Home Blog Page 55

Pakistani handles instigating violence in Noida, supported Rahul Gandhi, Congress, seeded anti-India propaganda: Here’s what their X feed reveals

The violent ‘protests’ by factory workers in Noida were a “planned and multi-layered conspiracy” orchestrated with the aid of two Pakistani social media handles. The Uttar Police has made a startling revelation that two Pakistani X handles misused VPN and circulated false claims of deaths in police firing to incite protestors and trigger violence in Noida.

The two X handles, operated from Pakistan for nearly three months under the names Mir Ilyas and Anushi Tiwari.

Addressing a press conference on 16th April, Police Commissioner Lakshmi Singh said that the unrest, which began as a demand for higher wages, was hijacked by external elements. The officer confirmed that the situation has now returned to normal, with workers satisfied by the Uttar Pradesh government’s decisions and are back at their jobs.

“The situation was under control, but two X handles then began circulating disinformation claiming multiple deaths in police firing. “We got it verified and found that the two X handles are being operated from Pakistan. VPN is being misused,” she said.

So far, thirteen FIRs have been registered in connection with the violence, and 62 people have been arrested. Most of those booked were outsiders rather than local workers. Central agencies, including the Intelligence Bureau and Anti-Terrorism Squad, are assisting with the probe into the Pakistan link.

While the Pakistani handles with names fake names, Mir Ilyas and Anushi Tiwari, have gained widespread attention over their role in inciting Noida violence, these two have consistently been pushing anti-India and pro-Pakistan narrative ever since their debut on X. A cursory glance at the X feed of these two Pakistani propaganda accounts shows how they have been operating with the mission of stirring violence and anarchy in India, while also sowing distrust among Indians against the Modi government.

Their X feeds perfectly exemplify how countries like Pakistan weaponise social media to pick issues, exploit faultlines, influence opinions and instigate violence in India. An interesting point about both the fake Pakistani propaganda accounts is that they both are supporters of the Congress party, particularly, Rahul Gandhi. In many of their posts, they subtly push the idea that somehow Rahul Gandhi would be a better Prime Minister than Narendra Modi and that Gandhi alone can “save India”.

In one such post published on 24th March, Anushi Tiwari, who goes by the username @ProudIndianNavi, wrote, “JD Vance and possibly #Iranian President are arriving in #Islamabad, where ceasefire talks will be held in the presence of Asim Munir. BJP aimed to isolate Pakistan, but it has instead become a focal point on the global stage. As an #Indian, I feel a sense of disappointment.”

Besides pushing pro-Pakistan propaganda, the Pakistani X account has also been involved in pushing alarmist disinformation about India’s energy supplies amidst the West Asia crisis.

“Breaking News. India’s Petroleum Ministry has officially announced that only 2 days’ worth of petrol is left in the #India, while oil shipments may take up to 8 days to arrive. The failed govt of  Modi has put the lives of 1.5 billion people into difficulty,” Tiwari wrote.

The fake Pakistani account has also peddled blatant fake news, 28 Indian soldiers were killed, along with 12 police personnel, in Manipur after the Indian forces opened fire on civilians.

“Today in Manipur, clashes between the Indian Army & civilians, 28 Indian soldiers were killed, along with 12 police personnel. More than 122 civilians in Manipur have also been killed due to firing by Indian forces. Rahul Gandhi, save my India remove Modi,” Tiwari wrote.

Notably, X posts by this Pakistani account, which incited violence during factory workers’ protests in Noida, are still visible in its timeline. The post claimed that the Uttar Pradesh Police was “killing Indians” in Noida and that the firing left “6 people dead and 67 injured”. The claim was absolutely baseless and peddled with the intention to fuel violence in the BJP-ruled state.

Since the anti-India propagandist is located in Pakistan and only hiding behind the veneer of the ‘South Asia’ location feature on X, it audaciously even tagged the UP Police, apparently to give an impression to the viewers that since the account has confidently tagged UP Police, the claims of protestors being killed in police firing must be true.

“POLICE STOP KILLING INDIANS Today Thousands of people are out on the streets #Noid UttarPradesh.@Uppolice firing has reportedly left 6 people dead and 67 injured Today. Seeing the oppression by the police, people in other states are also taking to the streets,” Tiwari wrote.

The Pakistani propaganda account’s fake news was debunked by the Gautam Buddh Nagar Police on 14th April. “Regarding the demonstration carried out by workers in Noida, certain social media accounts are disseminating completely false and fabricated information claiming that 06 people were killed and 67 others were injured in police firing. This is entirely false. No firing was carried out by the police anywhere. Due to the dissemination of completely false and fabricated information and incitement of individuals, a case has been registered against the concerned parties! Legal proceedings are underway,” the police said.

On 13th April, Tiwari claimed that thousands of “Gen X protestors” had taken to streets in Noida and UP Police opened fire, killing 14 people and leaving 32 injured. It also asserted that only “Congress can save INDIA”.

The Pakistan-based anti-India handle coupled fake news with ‘Congress is a saviour’ narrative, indicating how systematically local Indian issues with potential to snowball into a big crisis are being picked, disinformation is being peddled to incite violence, project it has BJP government’s failure, and push Congress as the natural political alternative. It is almost an unpaid PR exercise for the Congress party by Pakistan.

In another post in furtherance of ‘Modi failed, bring Rahul Gandhi’ and Pakistan faring better than India bogey, the Pakistani account wrote, “MODI FAILURE The entire 12-year Govt of Narendra Modi ended last night. Modi isolated India, while Asim Munir made #Pakistan the leader of Muslim countries and a decision-maker in the Middle East. Rahul Gandhi Gee @RahulGandhi, please save my #India from Modi.”

Tiwari’s timeline is replete with fake news, pro-Pakistan, anti-India propaganda, in addition to reposts of Rahul Gandhi’s posts and pro-Congress trolls.

Similar has been the track record of the second Pakistani X ‘Mir Ilyas’ account named by Uttar Pradesh for inciting violence in Noida. Ilyas is also an open supporter of the Congress party and has the username @Mir_Ilyas_INC. He even claims to be a “Nominated Social Media Coordinator” of the Congress party.

Ilyas’s X feed is also filled with misinformation, anti-India and anti-BJP propaganda, in addition to reposts peddling anti-Hindu narratives.

He was found amplifying alarmist propaganda about the proposed Delimitation exercise. “Same country. Same vote. Unequal value. 14 lakh vs 26 lakh per seat—how is this fair democracy? This isn’t delimitation, it’s manipulation of representation. What BJP tested in Assam & J&K, they’re scaling up nationwide. Raise your voice. Demand equal voting power,” Ilyas posted.

 Mir Ilyas had also made similar claims as Anushi Tiwari about the death of protestors during the Noida wage workers protests. The Pakistani X account, using VPN to fake his location as the United Kingdom, wrote, “Noida, UP Reports Gen Z protests allegedly turned violent, with clashes reported and police firing claims emerging.Casualty figures circulating (unverified): 14 dead, 32 injured. The situation remains tense. What’s your take on the ground reality. Where is the BJP? Where is the top leadership ?? #BharataVarsha”

This post was factchecked by Gautam Buddh Nagar Police Commissionerate, which stated that the police did not open fire at any of the protest sites. “Inspired by workers from other states, demonstrations have been held at several places in Noida, and in the case of just one violent demonstration, the police have controlled the situation by using minimum force. The police have not resorted to firing anywhere. No person has died in the said demonstrations. Do not spread rumours or misleading information,” the police said.

350 taken into custody, Pakistan and Naxal angle under investigation: What the authorities said about Noida violence

Protests by factory workers over wage-related demands turned violent in Noida on 13th April, and workers in areas like Phase 2 and Sector 60 were involved in stone pelting, arson, and vandalism. Several vehicles were set on fire, and industrial units were damaged. Most of the violence occurred in Sector 62 and Phase-2, where the accused, armed with clubs, sticks, and belts, ran wild, shattering glass facades of manufacturing units, damaging businesses and setting cars on fire. Witnesses reported that four to five automobiles were burnt outside a service centre in Sector 63, and at least a dozen vehicles, including police cars, were set ablaze.

By evening, over 300 protesters were arrested under preventive provisions for arson and vandalism, while more than 100 were detained for questioning.

The investigation into the matter pointed fingers towards suspected ties ranging from organised disinformation to attempts at unrest supported by Pakistan and even a likely Naxal threat.

Over 350 persons were taken into custody by police in connection with arson and vandalism, and more than 100 more have been held for interrogation. To identify people responsible for the disruption, authorities are also looking through CCTV footage from factories. Multiple WhatsApp groups also came under investigation. The incident resulted in injuries to at least 10 cops and 30 other individuals.

“The incident appears to have been carried out with the intention of disrupting the development and law and order of the state. In recent days, four suspected terrorists have been arrested from Meerut and Noida, whose links were connected to handlers based in Pakistan. In such a situation, the possibility of a conspiracy to create instability in the state gains strength. Agencies are seriously investigating the entire matter,” stated Anil Rajbhar, the labour minister for Uttar Pradesh.

The Minister added that “anti-national forces” wanted to instigate instability in the state and suspected that the chaos might have been planned to interfere with Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s program in Muzaffarnagar earlier in the day.

The role of Pakistani propaganda accounts in inciting violence in Noida should raise alarms. Pakistani ISPR bots have been masters of social media disinformation campaigns and regularly circulate AI-generated content, often adding anti-India and defeatist commentary on unrelated videos of Indian Army officials, ministers and other key officials in the context of Pakistan and Operation Sindoor. Besides the wartime disinformation, Pakistani accounts are now monitoring major issues in India that can be used to instigate Indians against the Modi government and incite riots.

OpIndia discussed earlier how the Congress party, the main opposition party in India, has long been itching for a Bangladesh/Nepal-like violent Gen-Z revolution. There is a dangerous game at play. On one side, a pro-Congress Pakistani online propaganda nexus is active, on the other, a political party expresses joy over Noida violence and says that the “country has at least started to stir”. Somehow, their shared disdain for the Modi government is becoming dangerous for India’s national security and stability.

Yes, Rahul Gandhi, BJP should be “gerrymandering” to snatch away the Muslim veto — street and electoral

The Indian National Congress, after tirelessly advocating for “jitni abadi utna haq (rights proportionate to population),” has started its propaganda against the demarcation process, which is critical for ensuring fair representation in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies in light of the demographic transitions and to prevent the possibility for underrepresentation or overrepresentation of particular areas.

However, the opposition has sought to cast aspersions on the move, wary of its potential impact on long-cultivated vote banks. Leading the charge, Rahul Gandhi has accused the Bharatiya Janata Party of attempting to “gerrymander Lok Sabha seats to secure an advantage in the 2029 elections.”

On 15th April (Wednesday), he tweeted that the “proposed bills remove all Constitutional safeguards on delimitation, giving full power to the Delimitation Commission which the govt itself will appoint and direct” in his usual fact-free diatribe, which he is known for delivering after every progressive decision taken by the Centre.

Notably, the commission is appointed by the President of India, but the grand old party has never concerned itself with the truth and is unlikely to alter its ways, particularly when its underhanded plans to favour the second-largest majority and its long cultivated vote bank — Muslims — at the expense of Hindus to secure its electoral future are on the brink of being washed over.

The Gandhi scion then invoked the delimitation that took place in Assam and Jammu and Kashmir and alleged that it was “hijacked” and “anti-BJP regions and communities were split-up for electoral advantage.” He then switched to the superfluous and unfounded rhetoric about how the Election Commission has been taken over by the saffron party and PM Modi “is confident that he can capture the Delimitation Commission too.” Gandhi added that the “Congress will not allow this to happen.”

“Delimitation should be based on a transparent policy framework, developed after wide consultations with a consensus. Indians of all communities and States should feel confident that they will be represented and their voices will be heard. This is the only way forward to protect and strengthen our democracy,” he declared.

The underlying reason for distress is not “concern for democracy” but the dread of losing the long-nurtured electoral advantage

Rahul Gandhi’s lofty assertions about democracy and the constitution might appear impressive and even sincere to an unsuspecting or naive mind, however, the politics practised by his party over the years reveal the true motivations of his fears. Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy correctly articulated this when he stated, “Congress signifies Muslims, and Muslims signify Congress.”

The fundamental issue revolves around the party’s appeasement of Muslims, which has only grown stronger over time, accompanied by special awards bestowed upon on the community for their loyalty, while Hindus have consistently faced the fallout of these actions, as their appeals for justice have been purposefully disregarded.

The delineation is vital to escape this perilous monopoly of the second-largest community over specific neighbourhoods, termed as “Muslim areas,” which essentially devolve into no-go zones, each with its own regulations where even a perceived infraction can provoke a deadly reaction for Hindus and even for authorities merely fulfilling their responsibilities, as has been observed time and again.

The onslaught on Hindus during their sacred occasions for daring to hold a procession have already become a norm in the country. The attack on the Durga procession that culminated in the brutal killing of Ram Gopal Mishra in Bahraich in 2024 stands as yet another stark testament. Devotees are refrained from conducting the religious event at specified sites to avoid “triggering” Muslims and avert communal incidents.

The Congress-led opposition and their ecosystem, which react like popcorn in a hot pan at the mention of a “Hindu Rashtra,” in the name of secularism, had a crucial part in establishing these exclusive sectors and the sentiment of unchallenged authority among Muslims based on numerical strength. The anti-majoritarian principle of Congress unsurprisingly flips on its head in relation to the Muslim community.

As a result, the phenomenon of ghettoisation persisted relentlessly, bolstered by political support in lieu of votes, enabling Muslims to treat these localities as sovereign territories within the country. This is used to rationalise assaults on Hindus, their religious processions, administration, officials, security forces, cops and any individuals who ventured there in defiance of the “consent” of the locals, in a complete travesty of law and order.

These places are proudly designated as “mini-Pakistan” by both the residents and politicians such as Bobby Firhad Hakim, as well as employed not only to normalise religious extremism but also to intimidate Hindus and non-Muslims via horrific acts.

The house is for sale: Hindus forced to migrate; authorities also not spared

Hindus are always at the receiving end from Kashmir to Kerala and Maharashtra to West Bengal as Islamists need no excuse to incite unrest and target them. This trend remained unchanged over the years from the valley to Murshidabad, where the Hindus had to abandon their homes to protect their lives and dignity in the face of terrorism and violence.

These scenes have regularly played out where aggressive Muslim mobs chanting “Allah Hu Akbar” have caused Hindus to flee for their safety and the protection of their women. A similar incident took place in Delhi’s Hauz Qazi over a parking dispute, which escalated into the desecration of a Durga Mandir in 2019, eventually forcing another wave of Hindu exodus.

Hindu families in the national capital put up “houses for sale” posters in 2025. The matter began with an argument over the expansion of a mosque in Brahmpuri. Stones were thrown by radicals, prompting the Hindus to resort to this action out of fear of communal clashes. The Dalit Hindus of Daudpur Kota village in the Aligarh district encountered a similar fate that year due to harassment from Muslims.

40 Hindu families also decided to abandon their properties after suffering continuous attacks from a Muslim neighbour and his aides in Bhagwan Nagar Block A, under the Kamala Nagar area of Agra, in February. Times progressed, but the situation for Hindus has continually remained dire.

On the other hand, those in uniform or personnel trying to carry out their legal obligations are also not exempt. Stone pelting and attacking the administration and authorities when acting against illegal Islamic structures is a frequent occurrence, but the risk to their lives is plausibly heightened when they operate in Muslim-majority regions, as illustrated in the Banbhoolpura area of Haldwani, Uttarakhand.

This is the reason for the protests preceding the anti-Hindu Delhi riots, most notably articulated by the likes of Sharjeel Imam, leveraging the strength of his community to cut off the “Siliguri Corridor” or “Chicken’s Neck”.

Only Muslim candidates can represent “Muslim areas”

Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed all of it, from Pakistan-sponsored jihad to the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits, except a Hindu chief minister. The position has been continuously filled by Muslim persons and suggesting otherwise is met with firm rejection and controversy. People from different belief systems can sit in the highest offices in a Hindu-majority India, but to even consider the same in a region dominated by Muslims is viewed as blasphemy.

This is visible in other such constituencies as well, for instance, Baharampur which removed Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury after All India Trinamool Congress (AITC or TMC) put forward the candidacy of former cricketer Yusuf Pathan from Gujarat. A Hindu candidate has no place in the presence of one who shares the faith of the majority population in these constituencies.

This is electoral exclusion and an affront to the democratic rights of the non-Muslim communities. They are not afforded the opportunity to contest from these areas, and if they try, the likelihood of victory is negligible as faith supersedes every single issue, including development and progress, for the Muslim voters. The minorities in these regions are politically and otherwise marginalised, with a low probability of improving their circumstances.

How Congress fostered and appeased Muslims for its political goals

The street power of Muslims transforms into a veto power during elections, as the community is known for voting as a unified block and parties comply with their unreasonable demands and shower them with extravagant privileges for electoral success. This is the rationale behind the tendency to segment Hindus by caste while considering Muslims as a single unit during elections.

Furthermore, the disdain they openly voice for the saffron party and their willingness to collaborate with anyone they believe can defeat it is also apparent. Congress is well aware of this and has left no stone unturned in its efforts to appease the community, enacting controversial policies to solidify their support against the BJP.

Sonia Gandhi, who was leading the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), won against Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in the 2024 general elections. A few months later, the central government passed a resolution to explore measures aimed at benefiting the “socially and economically backward sections among religious and linguistic minorities.” The BJP had vehemently opposed the implementation of the report and resisted reservations for Dalit Christians, accusing the Congress of engaging in vote bank politics.

However, this was not the first time Sonia Gandhi, the super prime minister and real centre of authority in the government, tried to curry favour with her cherished community disguised as “welfare schemes for the underprivileged” for defeating the BJP. The government established the Minority Affairs Ministry in January 2006 by splitting the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Abdul Rahman Antulay served as the first minister in 2006, and Salman Khurshid took over in 2009.

It’s interesting to note that the United States Ambassador to India, David Mulford, mentioned Antulay in a private memo that WikiLeaks made public. The cable unveiled that the latter had expressed scepticism concerning the 26/11 terror attack, claiming that “Hindutva forces” might have been involved in it. Congress notoriously refrained from taking any decisive action against the Islamic Republic following the deadly attack, in order to avoid upsetting its Muslim voter base in India.

Meanwhile, the government headed by Congress even attempted to adopt volatile measures to pass legislation consisting of the Communal Violence Bill, in addition to the countless programs put up for minorities, particularly Muslims. The bill was tabled by UPA1 in 2005. A revised draft of the same was presented by UPA2 in 2011 under the direction of the National Advisory Council (NAC).

It basically declared that only minorities and Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) could be considered “victims” and the majority Hindus would always be projected as the perpetrators of communal violence. Its definition of “offences” was so broad that it might apply to any kind of crime. The accused were presumed guilty with the burden of proof resting with them. There were several other provisions that expressly targeted Hindus, perhaps as a gesture of gratitude to the Muslim community for returning Congress to power.

Delimitation threatens to disrupt Congress’ appeasement politics

The aforementioned clearly highlights the perverse politics employed by the Congress party to maintain its grip on power in the country. However, the delimitation is a major obstacle in their corrupt strategy to pander to the Muslim community for electoral gains. The “Muslim areas” that the Congress facilitated for its use as a voting bloc against the BJP might lose their influence.

They could now lose the unfair status and become regular voters, similar to Hindus, who have had to grapple with the consequences of the political ploys executed by Congress. Hence, Rahul Gandhi is irked not due to a supposed “threat” to democracy, or the Constitution but rather because the “vote bank” politics of his party is at stake.

Pawan Khera invited trouble for himself by using forged documents against Himanta Biswa Sarma, now Ravish Kumar needlessly attempts to wade into the controversy

YouTuber Ravish Kumar claims to be an impartial journalist, but his so-called ‘journalism’ does not have an iota of impartiality. His recent statement, loaded with baseless claims, once again demonstrated that his arguments are based less on facts and more on prejudice. Ravish’s comment regarding the allegations levelled by Congress leader Pawan Khera against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, wife of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, was a failed attempt at pushing his self-claimed ‘impartial journalist’ image.

In his comment, Ravish Kumar questioned the FIR filed against Congress leader Pawan Khera in this connection with his statements about Riniki Bhuyan Sarma. He said, “The appropriate course of action would have been to refute the allegations or order an investigation. How can the police be sent after the accuser? This may sound like a matter of principles, but the reality is that they either ignored or deliberately suppressed the basic facts of the entire case.”

Congress leader Pawan Khera had levelled some serious allegations against Riniki Bhuiyan Sarma, alleging that she possessed three foreign passports and owned properties in Dubai. He made these allegations without offering any evidence. Khera did present some documents, but they were full of discrepancies. When questioned over the discrepancies in the documents presented by him, Khera evaded the question by promising to provide concrete evidence, which he did not provide.

Ravish Kumar harping on about ‘refutation of allegations’ and his ignorance of facts

Notably, the ‘refutation’ of Khera’s allegations that Ravish Kumar is demanding has already been done. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma himself came forward and detailed the discrepancies in the documents. The surname was misspelt, the photo did not match biometric standards, and numerous other discrepancies raised suspicions about the authenticity of these documents.

Riniki Bhuyan Sarma also refuted the allegations, saying that the images in the documents were AI-generated. Ravish Kumar’s assertion that the Assam government didn’t refute the allegation despite a clear and public clarification by the Assam CM and his wife suggests he either ignored the facts or presented selective information to support his narrative.

Why did Pawan Khera not take the legal course?

So far as Ravish Kumar’s grievance about the FIR against Khera is concerned, his argument appears to be unfounded. An FIR is not an arbitrary action; it is a legal process that is a vital part of any democratic system. If serious allegations are publicly levelled against someone, a legal action naturally follows.

Pawan Khera also had the choice; if he had solid and credible documents, he could have filed an FIR or directly approached the court against Riniki Bhuyan Sarma. But he did neither, which speaks volumes.

On the contrary, when Riniki Bhuiyan Sarma filed an FIR against Pawan Khera, the entire situation flipped. Pawan Khera immediately approached the Telangana High Court seeking anticipatory bail. The question arises: why was the Telangana court approached when the case concerns Assam? When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it objected and questioned how the Telangana High Court’s jurisdiction could be invoked in a case arising in Assam.

Meanwhile, Ravish Kumar was irritated by the Supreme Court’s order. He began advocating for an investigation into the case. Ravish Kumar should know that ordering an investigation in such cases is not an option, but a necessary step, as it directly affects the reputation and credibility of the person concerned.

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has also expressed concern over the issue. He clearly stated that just like fake documents are being presented as evidence to implicate him and his wife amid elections, similarly, fake allegations could be levelled against prominent leaders like Union Minister Amit Shah during elections. Therefore, such cases must be investigated.

Ravish Kumar’s one-sided arguments

A look at the entire controversy reveals a clear picture. Pawan Khera made allegations at his own convenience, fueled them without solid evidence, and when it came to accountability, he backed down. While he directly attacked Riniki Bhuyan Sarma’s reputation, simultaneously, he navigated ways to evade his own legal scrutiny.

In such a situation, expecting the person against whom the allegations have been made to remain silent and not take any legal action is not logic but sheer hypocrisy. If the accuser had genuine evidence, they too would have gone to court or filed an FIR, but that requires presenting evidence, and this is where the entire story seems to fall apart.

Such a move by the Congress Party amid the assembly elections in Assam shows how the party is ready to go to any lengths to gain political advantage. However, the party’s lies and fraud did not last, and it tasted defeat in its attempt to malign the reputation of Riniki Bhuyan Sarma.

Ravish Kumar also seems to be toeing the line of the Congress Party by peddling lies, where he habitually makes biased comments without revealing the full story. If he doesn’t know the full facts, it’s his own fault. Even after clear rebuttals and legal action, raising suspicions about Sarma seems like merely pursuing an agenda. If he wants to speak in favour of the Congress Party, he should do so openly. But by making such statements based on incomplete information and twisted facts, he may become a Congress soldier, but he will lose his ‘journalistic credentials’.

(This article is a translation of the original article published on OpIndia Hindi.)

‘Country has at least started to stir’: Congress pins hopes on Noida-style unrest for a ‘revolution’ after failing to stoke Gen-Z protests against Modi government

The Congress party has been out of power in the Centre for over a decade. The people of India have rejected the grand old party in three consecutive Lok Sabha elections. The chagrin of being out of power has taken a toll on Congress’s sanity to such an extent that the party is now itching for a violent ‘revolution’ to topple the Modi government. In this vein, Congress leader Supriya Srinate used the recent violence and arson during protests by industrial workers in Noida over wages to launch an attack on the “Modi model” of governance.

Expressing glee over the Noida violence, the Congress party said that “India has at least started to stir”, as if it’s a dream-come-true moment. The party linked Noida labour violence with the state of the Indian economy to assert that it marks the beginning of a broader public ‘awakening’ against exploitation, inflation, and repression under the Modi government.

“…Is this the fastest-growing economy just for the billionaires? Is this what Narendra Modi’s cruel Amrit Kaal is—where the nation is being looted to enrich some, and those who build the country are being left destitute? The Modi government hastily implemented 4 Labour Codes in November 2025 without any discussion or deliberation, extending work hours to 12 hours. Today, exploitation is happening on that very basis. Every time the Modi government brings any policy, its negative impact falls on employees and labourers. Whereas for the apple of Modi’s eye, people like Adani, it’s all hunky-dory. If the government doesn’t pay attention in time, the situation will become even more dire in the coming days, because speeches don’t fill stomachs, and slogans don’t run families,” Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate said.

The authorities investigating the Noida violence that transpired on 13th April accused outside elements of being involved and pointed to a potential larger conspiracy. A parallel investigation has been launched into suspected links ranging from organised disinformation to attempts at unrest supported by Pakistan and even a likely Naxal threat.

However, the Congress party resorted to handing a clean chit to Pakistan, even as the hostile neighbour has a record of weaponising social media to stir unrest in India.

“But instead of finding solutions and making the right policies for these people, those in power have already declared it an international conspiracy. They’re even making absurd arguments about Pakistan’s hand in it. Meaning, demanding fair wages for one’s hard work, raising a voice against exploitation—demanding one’s rights—is a conspiracy?” Shrinate asked.

Expressing joy and enthusiasm over the violent conspiracy that unfolded in Noida under the pretext of protests over wages, the Congress spokesperson said, “But amid all this, there’s also a ray of hope. People have had enough and, instead of fake ‘good days,’ workers and toilers are demanding their due for their labour. Say what you will, the country has at least started to stir.”

The Congress party’s disgraceful joy over the country ‘stirring’, essentially plunging into violence and chaos perhaps, stems from its desire to watch the country undergo a Nepal or Bangladesh-like violent ‘revolution’ to topple the Modi government, which despite a 2024 general election setback has managed to have its grip on power and popularity.

The defeats in 2014, 2019, and 2024 Lok Sabha elections and multiple state assembly elections have rendered the Congress party desperate to manufacture momentum via street-level anti-government protests rather than introspection and alteration in political approach. “The country has at least started to stir” a remark by the Congress leader is essentially an attempt to glorify, romanticise, and amplify street violence and vandalism as the spark of a nationwide ‘revolution’.

After failed attempts at riling up Gen-Z despite repeated calls and incitements, the Congress party seems to be shifting focus to labour unrest. Congress leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, consistently addressed and incited the Gen-Z, hoping that just the anti-quota protests in Bangladesh snowballed into nationwide ‘movement’, toppling Sheikh Hasina’s elected government amidst deaths, arson, and chaos, Nepal-like agitation wherein the ‘protests’ resulted in ouster of KP Sharma Oli, the Indian youth would topple the Modi government. For multiple reasons, however, the tactic did not work, dashing Rahul Gandhi’s Prime Ministerial dream.

Congress and its supportive ideological ecosystem have long been itching a Bangladesh, Nepal-like violent regime change in India even as it comes at the cost of a democratic collapse, devastation of economy, political instability, national security going for a toss, loss of global stature, deaths, destruction and outright anarchy. Apparently, they are happy to rule the ruins, as long as they get to rule.

The Congress party appears to be testing the waters by portraying the violence in Noida during wage protests as the opening act of an anti-BJP ‘uprising’. Perhaps, they are signalling encouragement and extending political support to violent elements ever-ready to hijack legitimate issues for ideological gains.

While Congress demonstrated its desire to use chaos as a ladder to grab power way back in 2019-2020, when Sonia Gandhi declared an “aar ya paar ki ladaai” inciting a do or die fight against the Citizenship Amendment Bill, calling it ‘discriminatory against Muslims’, even as the bill had nothing to do with Indian Muslims.

It was on the 14th of December 2019, Sonia Gandhi – the interim President of Congress at the time – spoke about an “aar ya paar ki ladai” (do or die) in the context of the Citizenship Amendment Act. Speaking at a “Bharat Bachao Rally”, Sonia Gandhi from the Ramlila Maidan delivered a war cry.

She said that people should come out on the streets to agitate against the Modi government. She also said that the Congress and the people should be ready to make any sacrifice to “protect” India and that this is an ‘aar paar ki ladai’ (the final battle) and people should be willing for any ‘Qurbani’ (sacrifice). The provocative speech was later held responsible for the anti-Hindu Delhi riots by some of the victims themselves.

It was seen how the initial ‘peaceful’ protests soon snowballed into ‘chakka jam’ and violence against Hindus. Islamists like Sharjeel Imam gave calls to cut off the chicken neck and divide India, as well as carry out ‘chakka jam’ to cause disruption. Meanwhile, part-time students, full-time Islamists like Umar Khalid, whom the Congress party wholeheartedly defends, held clandestine meetings with co-conspirators to mobilise rioters and unleash violence.

Although the Modi government managed to brave this massive violent agitation, which was not confined to Delhi alone. This was the first major, though failed, violent attempt at toppling the Modi government.

Another major opportunity came in 2025, when Islamists rose in protests against the Waqf Amendment Bill. Congress, which essentially made Waqf Boards powerful and invincible, joined several Muslim-appeasing opposition parties in attempts at stoking anarchy based on perfunctory criticism, calling the Waqf Amendment Bill ‘unconstitutional’, ‘anti-Muslim’ and somehow even ‘anti-democracy’. Violence erupted in West Bengal’s Murshidabad and in other states

In addition to this, the Congress party has also been pushing the ‘vote chori’ bogey. Congress prince Rahul Gandhi has, in the last few months, been levelling unfounded allegations about the EVMs, VVPATs, electoral roll, fake voters and whatnot to establish a false narrative that the ECI is colluding with the Bhartiya Janata Party to manipulate voter lists and rig elections. Gandhi attempted to drop a ‘hydrogen bomb’, alleging the presence of fake voters in the electoral rolls, casting aspersions on the integrity of the ECI, and whatnot to sow distrust in the minds of people against the government and poll body. However, the tactics so far have not yielded desired results.

Congress has also attempted to exploit caste faultlines to push its divisive agenda and perhaps ‘stir’ things up. In recent years, Rahul Gandhi has been obsessing over “Jitni aabaadi utna haq”, advocating impractical ideas like caste-based wealth, increasing reservations and whatnot.

Now once again, the Congress party has placed its hopes in the workers’ wage issue and the Delimitation proposal that aims to raise the strength of the Lok Sabha from 543 to 850, to see the country not just ‘stir’ but descend into chaos so that their political dreams could turn into reality if not through EVMs, then through street unrest. However, the Indian voters have seen through this sustained pattern and rejected Congress in elections so far.

Lenskart CEO admits ‘outdated’ style guide flagged tilak/bindi but permitted hijab: What Peyush Bansal said and what the Feb 2026 document reveals

Lenskart founder and CEO Peyush Bansal has finally broken his silence on the firestorm surrounding a viral company document that discriminated against Hindu religious symbols. The controversy, which has been trending across social media, centres on a ‘style guide’ that prohibited the use of bindis and tilaks while explicitly permitting the hijab.

As the backlash intensified, Peyush Bansal took to X on Wednesday night, 15th April to clear the air. He initially wrote, “Hi, all. I’ve been seeing an inaccurate policy document going viral about Lenskart. I want to speak directly that this document does not reflect our present guidelines. Our policy has no restrictions on any form of religious expression, including bindi and tilak… outdated versions do not represent who we are today.”

However, his attempt to dismiss the document as “inaccurate” was quickly challenged with a Community Note on X, which served as a digital reality check. The note clarified that the Lenskart Style Guide (v1.1/11) was dated February 2, 2026, and clearly bore company branding. This directly challenged the claim that the document was “outdated” or “inaccurate,” as it was essentially current.

Recognising the mounting pressure, Bansal issued a follow-up statement, shifting his stance from calling it “inaccurate” to admitting it was a genuine, albeit “incorrect,” training document: “The document currently circulating is an outdated internal training document. It is not an HR policy. That said, it contained an incorrect line about bindi/tilak that should never have been written and does not reflect our values… When we discovered this on February 17, well before this became a public conversation, we immediately removed it.”

He concluded by taking personal responsibility: “As Founder and CEO, I take responsibility for such mistakes. Lenskart does not, and never will, prohibit any form of respectful religious expression.”

Nevertheless, Bansal’s attempt to “manage” the situation by labeling the document “inaccurate” only added fuel to the fire, as a community note later showed that the document was not “inaccurate” as Bansal’s subsequent tweets confirmed.

The Lenskart saga is yet another example, after the Nashik TCS ‘corporate jihad’ controversy, of an ecosystem that seems increasingly inclined to accommodate the Muslim community while marginalising traditional expressions of faith in a Hindu-majority country. The disparity in treatment, where one religious garment is labeled a right and another a “grooming violation”, has left a bitter taste in the mouths of consumers.

Inside the leaked “Lenskart Style Guide”

The controversy exploded when a 23-page document titled Lenskart Staff Uniform and Grooming Guide surfaced online. Issued by the Lenskart Academy, the guide was designed to provide “cleanliness and well-groomed” rules for all store employees. However, the details on page 7,10 and 11 triggered immediate outrage.

Page 11 of the Style Guide

Page 7 of the document states that Lenskart employees are prohibited from wearing sacred threads (kalava) and bindis (bindis), while they may wear hijabs.

It states, “If you wear a hijab/turban, it must be black. The hijab should cover moderately up to the chest. Rings with colored stones (such as black, blue, green, red, etc.) are not permitted. Bindis and clutches are also prohibited. Religious threads or wristbands must also be removed.”

This document also specifies what types of things workers should and should not wear, such as shoes, clothing, watches, and other items. Another part of this document is controversial. On page 10, it also comments on the use of vermilion. It states that if someone applies vermilion, they should apply it sparingly and should not spread it across the forehead.

Page 10 of the Style Guide

Unanswered questions and the logic of bias

Despite the apology, the matter remains deeply complicated. If the document was indeed “removed” on February 17th, it begs the question: why was a version dated February 2026 still being circulated to staff? 

Furthermore, the issue of transparency remains; if the policy was updated, Lenskart has yet to make the “correct” version public to restore consumer trust.

The core of the frustration lies in the perceived religious asymmetry. Lenskart is a leading Indian brand, founded by a Hindu, operating in a country where the vast majority of its employees and customers are Hindu. While safety regulations in technical areas like labs might necessitate the removal of loose threads (kalava) or jewelry, there is no logical reason why a bindi or a tilak would interfere with selling eyewear at a retail store, especially when Muslim religious attire was acceptable.

The irony is hard to ignore: in an effort to appear “inclusive,” the brand seemingly excluded the very symbols that represent the cultural fabric of its primary consumer base. While Bansal claims they simply “forgot to remove” the offending lines, the existence of such a policy in the first place suggests a deep-seated bias that an apology alone may not fix.

Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni, convicted of murdering a BJP leader, had threatened OpIndia 12 times – Read details

On 15th April, the Special Court for MLAs and MPs in Bengaluru held Congress MLA Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni and others guilty of murdering Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Zilla Panchayat member Yogesh Gowda in 2016. The sentencing will be announced on 17th April. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), sought the harshest punishment for the convicts.

Notably, since June 2025, a “brand protection” firm representing Kulkarni have been threatening OpIndia with legal consequences over three reports published against him in regard to his involvement in criminal cases. In 12 emails sent to OpIndia in less than three months, Kulkarni’s representatives tried to force OpIndia to take down articles based on court judgments where OpIndia was not even a party.

Court found Kulkarni guilty of conspiracy

The Special Court held Kulkarni and others guilty of criminal conspiracy in the 2016 murder case. Kulkarni, who is currently serving as the Chairman of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board, was named as accused number 15 in the case. The verdict came after a prolonged trial, as the CBI had taken over the case in 2020.

ASG states abuse of power and system manipulation

While arguing the case, the ASG stated that the accused had hatched a cold blooded conspiracy to eliminate a political rival. He informed the court that Yogesh Gowda, a public figure, was targeted due to political rivalry. He further accused the convicts of misusing police machinery, fabricating documents, and attempting to destroy evidence.

He also described the manner in which Gowda was killed, stating that chilli powder was thrown into Gowda’s eyes before he was brutally murdered. He emphasised Kulkarni’s role in the crime as a legislator and contended that he had violated constitutional principles by orchestrating the crime.

Approver expresses guilt, seeks strength

While speaking to the media, Basavaraj Muttagi, one of the accused who turned approver in the case, said that he was haunted by the guilt of his role in the conspiracy, and said the real struggle would begin now.

Multiple accused convicted in long running case

The CBI had named 21 accused in the case, out of which 17 have been found guilty. Two of the accused turned approvers. The court has ordered the release of the other two. The CBI also moved to re accuse one of the approvers who turned hostile.

How a firm managing Kulkarni’s ‘reputation’ online threatened OpIndia

OpIndia received the first email on 20th June 2025 from a digital marketing and brand protection firm named Aiplex Software Private Limited. In the email, AiPlex shared an authorisation letter from Kulkarni allowing them to engage with media houses and individuals to “protect” his “online reputation”. In the authorisation letter, Kulkarni claimed that, given his political stature, certain individuals and media channels with “vested interests” had been targeting him with an intent to defame him.

Source: OpIndia

According to him, such targeted reports were impacting his career and reputation, which he had built over the years. Thus, he authorised the company to manage his online reputation and take action over the internet to “engage and neutralise” illegal rumours, fake news, misquoted interviews, AI generated images, and more, along with enforcement of restraining orders obtained from the court.

In that email, three links to articles and a drive link to court orders were shared. OpIndia was asked to remove them within 24 hours. Interestingly, when OpIndia checked the court order, it was not a party in the case. Furthermore, the email did not come from a law firm but a “brand protection” firm. Hence, OpIndia decided not to act on it. The articles Kulkarni wanted to get removed can be checked here, here and here.

The first report that Kulkarni’s representatives wanted to get removed was published back in March 2020. It talked about the CBI detaining four accused for questioning. Furthermore, it briefly discussed the case and how the police had concluded under the Siddaramaiah government that the murder was due to personal rivalry motivated by a land dispute.

Source: OpIndia

The second report was published in April 2023. The report talked about how The Hindu newspaper had praised Kulkarni for using technology, Augmented Reality (AR) to be precise, for campaigning during the elections. The publication, while doing so, completely ignored the murder case against Kulkarni.

Source: OpIndia

The third and last report that Kulkarni’s representatives wanted to get removed was published in June 2024. The report talked about the Supreme Court’s judgment rejecting Kulkarni’s plea to quash charges against him in the Yogesh Gowda murder case. Earlier, the Karnataka High Court had refused to quash the charges, after which Kulkarni had approached the apex court. The report also provided brief details about the murder case and how it progressed over time.

Source: OpIndia

In the email, the company stated that if OpIndia did not remove the articles within 24 hours, they would be left with no choice but to take legal action against it.

Source: OpIndia

Two days later, on 25th June, the company sent OpIndia another email seeking removal of the content within 24 hours. More reminders followed on 26th June, 30th June, 4th July, 8th July, 14th July, 22nd July, 24th July, 28th July and 2nd August. Notably, from 22nd July, only one article was linked in the email. For some reason, they seemed to have stopped treating the other two articles as “defamatory” in nature against the Congress leader.

The basis of the demand raised by the “brand reputation” firm was a Karnataka High Court order directing YouTube, Facebook, WhatsApp and X to remove “defamatory” content against Kulkarni. The Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Bengaluru Police Commissioner, and the Cyber Crime Police Station, North Division, Bengaluru, were also made parties in the case. OpIndia checked the court orders attached in the email and found that it was not a party in the case. The firm was trying to get standard news reports removed based on an order where OpIndia was not directed to remove any content by the Hon’ble High Court.

Background of the Yogesh Gowda murder case

Yogesh Gowda was a Zilla Panchayat member and BJP leader from the Hebballi constituency. On 15th June 2016, he was brutally murdered at his gym in Saptapur, Dharwad. Six accused were arrested by Dharwad Police and charged with murder. Gurunath Gowda, brother of Yogesh, demanded a CBI probe in the matter. When the BJP led government came to power in the state, the case was transferred to the CBI.

The investigation agency took over the case on 24th September 2019. Eight additional accused were arrested by the CBI. The charge sheet was filed on 20th May 2020. On 5th November, Congress leader Vinay Kulkarni was arrested by the investigation agency. His bail plea was rejected twice, first by a lower court and later by the High Court. During that period, he remained in judicial custody at Hindalga Jail in Belagavi.

During the trial, the CBI informed the court that Kulkarni had travelled to Delhi before and after the murder. Records showed he travelled to Delhi on 12th June 2016 at around 11.30 am and came back the next day at 10.40 am. He again went to Delhi on 16th June evening, a day after the murder, and returned on 18th June. The CBI stated that the tickets were booked on the day of travel and the purpose was to create an alibi.

According to the CBI, the reason behind the murder was political rivalry. Kulkarni had asked Yogesh not to contest the Zilla Panchayat elections, but he refused.

In August 2021, the Supreme Court of India had granted bail to Kulkarni. However, in June 2024, his bail was cancelled by the apex court. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said that there was credible material suggesting that the accused made attempts to contact or influence witnesses during the course of the ongoing trial, and accepted the CBI’s plea asking for cancellation of the MLA’s bail.

In June 2024, the Supreme Court had refused to entertain Kulkarni’s plea to quash charges against him. A bench of Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and Augustine Masih rejected the MLA’s Special Leave Petition against the Karnataka High Court order, which sustained the Special Court’s charges against Kulkarni and twenty other accused persons.

The Supreme Court held that Vinay Kulkarni had ‘bought over’ the deceased victim’s widow. Given that the Court was unlikely to consider the plea, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, who represented Kulkarni, moved to withdraw it. This, however, enraged Justice Kumar, who said, “This court has become a gambling court.”

Justice Kumar observed that the case was not fit for quashing. “This is not a case for quashing, 57 phone calls between you and A1 within the ambit of 5 months,” the Judge said.

A politician’s gamble and the undermining of the judiciary: Arvind Kejriwal demanding recusal of HC judge hearing liquor policy case is forum shopping dressed up as justice

On April 13, 2026, Arvind Kejriwal entered the Delhi High Court not as a petitioner seeking regular relief, but as a man attempting something unusual and risky, he stood before a judge and informed her, effectively, that he did not trust her. In person before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, the former chief minister of Delhi filed a plea requesting her recusal from hearing the CBI’s challenge against the trial court’s ruling in the Delhi liquor policy case, which the CBI was now contesting at the High Court level after the trial court had dismissed Kejriwal and his Aam Aadmi Party coworkers.

The legal plea itself, recusal applications are not unheard of, was not what made the hearing unusual, rather, it was the way it was presented. Kejriwal informed the court that he had observed a pattern in the judge’s directives, stating that every petition has been turned into a judgement and that every argument of the CBI and ED has been supported. Then he explicitly stated that Justice Sharma’s attendance at activities of the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), an organisation of advocates linked with the RSS, made him question whether he would receive justice. Opposing the petition, the CBI went further, characterising the request as based on ‘frivolous and baseless averments,’ calling these accusations an attempt to scandalise the court and lower its authority, and claiming that the behaviour amounted to contempt of court.

The case at the centre of it all

One must first understand the true nature of this situation in order to comprehend why it matters. The Delhi liquor policy saga, also referred to as the excise policy scam, involves claims that the AAP government’s 2021-2022 excise policy was created to favour specific liquor dealers in exchange for payments, with the purported earnings going back into the AAP’s Goa election campaign. Senior AAP leaders were accused of a huge criminal conspiracy by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, and Kejriwal was arrested in March 2024.

However, the trial court found insufficient evidence to bring charges against Kejriwal and a number of co-accused in the CBI’s case. The Delhi High Court’s Justice Sharma has heard a challenge from the CBI about this discharge order. As a result, Kejriwal’s recusal plea comes at a crucial moment when the High Court is being asked to rule on whether or not he needs to stand a trial. The timing is not an accident, it is the whole purpose.

The law of contempt: A line he may have crossed

Any act that scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding, is considered criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This is not a small or obscure provision, it is the legal safeguard for the judiciary’s institutional dignity. Historically, courts have made a clear line between personal attacks on the character or ideological suitability of a sitting judge, which may be considered contempt, and valid criticism of court orders, which is permitted by the constitution.

The Act’s Section 12 stipulates a maximum sentence of six months in simple imprisonment, a fine of ₹2,000, or both. A protection is added by Section 13, which states that contempt cannot be punished unless it substantially interferes, or tends to substantially interfere, with the due course of justice. In E.M.S. Namboodiripad v. T.N. Nambiar (1970), the Supreme Court ruled that even remarks that undermine public trust in the judiciary’s impartiality might be considered criminal contempt. In this case, the Kerala Chief Minister had publicly claimed that judges served class interests. The statement’s impact on public trust is more important than whether it was said inside or outside of the courtroom.

Although Kejriwal’s remarks were delivered in court during a formal legal application, such protection is not unrestricted. When a plaintiff states, I fear you will not give me justice because of your ideology, in front of everyone in an open courtroom, using language that links the judge to a political organisation, the speech ceases to be only a legal submission. The CBI counsel’s description of the plea as ‘forum shopping‘ is not without merit, courts have consistently ruled that dissatisfaction with a judge’s decisions does not warrant recusal, and that combining adverse orders to claim bias is just that.

The bias question: Real law, reckless use

This is where things become really tricky, and intellectual integrity requires admitting that the concept of judicial prejudice exists, is acknowledged, and is significant in administrative law. The law recognises a number of different forms of bias that might taint legal proceedings.

Pecuniary bias occurs when a judge has a pecuniary interest in the outcome, traditionally, even a minor investment in a company before the court has disqualified judges. When a judge and a party or their legal counsel already have a close or hostile relationship, personal bias is present. When a judge has previously spoken strong, public views on the very legal issue at hand, this is known as Subject matter bias. The most complex and contentious of them all is pre conceived notion bias, which raises the question of whether a judge’s larger worldview might influence their judicial function in a particular case.

The last category is effectively invoked in Kejriwal’s argument. He points to Justice Sharma’s exposure to RSS-affiliated legal circles indicates an ideological bias that would hurt his case by pointing to his attendance at ABAP events. The issue is that practically every Indian judge may be recusable if this reasoning were widely accepted. Judges participate in a wide range of cultural events, religious gatherings, legal seminars, and bar association events.

The glasshouse problems

However, the story revealed an inevitable truth that every judge carries a part of themselves to the bench, including expectations from the society, a family’s ideological weight, their social network, and their political background. Pretending otherwise is dishonesty in and of itself.

Usha Ramanathan, a technology law and privacy rights expert who is well known for her critical work on Aadhaar, state surveillance, and civil liberties, positions often associated with a progressive liberal ideological orientation is Justice Muralidhar’s wife. Because of his wife’s intellectual commitments, no one seriously claimed that his decisions in support of riot victims were unconstitutional. However, those connections were constantly in the forefront of the political controversy.

The situation of former CJI N.V. Ramana is much more spectacular. In a letter to then CJI S.A. Bobde in October 2020, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy alleged that Justice Ramana was swaying the AP High Court’s roster in favour of the Telugu Desam Party. Ramana was reportedly a member of the Telugu Desam Party and was even considered for election to the Nandigama constituency in 1994, prior to his appointment to the bench, so the accusation held biographical weight that is hard to dismiss. After conducting an internal investigation, the Supreme Court rejected the allegations in March 2021, allowing Ramana to become India’s 48th Chief Justice.

Why Kejriwal is still wrong

The fact of previous issues regarding judicial ties does not justify Kejriwal’s approach, rather, it makes it much more necessary to oppose it. The entire history of such episodes demonstrates that the proper remedy for credible judicial bias is institutional. In-house court proceedings within the Supreme Court, collegium oversight, higher court appeals, and, as a last resort, formal proceedings that establish accountability through the law. What it is not, however, is a politician publicly expressing distrust before a sitting judge in the middle of a case, while cameras roll outside.

Every time a party leader stands up and declares, I cannot get justice here, a section of the public internalises that message, not as a legal submission, but as an outcome. The institution becomes the accused. And the accused gets away with something quite valuable, a victimhood narrative that exists fully outside of the courtroom, regardless of what transpires inside.

The law of recusal has a very particular and tough criterion because the alternative is chaos. If any plaintiff could disqualify a judge based on that judge’s attendance at events organised by organisations that the litigant dislikes, the right to a fair hearing would be replaced by the right to choose your own judge. That is not a legal principle, it is forum shopping dressed up as justice. The CBI was forthright about this, noting that a judge’s viewpoint in a judicial decision cannot be used to infer bias, and that Kejriwal’s application did exactly that.

Conclusion

If the court had decided to treat Kejriwal’s actions as criminal contempt, it might have begun Suo motu proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act or submitted the case to the Attorney General for consent to prosecute. The punishment, up to six months in prison, would have been less severe than the symbolic weight of a contempt ruling against the very person attempting to avoid a criminal prosecution. The court shown restraint. It has not ruled out that option.

Finally, a bigger lesson emerges that goes beyond the facts of this case and this judge. The judiciary’s independence is not only a convenience to be invoked when it rules in your favour and attacked when it does not. A political leader who uses the recusal doctrine today establishes a precedent that can be used against any judge, liberal or conservative, activist or deferential, by anyone with a grievance and a microphone. The institutions Kejriwal promised to improve are only as strong as the culture of respect that surrounds them. What he is destroying, one news conference disguised as a legal plea at a time, is not Justice Sharma’s reputation. It is his own claim to be different.

Delimitation vs Propaganda: The Quint fear mongers with fake claims of ‘3-step vote chori’ to attack Delimitation. Here’s the truth

The Modi government is set to table the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, in a Special Session of Parliament scheduled for 16th and 17th April. The bill aims to raise the strength of the Lok Sabha from 543 to 850. Even before being brought on the floor of the parliament, the Bill’s delimitation proposal has outraged anti-BJP parties and the leftist media cabal. While parties like Congress and DMK have claimed that delimitation in its proposed form would reduce the seats of southern states, the leftist propaganda outlet The Quint has declared it a “3-step vote chori”.

In The Quint article headlined, “Delimitation Bill is a 3-Step Vote Chori Against Opposition”, ‘journalist’ Aditya Menon dubbed the proposed delimitation as 3-step vote theft by the Modi government, claiming that the conspiracy involves selective use of population, nationwide gerrymandering, and targeted reduction of seats wherein the BJP has electorally struggled, especially in southern states. The converted Islamist draws on examples from delimitation exercises in Assam and Jammu and Kashmir to claim that somehow the entire delimitation process is going to be conducted to empower BJP strongholds.

Menon cites The Hindu projections, which indicate that Uttar Pradesh’s seats will rise from 80 to 138, Bihar’s seats rise from 40 to 72, Tamil Nadu’s seats from 39 to 50, and Kerala’s from 20 to 23, to argue that  the proposed delimitation will cause reduction in the proportion of seats not only in southern states but also “where the BJP performs poorly.”

“Uttar Pradesh, which has 80 seats in the 543-member Lok Sabha at present, should have had 125 seats in the new 850-member Lok Sabha. It will now have 138 seats due to a higher population growth rate. Bihar, which should have had 62 seats, will now have 72. Rajasthan, which should have had 39, will have 47. In contrast, Tamil Nadu, which should have had 61 seats in the increased Lok Sabha, will have 50. Kerala will have 23 instead of 31. Andhra Pradesh will have 34 instead of 39,” The Quint article reads.

The propaganda piece pivots to the Muslim victimhood narrative, arguing that if the ‘one person, one vote’ principle was actually respected, Muslim-majority seats in Assam, like Dhubri, 10 lakh extra voters from Barpeta would not have been added to Dhubri to make it a “Hindu-majority seat overnight” during the 2023 delimitation exercise.

Aditya Menon relies on the tried and tested tactic of Islamo-leftist propagandists of cherry-picking numbers and blending them with a victimhood narrative to villainise the Modi government and create panic.

The entire ‘gerrymandering’ narrative, that too, to disempower Muslim voters, is bogus and only a panic-triggering term that The Quint is throwing. In Assam, the Election Commission used the 2001 Census data as well as population density categories A/B/C districts, with an allowed ±10% deviation from the state average.

Densely populated districts, like a Muslim-majority Dhubri, received adjustments to project smaller, indigenous, tribal communities in low-density areas like Kokrajhar. The ECI’s goal was equitable voter load and to protect indigenous communities. The ’10 lakh extra voters’ in Dhubri was a practical density-based math and not deliberate packing. Population density is a key aspect of the delimitation process, but the delimitation process does not rely on or target religious demographics.

Neither the existing laws nor the proposed delimitation bill makes any mention of religion-based “packing and cracking”.

Source: The Quint article

Similarly, in the 2022 delimitation exercise in Jammu and Kashmir, the Delimitation Commission considered population, border proximity, administrative factors, and geography. Anantnag was merged with Rajouri and Poonch areas across Pir Panjal, creating the Anantnag-Rajouri Lok Sabha constituency that bridges the Pir Panjal range, connecting Anantnag in the Valley with the Rajouri-Poonch border districts in the Jammu division.

Although the delimitation process does not involve religious demography as a deciding factor, the merger did result in creating a new diverse and competitive electoral landscape wherein Muslim Muslim-majority districts of Rajouri-Poonch were combined with South Kashmir. If Aditya Menon’s chagrin is about the process resulting in the dismantling of the Muslim electoral veto, then coping and seething is the only option he has.

In addition to the Muslim victimhood propaganda, Aditya Menon also claimed that the proposed delimitation exercise will “penalise” southern states and even Punjab for better family planning, resulting in the reduction of the proportion of seats.

The Quint did not stop at the Muslim victimhood, and the ‘south will lose seats’ fear mongering. The leftist rag even invoked a ‘linguistic minority’ angle while arguing that the Modi government is supposedly making selective use of the population and census.

“In Assam, the government went for delimitation as per the 2001 census and not the latest figures, citing the need to “protect smaller communities”. These also happen to be communities that have tended to vote for the BJP in the past few elections. This could have be used to preserve the interests of linguistic minority states such as the South or Punjab, which will lose out as per the latest population figures. But the government chose not to do it. Clearly, population as a criterion and choice of census is being done in a way that benefits the BJP and harms the Opposition,” The Quint article reads.

This whole ‘chose not to preserve the interests of linguistic minority states’ is a blatant misrepresentation of not only the constitutional framework but also the explicit provisions of the proposed amendment bill.

The government has stated that seats in every state will increase by 50% on a pro-rata basis, essentially preserving their current proportional strength in the Lok Sabha. Neither any southern state nor Punjab nor West Bengal will lose even a single seat in absolute terms. Contrary to the fear-mongering narrative and a deliberate misrepresentation, the proposed pro-rata expansion is not a simple population-proportional model.

It is factually correct that southern states have fared well with regard to population control measures and economically. This commendable performance is rewarded by granting absolute gains proportional to their current share. The number of seats in absolute terms is only going to increase.

The Indian Constitution demands population-based seats. The 1971 freeze was a temporary measure to ensure population control measures were implemented without the fear of states losing political representation. This freeze, however, cannot become a perpetual southern entitlement.

Article 81 explicitly requires Lok Sabha seats to be allocated to states “as far as practicable” in proportion to population. The 42nd Amendment froze allocation on 1971 figures simply as a short-term incentive for family planning and other population control measures. The 84th Amendment extended this freeze only until the first Census after 2026. Thus, continuing the freeze indefinitely would violate the “one person, one vote” principle.

Gerrymandering requires deliberate partisan manipulation, as it happens in the US. However, in India, the Delimitation Commission is quasi-judicial, independent, and faces judicial review.

While the opposition is portraying the delimitation proposal as ‘punishment’ for the South, in reality, Northern voters are systematically under-represented. The fact is, more than the fear of southern states losing seats, the anti-BJP cabal is opposing delimitation because the most populous states in the country would be getting more representation. They are interpreting the delimitation exercise and its outcome in terms of the division of seats between pro-BJP and anti-BJP voter pockets across the country.

Although the BJP has enjoyed power in Karnataka earlier and is a part of the ruling coalition in Andhra Pradesh, southern states are portrayed as historically against the BJP, while the northern states, many of which are ruled by the BJP at present, are portrayed as pro-BJP states. The entire outrage comes across as an attempt to secure an equal number of seats for southern states as northern states by disregarding the population criteria.

This whole ‘south states are being punished’ for better implementation of population control measures narrative collapses if we look at the population dynamics.

Delimitation is a constitutional process of redrawing electoral boundaries and reallocating seats in the Lok Sabha to ensure roughly equal population per constituency.  North Indian states are highly underrepresented, while South Indian states are overrepresented to some extent.

The population of Rajasthan, as per the 2011 Census, is 6 crore 85 lakh, and the number of Lok Sabha seats is 25, while Karnataka’s population, as per the 2011 Census data, is 6 crore 11 lakh. Despite having around 75 lakhs more population, Rajasthan has three seats fewer.

Similarly, Madhya Pradesh’s population as per the 2011 Census is 7 crore 26 lakh. The state has 29 Lok Sabha seats at present. However, Tamil Nadu, with a population of 7 crore 21 lakh, has 39 seats.

If we do the math and calculate per-Member of Parliament population, an MP in Rajasthan represents around 27.42 lakh people, while an MP in Tamil Nadu represents 18.50 lakh people. An MP in Uttar Pradesh represents roughly 24.98 lakh people, and an MP in Kerala represents 16.70 lakh people.

This essentially means that an MP from Kerala, for example, represents nearly half as many people as an MP from Uttar Pradesh. Does that not mean that a Kerala voter’s vote is 1.6 times more valuable than that of an Uttar Pradesh voter? Is this not a mockery of the “one person, one vote” principle?

This disparity can also be traced in the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme. Every MP gets Rs 5 crore allocated for local area development, irrespective of the constituency’s population. Result? Per-capita spending is significantly higher in smaller-population constituencies compared to higher population constituencies. The proposed delimitation exercise is designed to address these disparities.

The Central government has assured that the number of seats will go up, essentially on a pro-rata basis, using the latest published Census. Even if the Delimitation exercise happens after the 2026 census, the population difference in Southern vs Northern states will be in expected lines of the 2011 census.

To fulfil its repeated assurance that southern states will not lose a single seat, the Modi government’s amendment bill proposes altering the definition of population from the “last preceding census” to “population as ascertained at such census, as Parliament may by law determine”. This essentially hands the Parliament broader options while allotting seats. There is also a possibility that the Centre would come up with a one-cycle hybrid formula. However, The Quint, Aditya Menon and the extended anti-BJP ecosystem are deliberately peddling alarmist narratives to cause panic and stir unrest in the country.

Aditya Menon: The master of fake news and anti-BJP propaganda

This, however, is not the first time that The Quint’s Aditya Menon has peddled anti-BJP propaganda and fake news. Back in January 2022, when a breach in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s security occurred in Punjab, Menon wrote an article for The Quint, in which he blatantly downplayed the seemingly deliberate security lapse that led to PM Modi being stuck for 20 minutes not too far away from the Pakistan border. Menon claimed that earlier, PM Modi was stuck for 2 hours in traffic in BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh, yet no one was outraged, whereas when a similar situation happened in Congress-ruled Punjab, people were outraged since they somehow harboured some sort of hatred for Punjabis. The fact, however, was that PM Modi’s convoy was stuck in traffic in Uttar Pradesh only for 2 minutes, not 2 hours as claimed by The Quint.

In 2020, Aditya Menon, a Hindu who converted to Islam, attempted to rationalise Shaheen Bagh mastermind Sharjeel Imam’s secessionist and violent remarks by equating them with the ISI propaganda of blockades imposed in Kashmir by Hindu organisations in 2008.

Downplaying 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots violence-accused Sharjeel Imam’s anti-India remarks, Menon contended that the former JNU student had simply asked for a “chakka jam or a blockade of the highways and railways leading to Assam”. However, in his pursuit to defend Imam, Menon cunningly drew a parallel with the Amarnath agitation in 2008 when Hindu organisations had allegedly blocked the Jammu-Srinagar highway. Menon had argued that if that wasn’t considered sedition, then the Imam’s call to block the roads and railways leading to Assam should not be considered separatist either.

Aditya Menon’s fear-mongering narrative that the delimitation exercise will somehow benefit the BJP electorally is rooted in his hatred for the BJP and its voter base. A significant section of India’s middle class, despite its own complaints with the Modi government, has remained a loyal BJP voter, is nationalist, and thus is also hated by the likes of Aditya Menon.

Back in December 2020, Menon had published an X post villainising the Delhi’s middle class, for their non-support to the anti-CAA and farmers’ protest. He received support from propagandist Rohini Singh, who called the Indian middle class “most immoral”.

In 2019, when Hindu activist Kamlesh Tiwari was brutally murdered by jihadis for his remarks against the Muslim prophet, Aditya Menon had joined fellow Islamists to deflect attention from the brutality of the Hindu activist’s murder. While a Hindu man was murdered, Menon accused the ‘Hindutva Brigade’ of spreading ‘hatred’ against Muslims, making the social outrage in reaction to Tiwari’s murder and the imaginary ‘compassionate’ Muslim response to the same, a bigger and more concerning issue than the murder itself.

In 2017, Aditya Menon had supported a murderous social media troll “Comrade Nambiar” who celebrated the death of 26 CRPF men who were killed by Maoists.

“Bhakt handles continue to threaten, abuse & spread hatred but @TwitterIndia suspended @DasBolshevik who took them on #IStandWithDasBolshevik,” Menon posted in May 2017.

In 2016, Menon, who then worked as a Catch News journalist, posted with the caption that said a picture of a young girl closing the eyes of a dead man with the claim that said the picture was taken from Kashmir. The picture, however, was from 2012 and not from Kashmir but Syria.

Bengal has never been a hub for large manufacturing, claims TMC leader Mahua Moitra: How true is her statement

All India Trinamool Congress (AITC or TMC) Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra has once again drawn strong ire due to her misleading comments over the acute shortage of industries in West Bengal during an interview with Sreenivasan Jain for Newslaundry, which was published on 14th April (Tuesday). The state is undergoing assembly elections with voting scheduled to occur on 23rd and 29th April.

“How many new investments and new projects have taken off in the past five or 15 years? I’m not talking of proposals or MoUs (Memorandum of Understandings) but actual implementations,” Jain asked, to which she replied, “Now remember one thing that Bengal has never been a hub for large manufacturing and cannot be. It is a partition state it is still an agrarian economy with very small land holdings.”

“It is not possible for us to give a thousand acres or 2,000 acres or you know very large tracks of land which is possible in many other states where they’re not that dependent on agriculture. Bengal is a very fertile land. People are still dependent on agriculture. So, this is something that stands in the way of very large manufacturing investments,” Mahua added.

However, the falsehoods were promptly dismantled not just by the Bharatiya Janata Party but also by the netizens, who emphasised that the region was historically a manufacturing giant, and the current industrial landscape is a direct outcome of the policies of the ruling party.

BJP and netizens remind Moitra of the actual cause for the decline of industries in Bengal

BJP retorted that the “truth cannot be changed for convenience” and pointed out how the state was the nation’s production powerhouse, which housed Hindustan Motors, the makers of the iconic Ambassador cars, Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited (BCPL), India’s first pharmaceutical business, engineering firm Burn & Company and the major tire manufacturer, Dunlop, alongside multiple others industries and a vast network of jute mills and foundries.

This large-scale industrial dominance contributed 20% of the country’s production. BJP remarked that the state is not devoid of potential or industry but rather dearth of a willing leadership under the “dictatorial TMC government.” It charged that “corruption, strikes, violence, lack of Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) and a broken business climate under Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee pushed 6,688 companies out of Bengal between 2011 and 2025. First, they destroyed the industrial backbone. Now, they deny it ever existed. They lie. They deflect. They deny. But Bengal remembers. And Bengal will respond.”

Amitabh Chaudhary referred to Moitra’s claims as a “big lie” and noted that Bengal’s manufacturing sector declined from 20% in 1920 to 5% in 2025. Her declaration of inability to provide 2000 acres of land for manufacturing was similarly exposed by him.

“Tata motors has to shut down its Singur plant because of Mamata Banerjee. JSW (formerly Jindal South West) alone is holding 4300 acres of land in Salboni. They are not able to expand, and Mamata has asked them to return the land. No one is willing to invest because of corruption and cut money. Panagarh Industrial Area is approximately 2000 acres, with hardly any investors,” he stated.

Raghunath AS expressed that Kolkata transitioned from the commercial capital of India to ceding its position to Mumbai and then to Delhi/NCR (National Capital Region). The primary factors contributing to this drop comprised labour militancy, frequent strikes and policy uncertainty during the 1970s and 1980s. He also highlighted tolabaji (extortion) along with poor industrial policies of both the Left and the subsequent TMC governments.

“Many companies either closed down, became sick units, or relocated manufacturing, or their corporate headquarters and decision-making centres,” he conveyed and proceeded to name the entities that migrated the state including Hindustan Unilever, Bata India, Hindustan Fertiliser Corporation, Mackinnon, Mackenzie Andrew Yule & Company, Tata Steel and Birla Group among several others.

Sougat Chakraborty mocked that Moitra’s fabrications could be disproven with just a Google search and then illustrated that it identified Bengal as a manufacturing hub, which accounted for nearly 27% of the country’s overall output in 1950-51.

Similar sentiments were reiterated by another individual who accused Moitra’s party of expelling the companies from the state, after which she asserts that it has consistently fallen short of manufacturing.

Bengal had emerged as a major industrial region during the British Raj, and sectors like Jute, Tea, Coal mining, Engineering and heavy industries, Iron and steel, Paper, Leather and Chemicals had flourished. Even before the British rule, Bengal had major industries in the sectors of cotton and silk textiles, shipbuilding, salt, indigo dye production and others.

Post independence, steel and other metals, heavy engineering, jute, tea, coal, chemicals, fertilisers and other sectors continued to grew in the state. But the state has regressed a lot in the last couple od decades under left and TMC rules.

How industries were pushed to move away from the state

More than 6,000 enterprises quit Bengal during the past 14 years, according to information shared by the Modi government in the Parliament in July 2025. Over 2,000 of these, including 39 listed, transitioned in the past five years. Many of the firms relocated to Gujarat, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. This industrial migration took place while the TMC was in power.

Moreover, the centre mentioned that only a few modest investments had been promised, presenting a grave and worrying scenario for the nation’s fourth most populous state. Over 2200 businesses, or one-third, abandoned Bengal since 2019. Importantly, this pattern persisted after the TMC was elected in 2011. 110 of the 6688 corporations featured on the stock market.

According to the government, the companies gave a variety of justifications for shifting their headquarters, such as cost effectiveness, improved management control and administrative and operational convenience. Bengal stood 2nd after Maharashtra in relation to the number of registered companies until the 1970s, but it slid to the 9th place by 2021.

Moitra’s grand statements fall apart under unbiased analysis

Moitra’s assertions related to the job prospects in West Bengal also crumbled when subjected to analysis. She boasted about 14 lakh employment opportunities per year in the state, but Jain highlighted, “When you talk about jobs, Mamata Banerjee last month said that 84 lakh unemployed youth registered for a dole scheme (Banglar Yuba Sathi) for 21 to 40 age group, of your government. They get Rs 1,500 a month. We did the math. 84 lakhs amount to 40% of the working population between 21 and 40.”

“You promised five lakh new jobs a year in 2021 and you’re saying you’ve actually created three times that amount. Is that correct? Is that a credible claim,” he earlier inquired. However, Moitra enthusiastically answered, “Of course, it is. It’s something that has been placed in our assembly. Do you think that the data report card and the economic numbers that we place in the West Bengal assembly as part of the budget report is going to be a lie?”

However, her responses were soon shown to be more grounded in political narrative than concrete numbers. The entire episode primarily served as her desperate endeavour to mask the overwhelming shortcomings of the TMC government.

Conclusion

The state has been inching towards its industrial decline since the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led front governed for 34 consecutive years, and the momentum only accelerated after the TMC ascended to power, promising a new beginning and blaming the “openly anti-industry policies” of the former administration for the precarious situation.

The government clearly failed to fulfil its commitments, and its leaders have shamelessly opted to rewrite the history of the state, denying its manufacturing roots. The blatant disregard for reality and the effort to disseminate disinformation could either be an awful move on Moitra’s part to cover up the disastrous policies of her government or she could be actually ignorant of the legacy of the state she purports to represent.

Regardless, both instances reflect her shocking disconnect from facts, whether it was intentional or artificial. However, the BJP’s attack and the public’s reaction have shown that there are no safe spaces for these political deceptions, which, conversely, have illuminated the outrageous actions of TMC against the industry sector.

How Jawaharlal Nehru legitimised Marxist historiography and the consequent whitewashing of Islamic invasions

0

No other book serves as the theoretical foundation of Marxist historiography as much as Jawaharlal Nehru’s The Discovery of India (1945). The oft-quoted Nehruvian doctrines—such as the idea of India, the substance of composite culture, the role of Islam as a social revolution, and the amalgamation of all, secularism—have formed fundamental beliefs in contemporary India and are drawn from this work. 

Nehru held a vision based on Marxist universalism that required religious scepticism as a prerequisite. In contrast, he found no intellectual solace in the Hindu cultural values that Gandhian ideals claim to promote, and were part of Congress’s political programme. Nehru dismissed these values as obscurantist and revivalist. When his turn came, Nehru obstinately omitted the Hindu ethos from shaping India’s state, effectively secularising India’s national life. 

There are many instances in the book highlighting his cynical approach to India’s past. For Nehru, spirituality was nothing but squalor. ‘We’ve had enough of Ram and Krishn,’ he had said, and Indians had nothing to gain from them. Although spiritualism fascinated him, it had no practical use. It was like a stagnant pond. He warned Indians not to ‘lose themselves in a sea of speculation unconnected with the day-to-day problems of life’ and that they ‘must hold to their anchor of precise objective knowledge tested by reason, and even more so by experiment and practice.’

Nehru did not know what religion the people of the Indus Valley civilisation followed, but still he proclaimed it as a ‘predominantly secular civilisation.’ He was against Hindi because it shared the script, devanagari, with Sanskrit; ‘so it has become difficult to use in its larger and more natural significance.’ Again, Nehru confessed that he knew nothing about art or sculpture and reacted to it as a layman would. Yet, the Buddha statue at Anuradhapura (Sri Lanka) moved him greatly, and Nehru claimed he carried a picture of it for many years. But the architecture of some famous temples in South India, ‘heavy with carving and detail’, disturbed and filled him with unease. Elsewhere in the book, Nehru explained why the temples made him uneasy. 

South India was a stronghold of Hindu orthodoxy, Nehru surmised. The repeated invasions of northern India led to many people migrating to the south, including craftsmen and artisans. As a result, South India became a centre for preserving old artistic traditions; hence, the elaborate carvings found on its temples. While the invaders introduced new ideas and architectural styles—evident in ‘the noble and beautiful buildings of Delhi and Agra’—South India ended up becoming a bastion of Hindu orthodoxy. 

For Nehru, Islam’s appearance is always an‘advent’; it comes ‘i enters, and it arrives’ in India and goes in the same fashion elsewhere. So, when Islam ‘came’ to Iran, thousands of the followers of the Zoroastrian faith ‘migrated’ to India. The why and how of the collapse of the Sassanid Empire and what happened in its wake did get a word.  

There is a whispering, reluctant reference to the devastating impact of Islamic bigotry and iconoclasm. Islam came to India as a new religious faith, and its frequent intercourse with indigenous faiths inevitably led Indians to become acquainted with the new religion. No objection was raised by either the state or the people, nor were there any religious conflicts. But when it came as a political force, it created many new problems. Nehru did not specify what these problems were, except that ‘there were many such raids, and they were bloody and ruthless.’ Yet those who led these ‘bloody and ruthless raids’ were unequivocally glorified in his account. 

This is how Nehru has described the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni. He was ‘far more a warrior than a man of faith, a brilliant captain,’ and India for him was ‘just a place from which he could carry off treasure and material to his homeland’ to build great edifices because ‘buildings interested him.’ He was interested in ‘encouraging cultural activities’ and anxious to ‘make his own city of Ghazni rival the great cities’ of central and western Asia.

So, he carried off ‘from India’s large numbers of artisans and master builders.’ Mehmud was enamoured with the great edifice of Mathura, exclaiming that it would have taken at least 200 years to build it. What Nehru did not tell us was that Mehmud was relating the magnificence of the Vasudev temple, and the fanatic ordered his troops to use naphtha and fire to burn the temple down after smelting silver and golden statues of Hindu gods b, but not before decapitating thousands of Hindus. 

Though, as Nehru avers, Mahmud took away with him a vast quantity of treasure, ‘he touched and despoiled only a part of north India’, and the whole of central, eastern, and south India escaped him completely. His raids were considered ‘a big event in Indian history,’ but politically, India as a whole was not greatly affected by these bloody raids, and ‘the heart of India remained untouched.’ 

In Nehru’s estimation, Babur was an adventurer, a gallant knight, and a delightful, cultured man, typical of a Renaissance prince, a better one than the European kind that was common in those days. Babur was no fanatic like his ancestors, and there was no sectarianism, no bigotry, and he destroyed no temples. When once grave danger threatened him—thus Nehru described Babur’s pledge before the battle of Khanwa (1527)—Babur refused to retreat, as he was ‘made of sterner stuff’, and offered to give up drinking. Nehru paints the picture as if the Rajput army were predatory. 

And whom did Nehru blame for the destruction? Not the rapacious ideology, not the gory-loving faith, but the people who were victims. The migration of Zoroastrians took place due to ‘the decay of the states in western and central Asia’, and the subjugation of Hindus occurred because of ‘the weakness and decay of north India’, because the Indian culture had become ‘old and tired and had lost its vitality’, while the invaders were ‘far more cultured and advanced in ways of living.’

However, ‘this new approach’ of Islam, the ‘advanced ways’ of the invaders, ‘produced powerful psychological reactions among the people and filled them with bitterness.’ Nehru quickly dwelt on how this new approach was salubrious, to say the least, because ‘it pointed out and showed up the abuses that had crept into Hindu society and the idea of Islamic brotherhood and made a powerful appeal, especially ‘to those in the Hindu fold who were denied any semblance of equal treatment.’ Nehru was repeating the argument of Mohammad Habib, who had described Islam’s ‘arrival’ in India as the beginning of social revolution in his monograph on Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (1927).

Such a person, carrying cynicism and disdain for Hindu culture and repulsively oozing endearment for Muslim culture and icons, happened to preside over India’s destiny at its most crucial period. His ideas, variously referred to as Nehruvian ideals, Nehruvian secularism, or Nehruvian consensus, or Nehruvian whatnots, formed the raison d’être of the Indian state. That these ideas found resonance in the Marxian approach was not incidental. 

Although India comprises diverse parts, it has remained united through its innate cultural bonds. Despite lacking a single unifying political authority to enforce homogeneity throughout its history, India and its people managed to stay together thanks to the inherent cultural consistency of Hinduism. 

However, in official narratives, India became a land of many ideas, and its primaeval Hindu ethos, that inseparable glue, was dismissed as redundant and regarded with contempt. Talking about the past injuries and setting the house in order became a communal approach. 

The accent of Nehru coincided with the emergence of Marxist historians in India. Therefore, it was not very difficult to integrate these Marxist interpretations of history into the Indian State’s philosophy. In a remarkably short span, Marxist historians, riding the wave of Nehruvian benediction, changed the story of India. 

[The quotes are from The Discovery of India and Glimpses of World History, while Marxist historiography is explored in the author’s latest book, India’s Rogue Historians (2026).]