and escalating tensions on campus. The decision was described by the administration as a precautionary measure intended to protect students and allow teaching to continue without further disruption.

The situation inside Jamia had deteriorated over the weekend as the student agitation entered its 14th day on Sunday, 25th October. The campus saw over 100 security personnel on duty, while several protesters tried to enter the premises by climbing over walls fitted with barbed wire and metal spikes. Scuffles broke out between protesters and security personnel, accompanied by loud rallies and sloganeering. Demonstrators on a hunger strike locked themselves inside the Department of Political Science to prevent authorities from breaking their fast.

Even after classes were moved online, tension remained high, with over 500 students assembling to support the stir on Sunday. Key campus hubs, including the area near Gulistan-e-Ghalib, the central library, and the university canteen, were completely cordoned off from outside access, with regular students barred from entry. 

Security personnel from the Delhi Police, CRPF, CISF, and ITBP guarded points both inside and outside the varsity. A senior police officer told The Indian Express, “About 150 to 200 security personnel were deployed outside the campus. Three people, who were not students, were detained from outside.”

FIR against Congress MPs for inciting unrest

In response to the disruption, the Delhi Police filed a formal First Information Report (FIR) following a complaint by the university administration. The FIR explicitly named Congress Lok Sabha MP Imran Masood and Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi, accusing them of trespassing on the campus premises and inciting unrest among the student body.

The university administration publicly stated that political leaders visited the campus to exploit the situation, turning student grievances into fodder for a political narrative. Registrar Mahtab Alam Rizvi stated that the two Congress MPs disrupted the peace on campus by sneaking in over a boundary wall. He pointed out that MP Imran Masood visited the campus on Friday, 23rd October, under the guise of supporting the student stir, but went on to publicly demand “justice” for Islamist Sharjeel Imam, who faces charges in the larger conspiracy case tied to the February 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi riots.

Image via ANI

Meanwhile, student groups like AISA counter-alleged that university security had assaulted students during negotiations.

Controversial slogans surface on Campus walls

While the demonstration originally began under the banner of student representation and union elections, the movement quickly took a controversial turn as familiar radical narratives emerged. In line with a recurring pattern seen in left-led campus agitations, the core administrative issues were soon overshadowed by provocative, divisive, and anti-Hindu graffiti scrawled across university property. 

What was framed as a fight for democratic rights transformed into a display of ideological hostility, with campus walls defaced with inflammatory slogans such as “Free Kashmir,” “Free Sharjeel Imam,” “Death to RSS,” and “Death to ABVP”. Rather than fostering constructive dialogue, the organisers allowed the agitation to degenerate into open provocation, echoing radical rhetoric and targeting specific organisations to incite ideological friction on campus. 

The university administration moved quickly to remove these slogans using chemical agents and noted that CCTV wiring had been tampered with or cut in the specific areas where the graffitied slogans appeared. 

The slogan referring to Sharjeel Imam came at a time when anti-India Islamist Sharjeel Imam is back in the news for a recent interview with the Islamo-leftist propaganda portal ‘The Quint’ published on 29th September, 2026. 

While the core demands of the student movement focused on restoring the Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union (JMISU), establishing a time-bound election schedule, revoking disciplinary actions, and probing security excesses, the appearance of these political slogans added a volatile layer to the protest.

Jamia’s history of violent protests

Jamia Millia Islamia has a history of violent protests. Most notably, the centrally-funded institute was the epicentre of anti-CAA protests in 2019, which claimed the lives of more than 50 people and resulted in around 100 injuries, with students threatening the administration during the unrest. As the protests started on campus, the college administration shut down the canteen and the library and suspended classes. However, this move enraged the protesting students, who accused the administration of suppressing their right to express and organise protests.

AISA issued a statement regarding this and targeted the administration for imposing alleged restrictions: “On December 15, 2019, Delhi Police injured our friends, vandalised our campus, and treated us like terrorists. Today, they are preventing us from even remembering that horrific day.” Several videos of the protests circulated on social media in which protesting students could be seen raising slogans against the Delhi Police deployed outside the campus, claiming the campus was put under lockdown and entry and exit were restricted, with chants like “Delhi Police Go Back” and “Hum kya chahte? Azadi”.

Although students claimed the facilities were shut down to stifle dissent, the administration clarified that maintenance and ongoing construction were the primary reasons for restricted movement.

The 2019 anti-CAA protests at Jamia began on 12th December and turned violent by 13th December. Enraged protesters at Jamia and AMU, including several Muslim groups, attacked public transport systems to show resentment against the Centre. By 14th December, the situation worsened as students at Jamia Millia Islamia became violent amidst chants of Allahu Akbar and Naara-e-Taqbeer, leaving 12 police personnel injured.

Why the elections were suspended

The fundamental issue driving the current unrest is the two-decade ban on student union elections. Jamia Millia Islamia dissolved its central students’ union on 31st March, 2006, shutting down elected student representation due to frequent physical clashes, administrative impasses, and severe academic disruptions. The union had only briefly been restored in December 2005 under former Vice-Chancellor Professor Mushirul Hasan after an earlier hiatus lasting from 1996.

The 2006 decision was driven by chronic indiscipline and constant overreach by union leaders into non-academic administrative functions, including admission procedures, hostel room allocations, and student disciplinary inquiries. The university administration maintained that union representatives regularly exceeded their authority, attempted to dictate institutional policies, and intimidated faculty and administrative staff.

These power struggles routinely escalated into physical violence. In 2006, clashes broke out involving student factions and the proctorial board, leading to an assault on then Proctor Rocket Ibrahim. Following severe violence in July 2006 that forced an indefinite closure of the university, the administration barred outgoing union president Shams Pervez and several other student leaders from entering campus. In an official response submitted to the Rajya Sabha in 2012, the university formally recorded that the union was dismantled after repeated violent events, culminating in physical threats and an attack directed at the Vice-Chancellor.

Administrative figures argued that campus-wide political elections introduced muscle power, factionalism, and external party politics into an academic environment. Successive Vice-Chancellors, including Najeeb Jung (2009–2013), consistently refused to revive the central student union, choosing instead to implement decentralised “subject associations.” Under this system, students elected departmental representatives by secret ballot strictly to manage academic seminars, guest lectures, and cultural events without engaging in central university politics.

Left-wing groups calling for further unrest

As the current agitation enters its 16th day on Tuesday, the campus remains locked in uncertainty. By leveraging the ongoing agitation as political currency, left-wing student groups, including AISA, SFI, and NSUI, have effectively driven Jamia Millia Islamia into an operational gridlock, prioritising aggressive ideological posturing over institutional peace and academic stability.

Even after the university’s conditional offer to hold elections within 15 days of approving a new constitution, these radical student factions rejected the agreement, choosing instead to escalate tensions and prolong campus unrest. Their persistent disruption forced the administration to shift online classes until 8th November, holding regular academic progress and upcoming examinations hostage to fuel their political agenda. 

‘Cow is not just an animal…’: Kalol Court cites Hindu scriptures while delivering verdict in cow slaughter case, sentences three men, including Wasim, to life imprisonment

મેઘલસિંહ પરમાર
-
0
‘Cow is not just an animal…’: Kalol Court cites Hindu scriptures while delivering verdict in cow slaughter case, sentences three men, including Wasim, to life imprisonment

The Kalol Additional Sessions Court in Gandhinagar has sentenced three men to life imprisonment in a 2024 cow slaughter and beef sale case. While delivering the verdict, the court cited Hindu religious scriptures and the Vedas to explain the significance of the cow.

At the beginning of its judgment, the court quoted a shloka stating that the cow is regarded as the mother of the world and is beneficial to human life and society. Protecting the cow is an act associated with dharma and compassion, while justice serves to protect the truth. Wherever cow slaughter takes place, legal action must follow, and if the charges against the accused are established through evidence, they must receive appropriate punishment under the law.

The court observed, “Dharma and justice can be established only by following the path of justice. Protecting living beings and ensuring compliance with the law are important duties of a just society.”

The court cited the Manusmriti, stating, “According to Hindu religious scriptures, the cow is not merely an animal but is regarded as a pillar of dharma. According to the Vedas and religious texts, when drops of divine nectar fell upon the Earth from Brahma’s mouth during his penance, Kamadhenu emerged from these divine drops. She is regarded as the mother of all cattle on Earth.”

The court also cited the Rigveda, stating that the cow is described as ‘Adhanya’, meaning one that must never be killed or slaughtered.

Quoting another shloka, the court explained that its decision on the merits of the case had been reached while keeping the significance of the cow in mind.

The Kalol Additional Sessions Court convicted three accused — Wasim Qureshi, Mohammad Rafiq Qureshi and Ashfaq Behlime — of cow slaughter and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Two other accused, Ghulam Moin Qureshi and Vitthal Senma, were acquitted. Proceedings against another accused, Lalabhai Senma, were terminated following his death during the trial.

The three convicted men were found guilty under Section 325 (mischief by killing or maiming animals) and Section 54 (liability in cases involving the presence of multiple persons) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; Section 119 of the Gujarat Police Act; Sections 5, 6(a), 6(b), 8(2) and 8(4) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2017; Section 11(1)(l) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; and Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The court sentenced all three men to life imprisonment under the animal preservation laws and imposed a fine of ₹2 lakh on each of them.

While pronouncing the sentence, the court observed, “Despite being aware of the consequences, the accused mercilessly slaughtered a cow regarded as a mother and attempted to sell approximately 277 kilograms of beef obtained from it. If those who cruelly slaughter cows are not punished as prescribed by law, Gau Mata will gradually become extinct from the Earth. Therefore, it is necessary to award the accused the maximum punishment permitted under the law.”

The judgment was delivered on October 26 by the court of Judge B. R. Rajput.

What was the case about?

On August 22, 2024, the Kalol police in Gandhinagar raided a house in Dhankani Vas, located in Jamla village, and apprehended individuals allegedly involved in cow slaughter. The police recovered 277 kilograms of meat from the premises. Laboratory testing subsequently confirmed that the meat was beef.

The police also seized weapons allegedly used for cattle slaughter, vehicles and other items worth a total of ₹3.61 lakh.

A case was subsequently registered against five accused at the Kalol Taluka police station under Sections 325 and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Gujarat Police Act, the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act and provisions of the central government’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The accused were arrested. A separate case was later registered against a sixth accused. The accused were released on bail at different times between September and December 2024.

According to the police chargesheet, Lalabhai Senma, a resident of Jamla, and his son, Vitthal Senma, allegedly purchased weak cows and buffaloes that had stopped producing milk from surrounding areas at low prices. They would then call the other accused, who allegedly slaughtered the animals and sold the meat.

Lalabhai Senma, Wasim Qureshi, Mohammad Rafiq Qureshi and Ashfaq Behlime were apprehended at the scene, while the remaining two accused, Ghulam Moin Qureshi and Vitthal Senma, were arrested subsequently.

The court concluded that the prosecution had established the charges against the first four accused, while Ghulam Moin Qureshi and Vitthal Senma were acquitted due to a lack of evidence. Lalabhai Senma died during the proceedings.

The remaining three accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.

Decoding NSAM 2.0: How India plans to 3D print its sovereign industrial future

Raju Das
-
0
Decoding NSAM 2.0: How India plans to 3D print its sovereign industrial future

For decades, the Indian industrial apparatus functioned primarily as a secondary consumer of imported technology, remaining heavily reliant on vulnerable foreign supply chains. However, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology is systematically dismantling this historical dependency through the National Strategy for Additive Manufacturing. The ministry announced phase 2.0 of the strategy this month, aiming to position advanced three-dimensional printing as a foundational building block for Atmanirbhar Bharat.

Consequently, the government is planning for an explicitly larger market capture, targeting an aspirational USD 5 billion domestic ecosystem by 2030. Additive manufacturing represents a profound architectural shift in modern industrial engineering. Instead of traditional subtractive processes that waste massive blocks of raw material, this digital technology deposits advanced materials layer by layer to construct precise physical components.

The production workflow begins entirely within the digital domain using computer-aided design software. The physical printing hardware reads these precise digital instructions to execute the build, relying entirely on algorithmic precision to prevent structural failure. This digital forge is rapidly replacing legacy industry across India’s most critical strategic sectors.

The domestic aerospace industry provides the most prominent evidence of this technological shift. Private space enterprises have successfully fabricated single-piece, semi-cryogenic rocket engines entirely through additive metal processes. This achievement demonstrates how digital manufacturing can completely circumvent complex assembly bottlenecks.

Similarly, the Indian Army is resolving severe logistical challenges by deploying precast, 3D-printed defensive structures and tactical bunkers across high-altitude operational sectors in Ladakh. Furthermore, the domestic healthcare ecosystem is systematically reducing its reliance on expensive imported medical technology. Private enterprises and state initiatives are now localising the production of patient-specific bioceramic bone grafts and experimental tissue scaffolds.

In the civil infrastructure domain, automated construction printers are demonstrating significant environmental viability. Advanced on-site printers can now build 2,500 square foot residential units within 30 days. These pilot projects utilise low-carbon geopolymer materials, projecting a staggering 90 percent drop in carbon emissions compared to conventional cement casting techniques.

To consolidate these diverse technological gains, the government relies on seven specialised Development and Deployment Centres established across the country. Furthermore, the state mandate has already facilitated the specialised training of over 1.54 lakh technical workers, exceeding initial baseline targets. The upcoming Emerging Science, Technology and Innovation Conclave in New Delhi will further catalyse strategic institutional collaborations.

Ultimately, mastering additive manufacturing is no longer an optional industrial upgrade. While global powers aggressively reshore their manufacturing capabilities, India is moving rapidly to secure its own digital sovereignty. Therefore, the successful execution of NSAM 2.0 will fundamentally determine whether India secures its position as a dominant digital manufacturing hub.

Read the full article on Chapter 1 Magazine.

Telangana: Dalita Sena leader Hamara Prasad secures bail after spending a month in jail over Ambedkar-critical book

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Telangana: Dalita Sena leader Hamara Prasad secures bail after spending a month in jail over Ambedkar-critical book

Hamara Prasad, founder of the Rashtriya Dalita Sena, has secured bail after spending around a month in jail following his arrest by Telangana Police over his Telugu book Kalpitha Nayakudu (The Fabricated Leader), which critically examines the legacy of Dr BR Ambedkar.

Announcing the development on X, Prasad expressed gratitude to the Hindu Legal Fund for supporting his bail despite having no prior acquaintance with him.

“As a Hindu Dalit, when I exercised my fundamental rights to write a book, false cases were filed against me, and I was jailed for a month,” he wrote. He thanked the elders associated with the Hindu Legal Fund for stepping forward to support him.

The bail comes weeks after Prasad’s arrest on September 17, 2026, a day before the scheduled launch of his approximately 730-page Telugu book. The arrest raised questions, and most importantly, double standards of the Congress party over freedom of expression, the limits of criminal action against controversial publications, and the response to protests over material concerning prominent historical figures.

Arrested a day before the book launch

Prasad was arrested after protests erupted in several districts of Telangana over the title, cover and reported contents of Kalpitha Nayakudu. Dalit and Ambedkarite organisations objected to the book and demanded action against its author.

A case was registered against him at Hyderabad’s Central Crime Station under Sections 353(2), 196, 350 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The provisions cited by the police concern alleged statements causing fear or alarm, promoting enmity, intentional insult or provocation, and criminal conspiracy. The allegations remain subject to the legal process.

The controversy also reached the Telangana High Court, which heard a petition seeking intervention ahead of the book’s proposed release on September 18. The petitioner objected to the book’s title, cover and contents, arguing that certain portions could promote hostility among Ambedkar’s followers and others.

During the proceedings, the State informed the court that Prasad had already been arrested and that physical copies of the book had been seized. The authorities also said steps were being taken to address its online circulation. The court subsequently disposed of the proceedings after taking note of the action reported by the government.

Controversy over criticism of Ambedkar

The Fabricated Leader was presented by its publisher, Hamara Publications, as a critical examination of established political and historical narratives. Prasad had said that his work sought to challenge personality cults and present what he described as the real history of India.

The book’s treatment of Ambedkar, however, drew objections from various organisations. Protests and complaints were reported in areas including Asifabad, Indravelli, Nirmal, Dubbaka and Tadwai, with demonstrators demanding action over what they considered objectionable remarks about the architect of the Indian Constitution.

The dispute raises questions about how the State should respond when a controversial publication triggers public anger. While critics of a book have the right to challenge its arguments and question its historical claims, the legality of a publication must ultimately be assessed under the applicable law rather than solely by the strength of the opposition it attracts.

Ambedkar himself had cautioned against political hero-worship in his concluding speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949. He warned that devotion to political leaders could become dangerous when it displaced independent judgment.

That warning has particular relevance to debates about the freedom to examine and criticise influential political and historical figures. Respect for Ambedkar’s legacy and disagreement with interpretations of his life and work need not be mutually exclusive.

Bail brings relief, but legal questions remain

Prasad’s release on bail marks a significant development in a controversy that began before his book’s scheduled launch and quickly moved into the criminal justice system.

His allegation that the cases against him are false is his own account of the matter. The grant of bail, meanwhile, does not by itself establish his innocence or determine the merits of the allegations against him.

The case has nevertheless renewed scrutiny of the balance between protecting public order and safeguarding freedom of expression. The State has a responsibility to prevent violence and investigate alleged offences, but the possibility of protests over a publication also raises questions about whether controversial ideas can be debated without the author facing criminal action before the work is even formally launched.

For now, Prasad has thanked the Hindu Legal Fund for supporting his bail and has publicly framed his arrest as a consequence of exercising his fundamental rights to write a book. The subsequent course of the criminal proceedings will determine how the allegations against him are dealt with under the law.

Indian Express doubles down on its hit job after EC rebuts its claims in affidavit: How it is passing off ‘internal objections’ as proof of wrongdoing

Jinit Jain
-
0
Indian Express doubles down on its hit job after EC rebuts its claims in affidavit: How it is passing off ‘internal objections’ as proof of wrongdoing

The Indian Express appears determined to sustain its narrative of alleged internal discord within the Election Commission of India (ECI), even after the poll panel filed a counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court asserting that its decisions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were unanimous.

On Monday, October 26, the Election Commission defended Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, maintaining that the three SIR orders issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026 were approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission. The poll body also questioned the maintainability of a petition challenging the CEC’s functioning, arguing that it rested entirely on a media report.

The affidavit directly challenges the premise of the controversy that has fuelled opposition demands for action against Kumar. Yet, instead of acknowledging the significance of the Commission’s formal clarification, The Indian Express returned to the issue on Tuesday, October 27, with the headline, “EC papers over objections within, presents united front in SC affidavit on SIR.”

Indian Express
Indian Express on October 27

The newspaper’s word choice is revealing. It portrays the Commission’s affidavit as an attempt to conceal internal disagreements rather than engage with the poll panel’s central assertion: that the three orders were unanimously approved.

A newspaper is entitled to question an institution, demand answers and investigate its functioning. But when the institution concerned formally contests the allegations before the highest court, the response should be judged on the evidence it presents, not dismissed through suggestive headlines or rejected after diluting its own position, which seems to be the case with the Indian Express after it has been called out by the poll body in its affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court.

EC explains its decision-making process

In its affidavit, the Election Commission clarified that observations, queries, and suggestions made by individual members while examining files should not automatically be construed as the Commission’s decisions.

The poll body explained that files ordinarily pass sequentially through the two Election Commissioners before being placed before the Chief Election Commissioner. In urgent cases, approvals may be obtained electronically, with the relevant details subsequently recorded on the file.

The Commission’s position is straightforward: individual observations made during the examination of a file are part of the consultative process and do not necessarily indicate that a final decision was taken unilaterally.

The distinction matters. Administrative and institutional decision-making routinely involves questions, objections, suggestions and deliberations. The existence of disagreement at one stage does not, by itself, establish that the final decision was irregular, that the prescribed procedure was bypassed or that the institution acted without the required approval.

The ECI has asserted that the three SIR orders were unanimous decisions approved by the CEC and the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It has also sought permission to file a more detailed, paragraph-wise response to the petition.

The newspaper, meanwhile, has highlighted 14 instances over a period of 10 months in which the two Election Commissioners allegedly recorded objections to steps taken in the Commission’s name. Those records may merit examination, but their existence alone does not establish the conclusion that the newspaper appears to be drawing from them.

OpIndia had already exposed the holes in Indian Express’ narrative

This is not the first time the Indian Express’s sweeping claims about an alleged crisis within the Election Commission have been challenged. OpIndia had already dismantled the newspaper’s central arguments, pointing out that internal objections do not automatically establish institutional wrongdoing. In its earlier report, OpIndia spoke to two Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), who rejected the suggestion that the EC’s central administration had usurped their statutory powers. The newspaper’s claim that electoral-roll software had effectively transferred authority to Delhi was therefore far from established.

The distinction is crucial. The Indian Express took internal disagreements, concerns about Form 6 and questions about electoral-roll software and wove them into a larger narrative of centralisation and institutional breakdown. But OpIndia’s examination highlighted the gaps in that narrative: a Commissioner calling a decision “illegal” does not make it a judicially established illegality; a software limitation does not prove a transfer of statutory powers; and internal objections do not establish that the final decisions were taken unlawfully. The Election Commission’s latest affidavit reinforces the need to distinguish between what the documents actually establish and what the newspaper wants readers to infer from them.

Internal objections are not proof of unilateral decision-making

The crucial question is not whether an Election Commissioner ever objected while examining a file. It is whether the objection remained unresolved, whether the prescribed approval process was violated and whether the final order was issued without the requisite authorisation.

These are materially different questions.

An objection recorded during deliberations could be followed by a clarification, a modification, further consultation or a final decision approved by all members. Without establishing what happened subsequently, it would be premature to treat every internal disagreement as evidence of institutional wrongdoing.

The Indian Express has argued that the affidavit does not adequately explain why the two Commissioners were allegedly not informed about certain decisions. That claim, too, must be examined against the relevant files and the Commission’s explanation of its procedures. A newspaper report cannot substitute for that scrutiny.

The ECI has also denied releasing or authorising the release of any internal note or file to the media. Its affidavit therefore puts forward a formal institutional response to the allegations, rather than leaving the newspaper’s account uncontested.

The Commission’s explanation may be questioned, and the Supreme Court can examine the competing claims. But it is important not to confuse the existence of a controversy with proof that the allegations underlying it are true.

Indian Express cannot turn its allegations into facts

The larger concern is the way the newspaper appears to be treating its own interpretation of internal documents as the benchmark against which the Election Commission’s response must be judged.

The ECI has stated on affidavit that all three SIR orders were unanimous. The Indian Express disputes the adequacy of that explanation. That is a disagreement over the evidence and its interpretation—not proof that the Commission has concealed dissent or acted improperly.

Just because objections were recorded internally does not mean the newspaper’s allegations stand proven. An objection is evidence that a question or disagreement arose at a particular stage of the decision-making process. It is not, by itself, evidence that the final decision was unlawful, unilateral or contrary to the Commission’s established procedure. To establish that, the newspaper must demonstrate what the objections concerned, whether they remained unresolved and how they affected the final decisions.

The burden of substantiating an allegation cannot be discharged merely by pointing to the existence of internal notes and then dismissing the institution’s formal response as an attempt to paper over dissent. If the documentary record establishes wrongdoing, it should be presented and examined on its merits. If it does not, the allegations cannot be treated as proven simply because they have been published repeatedly.

The Election Commission is a constitutional body whose functioning deserves scrutiny. But scrutiny must be evidence-based, not driven by a presumption that every internal disagreement signifies misconduct. Personal prejudice and confirmation bias can’t be the premise to justify wrongdoing by a constitutional body. The same standards of accountability that journalists demand of public institutions must apply to their own reporting.

The Indian Express may stand by its investigation, but standing by a story does not make its conclusions indisputable. The ECI has placed its position before the Supreme Court and asserted that the decisions were unanimous. Until the evidence establishes otherwise, the newspaper’s allegations must remain allegations, not facts elevated to the status of established wrongdoing through repetition and insinuation.

Opposition cheers Lula’s victory as a blow to PM Modi: How India and Brazil have expanded their partnership, forged deeper ties under the BJP government

Rukma Rathore
-
0
Opposition cheers Lula’s victory as a blow to PM Modi: How India and Brazil have expanded their partnership, forged deeper ties under the BJP government

On 25th October (Sunday), Brazil’s incumbent president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva defeated his challenger, Flavio Bolsonaro, who is the son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, in a tightly contested runoff election, securing an unprecedented fourth term. The electoral court declared Lula the winner with 51.8% of the vote compared to 48.2% for Bolsonaro, in a dramatic political clincher.

Afterwards, congratulatory messages flooded in for the 80-year-old from multiple world leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who shares a deep diplomatic and personal relationship with him.

He wrote, “My sincerest congratulations to my dear friend, President Lula, on his remarkable victory in the re-election. I look forward to working in close collaboration with him to further deepen and expand the multifaceted Strategic Partnership between India and Brazil. Together, we will continue to strengthen our cooperation in various sectors, promote the shared priorities of the Global South, and work towards a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable world.”

PM Modi’s Brazilian counterpart reciprocated with equal warmth, extending thanks and fondly addressing him as “my friend.” He mentioned, “I cherish with joy the visit I made to India in February this year, when we took new steps to strengthen our Strategic Partnership, especially in the areas of trade, health, and technology.”

He congratulated India for hosting the 2026 BRICS summit, “continuing the work carried out by Brazil last year,” and similarly expressed that the two sides are going to keep partnering in the G20 and BRICS to “defend multilateralism, amplify the voice of the Global South, and build a more just, inclusive, and peaceful international order.”

While the two leaders demonstrated their strong rapport, the usual suspects of the opposition ecosystem who prefer to marinate in their echo chamber of propaganda, removed from actual ground realities, sought to characterise Lula’s success as a personal and political setback for PM Modi.

Communist Party of India (Marxist) veteran and former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan chose to utilise the occasion to first hit out at the “far right” and swiftly switched to his primary goal of maligning the “Sangh Parivar” for its alleged divisive politics. He asserted that the development has “renewed hope in the struggle” against RSS for “a more just and democratic India.”

This duplicity has been the reason behind the shrinking political space for leftists in India. Kerala not only served as the primary base for the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) but also recorded the largest number of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) recruits and connected cases among Indian states.

However, there has been a persistent tendency to single out Hindus framed as critiques of their religious outfits while the real pressing threat is continuously ignored to appease the vote bank.

Amitabh Dubey, the media in-charge for research and monitoring at the All India Congress Committee, rushed to target the prime minister, claiming that his “friends are losing,” conveniently ignoring that he shares a tight bond with Lula, whose electoral triumph is being rejoiced as a potential turning point for Rahul Gandhi’s waning political fortunes.

Their deep-seated hatred for PM Modi has transformed into disdain for India and its people for their recurring rejection of the Gandhi scion, and has caused them to overlook a critical reality: robust international diplomatic relationships are cultivated to pursue national interests, a priority this coterie has often subordinated to the political ambitions of their political masters.

Indian National Congress leader Lavanya Balla further peddled the same propaganda, insisting that PM Modi’s friend Bolsonaro had lost and that Lula would have been branded a “dimagi naxal” had he been in India. The opposition has clearly mastered the art of projecting its own shortcomings onto others through accusations.

Another “liberal” invoked Lula’s statement about Brazil not being anyone’s backyard to create a false equivalence with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), claiming that Gen Z is conveying the same message. He regurgitated the unfounded accusations of voter suppression and crony capitalism while adding that India cannot compromise its own interests for another country’s benefits.

India has shown unwavering resistance to pressure tactics from the United States on multiple fronts, from Operation Sindoor to Russian crude procurement and the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA). The Modi government has repeatedly upheld its sovereignty by declining to capitulate to external demands. However, these inconvenient truths are willfully disregarded as they completely contradict the prevailing efforts of propaganda.

Tanmoy then stressed, “You cannot place personal interests above those of the nation while hiding behind the mask of false nationalism,” while the entire Islamo-leftist ecosystem cherry-picks facts, disseminates half-truths and outright falsehoods for its political agenda while masquerading as patriots.

Darab Farooqui, exemplifying his profound commitment to the democratic principles that his faction purports to champion, insulted the Indian voters for exercising their constitutional right to elect PM Modi. He declared them “uneducated” for their decision to prevent his favoured political parties from coming to power.

Another member of this cohort mocked that PM Modi must have wept while congratulating Lula, representing yet another comment entirely stripped of an ounce of reality.

The opposition and the Islamo-leftists have been busy portraying Lula and PM Modi as rivals, attacking the BJP and the RSS, or wanting a similar political outcome in India. Of course, there is nothing wrong with desiring a win for their favourite party.

However, painting Lula’s victory as a supposed downfall for PM Modi, while pushing a narrative that bears no resemblance to the actual dynamic between the two men, is nothing short of a laughable ploy to fabricate a psychological accomplishment out of their hopeless political situation that does not provide them any relief.

Lula and Modi: The ties transcending motivated political narratives

PM Modi and Lula initially met on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima in May 2023, which marked the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries. This resulted in the resumption of high-level engagement, which centred on “defence production, trade, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, dairy & animal husbandry and bio-fuels & clean energy.”

A few months later, Lula landed in India for the G20 Leaders Summit in September, after which the two leaders and US leadership co-launched the Global Biofuels Alliance (GBA) to standardise global sustainable biofuel trade. Additionally, Brazil supported India’s candidature for a non-permanent seat in the UNSC for the 2028-2029 term, in addition to prioritising pivotal issues like trade and defence.

Meanwhile, PM Modi’s maiden visit to Brazil under Lula’s presidency unfolded in November 2024 as India firmly supported Lula’s flagship “Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty.” 

He subsequently embarked on an extensive official trip to the South American country to attend the BRICS summit in July 2025. PM Modi and Lula used the event to “reaffirm their resolve to bolster” the strategic partnership between their respective countries.

The official release highlighted, “Building on strong economic and technological complementarities between India and Brazil, the leaders decided to chart a strategic roadmap to further strengthen bilateral ties over the next decade around five priority pillars, including defence and security, food and nutritional security, energy transition and climate change, digital transformation and emerging technologies and industrial partnerships in strategic areas.”

Interestingly, Lula welcomed PM Modi to his official residence with his favourite Ram bhajan in a deeply personal and thoughtful gesture. He also received Brazil’s most prestigious civilian award, the Grand Collar of the National Order of the Southern Cross, underscoring the extensive and enduring ties between the two nations and their leaders.

“Gratitude to President Lula, the government and the people of Brazil. This illustrates the strong affection the people of Brazil have for the people of India. May our friendship scale even newer heights of success in the times to come,” PM Modi had expressed.

Lula even spoke with PM Modi following US President Donald Trump’s imposition of 50% tariffs on Brazil, mirroring his bullying approach towards India, on which he slapped the same rate, which included 25% as punishment for buying Russian oil.

The duo recently met during Lula’s landmark five-day visit to India in February, where India and Brazil decided to double bilateral trade to $30 billion by 2030, along with inking agreements for joint ventures in critical minerals and the steel supply chain.

It is crucial to note that the Indian government is searching for new rare earth suppliers to support capacity expansion in the face of a global raw material race and to reduce reliance on an unpredictable China. Brazil is the world’s second-largest producer and exporter of iron ore, with huge deposits of minerals required for steel production, which is in high demand in India due to fast infrastructural growth.

Furthermore, Brazil showed interest in India’s Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) platforms as discussions about modifying UPI-based frameworks for specific industries, including healthcare, education and agriculture, took place. The duo similarly committed to bolstering bilateral exchanges in digital public infrastructure (DPI), artificial intelligence (AI), and other technologies as well, which they regarded as critical to national development and public service delivery.

“President Lula suggested that we try to integrate AI into DPI platforms to try and maximise utilisation of DPI platforms and use the data very effectively to drive policy initiatives. So there is a lot of mining and critical minerals. We already spoke about defence aircraft,” an official mentioned.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed with the Brazilian corporation Embraer, and Lula stated a production or assembly line will be set up to produce regional planes in India. PM Modi also requested that Embraer should construct a maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) facility in the country in line with the “Make in India” program.

Lula promoted the exploration of the adoption of the Brazilian real and the rupee for trade payments. Importantly, the trade between India and Brazil has risen by more than 25% from $12.2 billion in 2024 to $15.21 billion in 2025 and reached $8.77 billion in the first half of 2026, up over 37% from the same time last year.

Conclusion

The two prominent voices of the Global South, which India has consistently represented and championed, have repeatedly discussed their shared priorities and forged a warm and mutually beneficial association, as well as stood by each other on many issues at international forums. Lula’s reaction to PM Modi’s latest tweet is yet another reflection of the camaraderie between the pair.

However, the perpetually bitter opposition and its cheerleaders, with little to celebrate of their own, have now decided to exploit the octogenarian president’s return to office to spin fanciful narratives and make baseless comments towards PM Modi, whom they have repeatedly failed to defeat on the political battleground.



Calcutta High Court orders restraint on streaming of Sabeer Bhatia’s Modi-Adani video: Read court order details

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Calcutta High Court orders restraint on streaming of Sabeer Bhatia’s Modi-Adani video: Read court order details

The Calcutta High Court has restrained the publication and circulation of a 36-minute video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files,” in a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited against Sabeer Bhatia and social media platforms.

Justice Aryak Dutt passed the ad interim injunction on 26 October 2026, in CS No. 75 of 2026 with IA/GA No. 1 of 2026. The order will remain in force till 31 January 2027, or until further orders.

According to the Calcutta High Court judgment, the video targeting PM Modi and Gautam Adani was uploaded on 9 October 2026, on a YouTube channel run by Sabeer Bhatia, “Bcubed (Breaking Boundaries with Sabeer Bhatia)”, in collaboration with “Shadow Citizens”. It was also posted on his X account “@sabeer.” The video had been viewed 46,134 times on YouTube and about 40,000 times on X, the court recorded.

Court’s order and directives

The court noted that access to the original YouTube upload was later disabled in India, apparently on a government complaint under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

However, Bhatia reposted the video on X on 22 October 2026, after the original video was disabled.

Adani Enterprises argued that the video contained false and defamatory statements and that its reputation, as part of the right to life under Article 21, was being harmed. The company said it was not seeking to restrain constructive criticism of government policy or business concentration, but only the impugned video and its defamatory imputations.

The court said a pre-trial injunction in a defamation case touching public interest must be granted with great caution, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in “Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt Ltd v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (2024 SCC OnLine SC 426).

It held that the present case fell within the exceptional class because the video was a “dramatised narrative” whose title expressly imputed theft; its allegations about narcotics smuggling linked to terror funding and police violence, and false prosecution against a farmer, were assertions of fact, not opinion, with no authority’s finding shown; the original upload had already been disabled; and the repost after disablement prima facie showed want of good faith.

The court restrained the respondents, their agents and collaborators from publishing, republishing, uploading, sharing, communicating or otherwise disseminating the video, or any clip, excerpt, shortened version or materially identical reproduction of it, and from making the defamatory statements referred to in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the petition or similar statements.

It directed the respondents to remove the video and related clips from accounts, channels and pages owned or controlled by them, including posts at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 under uploads on X in Schedule A. YouTube, X and Instagram were directed to remove or disable access to the video at each URL listed in Schedule A and to disable reposts, quote posts, shares and similar engagements through which the video is accessible.

For certain X entries in Schedule A that were not specific post URLs, the petitioner was directed to furnish the specific URLs, after which the takedown direction would apply. The platforms were also directed to preserve subscriber information, registration details, IP logs at the time of upload and access logs, and to disclose basic subscriber information of accounts whose holders are not identifiable from Schedule A in a sealed cover by affidavit within two weeks.

The court further directed that the platforms shall not run or serve advertisements on, or share revenue in respect of, the said URLs or the impugned video, and shall preserve records of any advertisement revenue generated from them until further orders.

While imposing the ban, the court clarified that its order does not restrict “constructive criticism or fair reporting” on the Adani Group or any government policy. It emphasised that the restraint was confined to the identified video and its materially identical reproductions. The court also stated that its observations were prima facie.

The respondents have been directed to file affidavits-in-opposition within four weeks of service, with the petitioner filing a reply within two weeks thereafter. The platforms must file affidavits of compliance within two weeks. The matter has been listed for hearing in the monthly list of January 2027 before the regular bench under the heading “Adjourned Motion.”

India embarrasses Pakistan at the UN with the ‘Form 47 government’ jibe: Know what it means and how the Pak Army stole the election from Imran Khan

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
India embarrasses Pakistan at the UN with the ‘Form 47 government’ jibe: Know what it means and how the Pak Army stole the election from Imran Khan

Defeated in wars by India, embarrassed at the hands of Indian diplomats at the United Nations, Pakistan has a history of being humiliated by India globally. In a latest, on 24th October, India’s First Secretary at the Permanent Mission to the UN, Raghoo Puri, responded to Pakistan’s criticisms on Kashmir and said that Pakistan was trying to “paint a propagandist picture” of India to deflect attention from its domestic issues. The Indian diplomat went on to taunt Islamabad, saying that the “Form 47 government” of Pakistan will not dare to override directions from the Pakistani military, the “real rulers” of the country. 

During a dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues at the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, Raghoo Puri said that Pakistan was attempting to malign India’s image to deflect global attention from its own opprobrious record on minority rights and domestic issues, including economic instability, deteriorating law and order, and human rights abuses. 

“I am hard-pressed to find any such example from Pakistan, whose delegate predictably misused this platform to paint a propagandist picture of my country. But of course, the interest of the Fauj, the Pakistani army, who are the real rulers of the country, is supreme, and we fully understand the predicament of the Pakistani representative,” Puri said. 

“What better way to deflect attention from a flailing economy, general lawlessness, and rampant human rights violations from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to Balochistan? But of course, the interest of the Fauj, the Pakistani army, who are the real rulers of the country, is supreme, and we fully understand the predicament of the Pakistani representative,” Puri added. 

Urging the Pakistani delegate to focus on the well-being of their country’s citizens and vacate Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK), the Indian diplomat at the UN said, “As far as Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, it is an integral and inalienable part of India, and the only question that remains is the vacation of the region illegally occupied by Pakistan. We would urge the Pakistani delegate to heed the counsel of her own countrymen, look inwards, and focus on the well-being of her own citizens first. But we do understand, unfortunately, that the Form 47 government dare not override instructions from the Pakistani military.” 

The Indian diplomat’s sharp retort left the Pakistani delegation at the UN visibly embarrassed, particularly the “Form 47 government” jibe. 

What “Form 47 government” means 

The “Form 47 government” is essentially a political taunt which traces its roots to Pakistan’s February 2024 general elections. These elections were marred by irregularities, delays, and results of manipulation.  

Accusing the Shehbaz Sharif-led coalition of rigging the elections, former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and its supporters popularised the phrase “Form 47 government”, alleging that it lacks a genuine public mandate. 

PTI supporters continue to push the allegations that the current Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) led coalition government was installed by the Pakistani military via rigged elections. 

Notably, the Election Commission of Pakistan uses a series of official forms for recording and compiling poll results. 

Of these, two forms are crucial: Form 45 and Form 47.  

Form 45 carries the result of the count. It is prepared by the Presiding Officer at each polling station and records registered voters, votes cast, and a candidate-wise breakdown for that specific station. Form 45 is signed by the officer and is made available to agents of candidates for transparency. 

Pertinently, Form 47 includes the provisional consolidated outcomes for an entire constituency. It is prepared by the Returning Officer by tallying the Form 45s from the polling stations in that constituency, excluding postal ballots. Form 47 lists candidate-wise votes, total cast, deleted votes, etc. It is announced as provisional before final verification. 

PTI has been alleging that there were major discrepancies in the 2024 election results. It maintains that Form 45s held by agents frequently showed PTI-backed independent candidates leading or winning at the polling-station level; however, the Form 47 consolidated numbers declared PML-N and Pakistan People’s Party-linked candidates as winners.  

Candidates and their representatives were being denied Form 45s by the presiding officers.

Imran Khan’s party alleged that its mandate was “stolen in the dark of the night.” Khan himself asserted that PTI had won far more seats, 170, based on Form 45 data than the official results declared.  

Back then, reports about delayed election results and internet blackouts further lent credence to PTI’s election rigging allegations.   

In March 2024, around 31 members of the US Congress signed a letter to then President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, asking them not to recognise the new government in Pakistan until a probe into election rigging allegations clears them. 

In May 2026, a leaked Pakistani diplomatic cypher brought the 2022 ouster of former Prime Minister Imran Khan into focus. The cypher showed how the United States views his removal through a no-confidence vote as the way to reset the relationship with Islamabad. 

The document, which was marked “SECRET” and “No circulation”, had information about a meeting that took place on 7th March 2022 between then-ambassador of Pakistan to Washington, Asad Majeed Khan and then-US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Donald Lu. 

The leaked cable accessed by Drop Site strengthened the allegations that the regime change that happened in 2022 in Pakistan was backed by the US. The document drew a connection between Khan’s Russian policy, which was disliked by the US, and the internal no-confidence vote that removed him from office. It also recorded a blunt signal from the American side that if Khan is removed, Washington will “forgive everything”. 

When Imran Khan won the 2018 election, the US expected him and, by extension, Pakistan, to act as a loyal instrument. It was believed that Khan became Prime Minister with Washington’s backing, and there was chatter that he was a puppet of the US. However, as time passed by, his foreign policy, among other things, seemingly angered the “bosses” sitting in Washington.  

After Khan’s removal in April 2022, the new PML-N-led government, backed by the de facto ruler, the Pakistan Army, rushed to repair ties with Washington.  

In no time, Pakistan emerged as a quiet supplier of artillery shells and other military equipment to Ukraine. The weapons were reportedly routed through US defence contractors and third-country intermediaries. 

A Drop Site report also said that American support for Pakistan’s next IMF programme was linked to the continuation of the weapons pipeline. 

 In July 2023, the IMF approved a 3-billion-dollar standby arrangement for Pakistan. 

Under Khan, Pakistan abstained at the UN and tried to maintain a neutral line.  

However, after he was ousted from power and jailed, Pakistan’s “Form 47 government” became useful to Washington’s Ukraine war effort. The Army-backed puppet government traded Pakistan’s sovereignty for self-gain. 

In recent months, the world has seen how PM Shehbaz Sharif and madarsa-bred Field Marshal Asim Munir became Washington’s eager courtiers. 

In a nutshell, the “Form 47 government” is a diplomatic-political jibe for Pakistan’s illegitimate, army-controlled ruling dispensation installed through election manipulation.  

1...456...7,678Page 5 of 7,678