Two recent deals announced in early February 2026 involving Mahindra & Mahindra’s largest-ever export order and Ashok Leyland’s defence and EV partnership signed a clear shift in India’s manufacturing story. What Indonesia is buying is not just vehicles but Indian-built systems designed to run at scale. The message is unmistakable that Make in India has moved from aspiration to international credibility.
Mahindra’s 35,000-vehicle order: A rural logistics game-changer
Mahindra & Mahindra has landed its biggest export deal to date, announcing the supply of 35000 pickup vehicles to Indonesia in 2026. The order was issued and placed by Indonesian state-owned enterprise Agrinas Pangan Nusantara for the Koperasi Desa/Kelurahan Merah Putih (KDKMP) project. It is notable as it surpasses Mahindra’s total vehicle exports in FY25, underscoring the scale and strategic nature of the deal.
We are delighted to announce Mahindras largest ever export order of 35000 Scorpio Pickups for Indonesia to be delivered through 2026 . These pickups will be made at our Nasik plant in Maharashtra.This is truly a make in India for the world moment and we would like to thank…
The truck will be distributed throughout Indonesia’s village-level cooperative (Koperasi) to improve rural logistics and supply chain efficiency. It is designed to function in harsh rural environments; the Scorpio pickups will handle first-mile aggregation by transporting produce directly from farms to cooperatives, as well as support intra-village movement of goods. This is projected to reduce post-harvest losses, increase farmers’ market access, and allow for more efficient distribution of key goods.
The Scorpio LCV, manufactured entirely in India at Mahindra’s Nashik facility, is world-renowned for its durable design, high payload capacity, and low running costs, all of which are critical for large-scale rural deployment. The vehicles for the Indonesian project have been modified to fit local operating needs, such as rugged country roads and agricultural paths, making them ideal for long-term, high-utilisation operation.
Beyond its business value, the transaction has broader strategic implications. It portrays Mahindra as a reliable mobility partner in Indonesia’s national development goal while also emphasising India’s expanding role as a provider of scalable, made-in-India mobility solutions. The deal also provides a significant boost to Mahindra’s international operations, bolstering India’s manufacturing reputation in foreign markets and increasing the worldwide footprint of the Make in India effort.
Ashok Leyland and PT Pindad: From exports to co-development
Ashok Leyland has signed a strategic MoU with PT Pindad, Indonesia’s government-owned defence and industrial company, going beyond traditional exports. The agreement focuses on the combined development and production of electric buses and defence vehicles that are specifically adapted to Indonesia’s mobility and national security needs.
Unlike a typical buyer-seller contract, the collaboration focuses on co-development. Ashok Leyland brings competence in commercial vehicles, electric mobility and defence platforms, while PT Pindad provides local technical capabilities, manufacturing facilities, and deep integration with Indonesia’s defence ecosystem. The end result is a strategy that integrates Indian technology into locally made platforms, aligning with Indonesia’s goal of self-reliance.
Ashok Leyland signs a landmark Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with PT Pindad, Indonesia’s premier state-owned defence and industrial equipment manufacturer. The agreement, signed at Pindad’s headquarters in Bandung, marks a major milestone in strengthening bilateral… pic.twitter.com/HuJkOtVETi
The MoU was signed in the presence of Prof. Sigit P. Santosa, CEO of PT Pindad; Mr Amandeep Singh, President of International Operations, Defence, LCV, and PSB at Ashok Leyland; and Lord Tariq, Advisor to the Board of Hinduja Auto, on 4th February 2026.
A key pillar of the partnership is Switch Mobility, Ashok Leyland’s electric mobility subsidiary. Switch Mobility has created electric bus platforms with global applications; under this MoU, these platforms will be tailored to Indonesia’s geography, climate, infrastructure, and operational requirements. The electric buses are designed to help Indonesia shift to clean, energy-efficient public transportation, lowering emissions and boosting urban mobility.
On the defence side, the collaboration focuses on tactical and military vehicles, which are strategically important. Co-development of defence vehicles demonstrates a high level of trust by sharing design expertise, performance criteria, and operational know-how. For Indonesia, it supports the goal of locally made defence platforms. For India, it indicates rising acceptance of Indian defence mobility solutions in international markets.
Strategically, the MoU represents a significant shift in how Indian manufacturing is seen abroad. Ashok Leyland does not present itself as a low-cost exporter but rather as a technological partner capable of developing future-ready mobility and defence solutions. For Make in India, this agreement reinforces a clear message: Indian companies are increasingly co-creating complex systems abroad rather than simply delivering finished items.
Why this is big for Make In India
Taken together, the Mahindra and Ashok Leyland purchases represent a watershed moment for Make in India. Vehicles designed and constructed in India are already powering foreign national initiatives ranging from Indonesia’s village-level logistics network to its public transportation and defence mobility plans. It demonstrates that Indian manufacturing operates on a national scale abroad rather than simply satisfying overseas orders. The emphasis has switched from exporting finished goods to exporting capabilities. Mahindra produces durable, cost-effective vehicles for widespread rural deployment, while Ashok Leyland introduces EV platforms and defence mobility knowledge into domestic manufacture. Crucially, Indian businesses are increasingly viewed as dependable long-term partners rather than low-cost alternatives, as evidenced by extensive partnerships on electric and defence vehicles, which demand faith in engineering quality and lifetime support. Together, these transactions show that Make in India now competes on scale, trust, and technology, indicating a shift from a local manufacturing mantra to a globally certified industrial competency.
Conclusion
From improving rural logistics to enabling electric mobility and co-developing defence platforms, India is moulding full-fledged mobility ecosystems around the world rather than just exporting vehicles. The Mahindra and Ashok Leyland deals mark a significant shift in how the Indian industry is seen abroad. Make in India has advanced beyond size to credibility, and its adoption by countries such as Indonesia is not a coincidence, but a determined strategic decision.
On 5th February (Thursday), the centre, Nagaland government and representatives of the Eastern Nagaland Peoples Organisation (ENPO), the highest authority representing eight identified Naga tribes in the six eastern districts of the state, signed a historic Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) in the national capital. The move has indicated another notable breakthrough in achieving Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s aspiration for a flourishing and peaceful Northeast.
The tripartite agreement was inked in front of Nagaland Chief Minister Dr Neiphiu Rio, alongside Union Home Minister and Cooperation Minister Amit Shah. It will facilitate the establishment of the Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority (FNTA) for the six districts of Nagaland, including Tuensang, Mon, Kiphire, Longleng, Noklak and Shamator. The pivotal step is set to result in the devolution of authority with regard to 46 FNTA subjects.
Image via idsa.in
Senior officials from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and state government, including Yanth Ungo Patton, the deputy chief minister of Nagaland, his cabinet colleagues and other dignitaries were also present during the momentous event in New Delhi.
The prime minsiter lauded the “historic agreement” which will improve the growth track of Eastern Nagaland and offer new opportunities and prosperity to its people. He added, “It reflects our unwavering commitment to peace, progress and inclusive growth in the North East.”
This is a historic agreement indeed, which will enhance the development trajectory of Eastern Nagaland in particular. I am sure it will open new avenues of opportunity and prosperity for the people. It reflects our unwavering commitment to peace, progress and inclusive growth in… https://t.co/bKsHl8rWOn
Amit Shah referred to the agreement as a measure for “resolving decades-long pending issues of Eastern Nagaland.” He remarked, “It is a giant step towards realising Modi Ji’s vision for a peaceful and prosperous Northeast by resolving all contentious issues.”
Today a historic agreement was signed between Govt of India, Govt of Nagaland and ENPO resolving decades-long pending issues of Eastern Nagaland. It is a giant step towards realising Modi Ji's vision for a peaceful and prosperous Northeast by resolving all contentious issues. pic.twitter.com/sxt23lBX1n
The chief minister of Nagaland also shared the news of the important pact involving his government, the centre and ENPO.
I am happy to announce that today, 5th Feb 2026, the Govt. of Nagaland signed the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the Govt. of India and the Eastern Nagaland Peoples’ Organisation for the formation of the ‘Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority’ within the State of Nagaland.” pic.twitter.com/xbfVbluj31
A substantial move towards a harmonious North East
“PM Modi has envisioned a North East that is free from insurgency, violence, disputes and developed. Today, we have taken one more step forward in realising that vision,” Shah declared on the occasion. According to him, the accord is crucial to end conflict and informed that the Modi government has entered into 12 significant arrangements in the region since 2019.
He assured the ENPO delegates that the centre will both support and bear responsibility for the development of Eastern Nagaland. He conveyed that a certain sum will be determined annually, and the Ministry of Home Affairs will also cover the establishment’s initial costs.
Image via Freepik
Shah further mentioned that he had assured the ENPO representatives in 2021-2022 that PM Modi is committed to the cause of a peaceful North East and will address their concerns, urging them to maintain faith and take part in the democratic process, as they are going to receive justice and the respect they deserve.
He expressed happiness over the settlement of the dispute and highlighted how the officials from the Home Ministry served as a bridge between ENPO and the Nagaland government for a considerable amount of time.
The home minister also emphasised the strategic importance of the ENPO area and congratulated the entire state, its citizens and government, including Rio and his cabinet, as well as the two parliamentarians from Nagaland, for their contributions in bringing the negotiations to a logical end. He stated that the governments of the state and India will join hands to accelerate Eastern Nagaland’s development.
“Today’s agreement is a victory for Naga society, and I hope that mutual trust among all sections of people will increase. I also thank the Government of India for bringing the matter to a conclusion and hope we will keep on getting cooperation from the central government in the future,” Rio similarly voiced during the landmark program.
Image via Mokokchung Times
The agreement stipulates that Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority will have a mini-secretariat led by an additional chief secretary or principal secretary, and its development expenditures will be shared proportionately by area and population. However, it remains completely compliant with the terms of Article 371(A) of the Indian Constitution.
This special framework aims to promote Eastern Nagaland through improved decision-making, financial autonomy, expedited growth of infrastructure, economic empowerment, and optimal resource use. According to Home Secretary Govind Mohan, the MoA will help in putting an end to protracted negotiations and guarantee that institutionalised governance, along with development mechanisms, fulfil the local expectations of eastern Nagaland.
Separation to inclusion: How the Modi administration addressed the prolonged dispute
There has been a persistent demand for the eastern Nagas to be separated since independence. The Tuensang Mon People’s Organisation, which was renamed the Eastern Naga People’s Organisation in 2005, started out in 1994 as a formal protest against the backwardness and alienation of the eastern Naga tribes.
The creation of a Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority, which would include the six eastern districts of Kiphira, Longling, Mon, Noklang, Shamator and Tuensang, was initiated by the ENPO in 2010. They called for a separate political system to tackle development and governance imbalances in Eastern Nagaland and wanted financial, legislative and executive independence. They also complained about the under-representation of eastern Naga tribes in the government.
The confrontation was fraught with election boycotts, strikes, several meetings with the shareholders, assurances and more. Progress was made many times, only to encounter roadblocks. However, the Modi government continuously engaged in discussions and listened to the demands of ENPO.
Image via Drishti IAS
A formal dialogue between the MHA and the ENPO was started in 2022 by a high-level committee in an effort to reach a consensus. However, the latter’s insistent demand for a separate state prevented the talks from reaching an agreement. However, the group eventually agreed upon the centre’s proposal for a territorial authority with more autonomy under the FNTA structure.
The ENPO provisionally nodded to the Modi government’s plan to create the FNTA under Article 371(A) during the inaugural meeting in December 2024, handing over executive, legislative and budgetary authority to the eastern Nagas. A series of meetings followed and the outfit cut down its demands.
Its desire for an independent state was ultimately suspended during last year’s final negotiations, and a proposition for founding a special autonomous administrative entity dubbed the FNTA within the state of Nagaland was approved. This is scheduled to be reviewed in ten years, and controversial issues will be worked out through democratic political processes.
Conclusion
The North East had been plagued by severe neglect under the Indian National Congress regime. However, the Modi government has brought about positive changes, undertaking extensive actions to mainstream and connect the entire region with the rest of the country while also promoting development in its most remote areas.
Furthermore, there have been repeated attempts to find an amicable solution to issues raised by opposing factions, which have helped to alleviate long-standing feelings of marginalisation, political upheaval, violence and unrest, thus delivering stability and a pathway to a better future.
It is due to the relentless efforts of the government that the ENPO’s quest for a distinct state drastically dropped and it welcomed a special administrative structure (FNTA) with restricted autonomy under Article 371(A). Now, an incredibly contentious segment of history has come to an end, giving way to a new dawn filled with hope and devoid of a drawn-out conflict in the region.
The Supreme Court of India stayed the implementation of the draconian University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations of 2026 on 29th January. However, outrage against the UGC guidelines and counter-narratives in support of it are keeping the debate alive and heated. In her desperation to justify the implementation of the caste-discrimination guidelines, advocate Disha Wadekar gave an absurd argument that if caste-based discrimination guidelines are made caste-neutral, then “What is the point of that provision of discrimination?”
In an interview with The Telegraph India published on 2nd February, Disha Wadekar said, “Now everyone is pointing out that there is a separate definition of caste discrimination. Section 3(C) defines caste discrimination as caste-based discrimination, based on caste or race against Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and OBCs. Caste-based discrimination definition that everyone has a problem with, who should it include?”
"Are you saying that SC, ST and OBCs, caste based discrimination should also include other categories? Then, what is the point of that provision of discrimination? Then there is no discrimination, right?"
“If that should be a caste-neutral definition is what the question is, then are you saying that alongside SC, ST, and OBCs, caste-based discrimination definition should also include other categories, and it should be caste neutral, then what is the point of that provision of discrimination then? Then there is no discrimination, right? That actually means that there is no discrimination,” she added.
Disha Wadekar drew parallels between a caste-based discrimination definition and a gender-based discrimination definition and said, “It is like saying that gender-based discrimination definition should have men who say that I am being discriminated against on the basis of gender.”
She inadvertently exposed her hypocrisy by making such a claim since the UGC Regulations of 2026 did not identify discrimination on the basis of gender exclusively for women. However, discrimination against the general castes has been specifically excluded.
She further attempts to discredit the legitimate concerns raised by those protesting against the caste-based discrimination guidelines, saying that punishments will be civil remedies, and no one will be outrightly lodged in jail, and the committee will hear both sides before decidinga punishment proportionate to its findings in a matter.
Outrageously flawed gender-discrimination analogy, presumed guilt and a deliberate overlooking of how the UGC caste-based discrimination definition only widens the societal divide
Advocate Disha Wadekar compared the definition of caste-based discrimination in question to gender laws by saying that “It is like saying that the gender-based discrimination definition should have men, who say that I am being discriminated against on the basis of gender.”
The comparison that ‘upper caste’ groups or the general category should not be included in the caste-based discrimination definition, just as men should not be included in any gender-based discrimination definition of protective laws, essentially kills even the possibility of the acknowledgement of the general category facing discrimination due to their ascriptive identity. Similarly, Wadekar’s argument implies that men can never be discriminated against based on their gender.
While prevalence does shape opinions, and even policies and laws, it does not mean that the non-protected groups are immune to discrimination based on their caste or gender-based identity. Wadekar’s logic plays into the general notion that if caste-based discrimination has taken place somewhere, the victim must by default be from the SC, ST, or OBC category while the discriminator must be from the general category. It is like legitimising the coarse argument of presumed guilt, “Ye purush hai, isne toh kia hi hoga [discrimination/harassment]” and “Ye upper-caste wala hai, isne kia hi hoga caste-based discrimination].
However, there have been incidents, and there is an undeniable possibility of ‘upper-caste’ individuals being subjected to discrimination and harassment based on their caste identity. There have been incidents in the past where genocidal slogans have been raised on campus, calls for Brahmin exodus have been made, and other similar incidents have been reported.
Interestingly, while Wadekar suggests that gender-based discrimination happens only against women and thus men should not be included in such definitions, the UGC rules on gender-based discrimination are gender-neutral. The UGC rules cover discrimination against all humans, be it women, men, or the third gender.
Regulation 3(d) of the UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015, and other related clauses explicitly require higher educational institutions (HEIs) to act on sexual harassment complaints from male, female, and third gender individuals. This gender-neutrality also extends to broader grievance mechanisms, including the UGC Redressal of Grievances of Students Regulations, 2023, which although keeps women in central focus, says, “Act decisively against all gender-based violence perpetrated against employees and students of all sexes recognising that primarily women employees and students and some male students and students of the third gender are vulnerable to many forms of sexual harassment and humiliation and exploitation”.
The UGC has to a great extent managed to make gender-based protections gender-neutral without losing their core purpose, which is to address the structural and more prevalent discrimination while still ensuring redress for men or transgender individuals in cases that occur.
If this logic can successfully be applied to gender-based discrimination, where despite the prevalence being overwhelmingly against the rules remain inclusive.
In another interview, Wadekar says that she does suggest that upper-caste students do not experience harassment or victimisation at all, but cases are “typically individual-specific and not rooted in ascriptive group identity.”
A simple question arises here: how did she arrive at the conclusion that cases of harassment or victimisation of upper-caste students are ‘typically individual-specific’, and not ‘rooted in ascriptive group identity’? Can or have not Brahmins or other upper caste individuals not targeted for their pure vegetarian food preferences, or their Shikha (tuft of hair) or for wearing Janeu (sacred thread) by those linking their harmless religious practice to caste supremacism?
Back in 2022, “Brahmin-Baniyas, we are coming for you. We will avenge”, “Go back to Shakha”, “Brahmins Leave the Campus”, “Brahmin Bharat Chhodo”, “Now there will be blood” and other such slogans were spray-painted on the walls of Delhi’s Jawaharlal University by leftist groups. The professors targeted by the miscreants included Nalin Kumar Mohapatra, Raj Yadav, Pravesh Kumar, and Vandana Mishra.
1) This is from JNU.
Slogans on the wall: 1. Brahmin Bharat Chhodo. 2. Brahmino-Baniyas, we are coming for you! We will avenge.
School of Language Literature and Culture Studies in JNU. (2nd building, 3rd floor). pic.twitter.com/h4lGkotana
In April 2022, “Kashmir to bas jhanki hai, poora Bharat baaki hai” (Kashmir is only the beginning, whole India is still there) and “Brahman Teri kabr khudegi BHU ki dharti par” (Graves of the Brahmins will be dug at the BHU campus), slogans were written inside Banaras Hindu University.
In 2024, Ashoka University students shouted anti-Brahmin-Baniya slurs during demonstrations on 26th March. Social media users shared videos of the students chanting “Brahmin-Baniyawaad Murdabad” and other similar provocative phrases. In addition to abusing the Baniya and Brahmin communities, they chanted “Jai Savitri-Jai Fatima” and “Jai Bheem-Jai Meem”, while also demanding on-campus caste census and reservation.
In Karnataka, there have been incidents wherein Brahmin students were asked to cut off their Janeu before appearing for the CET exam. In Shivamogga, a Brahmin student was forced to cut his Janeu, throw it in the dustbin and only then was he allowed to appear in the exam, even as there was no rule that Janeu or any such religious objects were banned. Not to forget, despite what the Dharma says, Janeu/Janivara/Poonool is often associated with Brahmins and is described by ‘left-liberal’ cabal as a symbol of Brahminism and Brahmin caste superiority. In fact, Tamil Nadu has a history of the Poonool of Brahmins being forcibly cut to mock them, and such incidents continue to occur.
These incidents indicate that the so-called upper-caste groups are also subjected to harassment or discrimination based on their ascriptive group identity. The ‘Brahmins Leave Bharat’ or ‘Graves of Brahmins will be dug’, or ‘avenge Baniyas’ slogans invoke genocidal and expulsion rhetoric rooted in supposed historical group roles, reflecting the structural discrimination Disha Wadekar attributes only to SC, ST and OBCs.
Not all incidents of victimisation of upper caste students are ‘individual-specific’, some are rooted in group-based animus, and not all incidents of victimisation of SC, ST, or OBC students are caste-based discrimination or harassment, but individual-specific. Yet, Wadekar chose to dismiss caste-based discrimination against upper-caste individuals in HEIs as non-ascriptive. The only difference is that while the reserved groups would have the framework under the currently stayed UGC 2026 rules to have their real, imaginary, alleged or exaggerated grievances heard and redressed, the upper caste groups do not have such a specific framework.
With caste-based discrimination getting narrowly defined as unfair treatment against SC/ST/OBS with emphasis on structural or ascriptive identity harm, the UGC gave stronger institutional teeth, preventive duties, and symbolic recognition to complaints from the reserved categories, while similar grievances of the ‘upper-caste’ students would fall under the general 2023 rules.
Wadekar’s argument that the uproar by the general category people over the lack of a redressal is invalid since the 2023 regulation has been incorporated in the UGC 2026 regulation, and they can file complaints. This would not essentially address caste-based discrimination, as she herself admitted. Basically, not only Disha Wadekar, but the UGC itself is legitimising the unfair idea that upper caste individuals can never face harassment or victimisation based on their caste identity even as casteist slurs are hurled against them, calls for their violent ouster and genocide are given, and can only face individual-specific verbal and/or violent attack or harassment.
Since the UGC 2026 guidelines do not symmetrically recognise caste-based discrimination against general category students as a specific category of harm, a one-way street is created wherein the ascriptive caste discrimination is presumed unidirectional, while bidirectional or individual caste-specific from general category individuals is relegated to less specialised and less deterrent mechanism. Is this not in violation of Article 14, since the framework here essentially treats similar harms differently based on caste origins, rooted in the misconception that upper-caste students cannot face real caste-based discrimination due to their supposed historical caste ‘privilege’? Is it not a case of presumed guilt wherein GCs are labelled as inherent ‘oppressors’? Is there an intention to keep the ‘upper caste’ individuals guilt-trapped in the oppressor-oppressed matrix?
In conversation with The TelegraphIndia, advocate Disha Wadekar further suggests that those protesting against the UGC 2026 guidelines are doing a hue and cry over a non-issue like the misuse of the rules. This argument came even as there is a massive example of the general misuse of the SC/ST Act against upper-caste people. She said that it is not like a reserved category student would file a complaint before varsity authorities accusing anyone from the general category, and the accused person would immediately be stuffed in jail. Rather, she says, due process will be followed and the accused student will have the opportunity to present his/her case and present evidence etc, and only if the Committee finds the allegation to be true that warnings, or fines, etc., would be imposed.
However, what if a reserved category student files a complaint alleging caste-based harassment/discrimination against a general category student, the university’s committee dismisses the complaint as frivolous and the reserved category student ends up accusing the committee members of bias and files a case against them under the SC/ST Act? This may sound far-fetched and alarmist but in times where an entire village of Brahmin residents has been booked under the SC/ST Act over a wage-related dispute in Bihar’s Darbhanga, even as many of the accused men reside in Delhi-Mumbai for work, anything is possible.
The origins of the UGC regulations on equity, notification of the guidelines and the Supreme Court intervention
The 2025 draft regulations emerged out of a PIL filed in 2019 by mothers of students of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, who died in 2016 and 2019, respectively. Their families alleged that the students committed suicide after being subjected to caste-based discrimination. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, along with advocates Prasanna S. and Disha Wadekar, sought the implementation of anti-discrimination measures in educational institutions. Wadekar drafted the 10 suggestions to be included in the UGC Bill, and most of those suggestions were accepted by the Central government. This came after the Supreme Court passed an order in September 2025, recording the ten specific suggestions made by the petitioners represented by Wadekar, Jaising and Prasanna S., and directed the UGC to revise the draft.
The PIL did not reportedly demand an entirely new set of regulations, but a strict enforcement of the existing University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012. The 2012 rules required universities to establish Equal Opportunity Cells to handle complaints of discrimination, particularly against Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) students.
However, the petitioners were not happy with the 2025 draft regulations, and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising proposed ten core changes in the draft. The proposed reforms included grievance committees with substantial marginalised representation and grant withdrawal for non-compliance. The Supreme Court fixed an 8-week deadline for the finalisation of the regulations. Finally, the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026, were notified on January 13, 2026.
The 2026 regulations ruled out the general castes as victims of caste-based violence by restricting the category of victims to SCs, STs, and OBCs. There is no provision for general category students to raise a complaint when subjected to caste-based discrimination. The 2026 regulations not only assume that caste-based discrimination is only directed towards people from the SC, ST, and OBC communities, but, in a way, promote reverse caste-based discrimination by excluding general castes, which form a large section of the academic community, from protection.
As outrage erupted over the draconian rules, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which put a stay on the implementation of the UGC 2026 guidelines.
While a final decision in the matter is pending, the outrage around the UGC 2026 guidelines in the context of caste-based discrimination is justified not only because of its inherent flaw but also because this matter will set a precedent. It must not be forgotten how the suicide of Rohith Vemula was politicised, used by anti-Hindu elements to villainise ‘upper caste’ groups, and Karnataka Congress is coming up with caste-discrimination laws in Rohith Vemula’s name, while the closure report filed by Telangana Police states that Rohith Vemula did not even belong to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. He was just using an SC certificate. The police concluded that he killed himself, fearing the exposure of his true caste identity.
In fact, advocate Disha Wadekar calls the day Rohith Vemula committed suicide “Shahadat Day”, suggesting that he was a ‘martyr’.
Disha Wadekar and her past shenanigans
Disha Wadekar is a Supreme Court lawyer with specialisation in personal law, caste discrimination, and anti-discrimination jurisprudence. She obtained her law degree from Columbia Law School in the US and is a co-founder of the Centre for Equity, Diversity and Equality (CEDE).
Unsurprisingly, Wadekar harbours deep disdain for the Brahmin community, as evident from her social posts. In one such post, she wrote, “Satyashodhak Jotiba Phule’s rationality and logic could make the Brahmin’s onions cry!”
In a post insinuating that Hinduism, the faith of the majority community of India, is oppressive, Wadekar wrote, “Not many know this- 51 years after Babasaheb’s revolutionary embrace of Buddhism, in May 2007, close to 25 thousand Nomadic and Denotified Tribals embraced Buddhism by reciting the 22 vows at Mumbai’s Mahalakshmi Racecourse. My family was amongst the many Pardhi, Kaikadi, Dombari… Mariaaiwale, Gondhali, Kadaklakshmiwale, Vasudev, Dawri Gosavi, Madari, Aswalwale, Waghri families who decided to break free from the shackles of Hinduism.”
Disha Wadekar is also a fan of urban naxal GN Saibaba, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Gadchiroli sessions court in 2017 for waging war against India for his Maoist links and involvement in anti-national activities. He was convicted under sections 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA. G N Saibaba was first arrested in May 2014 on charges of being a member of the banned CPI-Maoists, plus providing logistics and carrying out recruitment for them.
Wadekar has earlier tried to bring in her ‘caste’ narrative even in the martyrdom of the soldiers of the Indian Army, and highlighted an article in the Caravan magazine on the “caste composition of the foot soldiers who die at the front”.
It must be recalled that the CRPF had strongly criticised the disgraceful caste-composition analysis of the martyrs of the 2019 Pulwama Islamic terror attack. CRPF chief Moses Dhinakaran had said that Jawans of the army are only “Indians” and that any caste, colour, and religion divide is non-existent in the Army.
She drafted the 10 specific suggestions to be put in the UGC bill. (Most were accepted by the BJP Gov).
Btw! You can see her arguing here against the EWS. Look at the contempt in her voice even for our poor brethren!
Notably, Disha Wadekar is also opposed to the reservation given to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) group, arguing that it is nothing but an “upper caste reservation”.
Naseeruddin Shah’s recent op-ed, published in the Indian Express, triggered by his alleged “disinvitation” from a Mumbai University Urdu Department event, is less a statement of fact and more a familiar performance of grievance politics. The actor claims he was first invited to Jashn-e-Urdu on February 1 and then informed a day before that his presence was no longer required. He further says no official explanation was offered and that the organisers publicly suggested he had declined the invitation himself, a claim he disputes.
Up to this point, the matter is straightforward: an invitation was issued, later withdrawn, and the communication around that reversal was, at best, clumsy and opaque. That is the sum total of what is actually known. Everything else in Shah’s op-ed is inference, speculation, and political colouring.
It is also hard to miss the irony: Shah is casting himself as a victim of “intolerance” for being disinvited from an event meant to commemorate Urdu, a language and literary tradition that has, for centuries, thrived in India’s plural cultural space. If anything, the very existence of such a university event undercuts the sweeping civilisational gloom he tries to paint. Yet he presents this episode not as an administrative lapse or institutional muddle, but as proof of a broader ideological crackdown.
In his defence, Shah claims a very senior university official reportedly told him that he openly makes comments against India but such unverified random remarks cannot be taken as the University’s official stance to what Shah describes as ‘disinvitation’ for the Urdu event.
Instead of seeking a formal clarification from the university or placing the correspondence in the public domain, Shah chose to leap straight to motive. He framed the episode as an act of ideological retaliation, attributing it to his “sharp political views” and to what he described as a climate of “rising intolerance.” In doing so, he converted an administrative or organisational decision, about which no confirmed reason is on record, into a morality play with himself cast as the silenced dissenter.
This is precisely where Shah’s argument weakens. There is, at present, no public evidence establishing why the invitation was withdrawn. Universities cancel speakers for a host of reasons: scheduling conflicts, internal disagreements, funding issues, pressure from multiple sides, or simple bureaucratic dysfunction. None of these possibilities is flattering, but neither do they automatically amount to ideological censorship. By skipping the basic step of demanding a clear explanation and instead publishing an op-ed that imputes political motives, Shah replaces inquiry with insinuation.
In his column, he goes further, rehearsing a familiar catalogue of complaints about the current political climate, the Prime Minister, “thought police,” “doublespeak,” and a country supposedly unrecognisable from the one he grew up in. None of this, however, establishes that Mumbai University disinvited him for these reasons. It merely uses the incident as a springboard to restate his long-standing political positions and to reinforce a narrative of personal and community victimhood.
This pattern is not new. Shah has, for years, positioned himself as a cultural dissenter against what he sees as a majoritarian, nationalist turn in public life. He has repeatedly attacked films like The Kashmir Files and The Kerala Story as propaganda and a “dangerous trend,” even invoking Nazi Germany to describe the popularity of such cinema. He has also blamed audiences for not supporting filmmakers he considers ideologically aligned with his own worldview. In other words, he is not a neutral commentator suddenly shocked by intolerance; he is an active participant in a deeply polarised cultural debate.
That context matters because it explains why his op-ed reads less like a careful account of an administrative slight and more like a political manifesto built around a personal grievance. The episode becomes useful not as a question to be resolved but as a prop to reinforce a broader ideological narrative: that dissenting voices (of a particular kind) are being systematically squeezed out, and that Muslims and liberal critics are uniquely imperilled.
The irony deepens when one recalls that Shah himself has, in the past, been dismissive of very real threats when they did not fit his preferred narrative. His comments downplaying the danger posed to Nupur Sharma by Islamist threats, later grotesquely contradicted by the Udaipur beheading of Kanhaiya Lal, stand as a stark reminder that his moral alarm system is highly selective. When violence or intimidation comes from quarters he is reluctant to confront, the threats become “hollow.” When he faces an unexplained professional setback, it is immediately elevated into proof of systemic persecution.
None of this is to say that disinviting a speaker at the last minute without a clear explanation is acceptable. It isn’t. Institutions owe invitees transparency and basic professional courtesy. But there is a difference between demanding accountability and constructing a political narrative in the absence of evidence. Shah chose the latter.
If the actor genuinely wanted the truth, the obvious course was to seek a written explanation from the university and make that public. If the reason turned out to be political pressure or ideological vetting, the case would be far stronger and far more damaging to the institution involved. By pre-emptively assigning motive and publishing a polemic instead, Shah ensured that the episode would generate heat rather than light.
In the end, this controversy says less about Mumbai University, whose decision-making remains unexplained, and more about Shah’s reflex to interpret every personal slight through the lens of ideological victimhood. Conjecture is not evidence. And grievance, however eloquently written, is not a substitute for facts.
The Washington Post has announced it is cutting one-third of its workforce and has begun large layoffs across all divisions of the corporation, which would drastically reduce its coverage of international and sports news. The decision was announced on Wednesday (4th January) and will affect staff members from all departments.
The United States (US) daily’s sports section will disappear and some of its remaining correspondents are going to cover sports culture in the features unit. Its books and metro segments along with the flagship news podcast “Post Reports,” will all face the same outcome. The move asserted to bring “stability” by executive editor Matt Murray has been described “absolute bloodbath” and as one of the “darkest days in the history” of the newspaper which is owned by Amazon founder and billionaire Jeff Bezos.
However, Murray discussed the necessity to compete in a saturated media industry and admitted that the daily has had difficulty reaching “customers” and stated, “Today, the Washington Post is taking a number of actions across the company to secure our future.” He added that the overseas coverage headcount will be reduced with about 12 bureaus maintained “with a focus on national security issues.”
He told the employees on call, “We all recognise the actions we are taking today will be painful, most of all, of course, for those of you who are directly affected, but for everybody. I know that the reset is going to feel like a shock to the system and raise some questions for everybody.” Local and foreign reporters had also begged Bezos to keep their jobs prior to the announcement but to no avail.
The action also had repercussions for the company’s Indian staff as many notable names, including Shashi Tharoor’s son, Ishaan Tharoor, were among the more than 300 individuals who were shown the door. Likewise, many impacted parties shared the same on social media. Pranshu Verma, the New Delhi Bureau Chief and Gerry Shih, the Jerusalem Bureau Chief of The Washington Post have also been ousted.
Notably, the two have emerged as prominent anti-India figures connected with the outlet already infamous for its biased coverage, similar to the rest of the Western media. “Heartbroken to share I’ve been laid off from The Washington Post. Gutted for so many of my talented friends who are also gone,” Verma, who was with the newspaper for four years, referred to the association as an “honour.”
Shih called his time with The Washington Post a “privilege” and mentioned that he had spent more than seven years travelling the world “for a paper I very much believed in.” He remarked, “I’m gone along with the rest of the ME (Middle East) team and the majority of teammates from Delhi to Beijing to Kyiv & Latam. Sad day, but it was a lot of fun and we raised hell.”
Meet Pranshu Verma who tried to target the Modi government to protect his job
According to The Washington Post’s official website Verma was “responsible for covering news out of India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan. Verma joined The Post in 2022 and covered artificial intelligence. He previously wrote about technology at the Boston Globe and reported on diplomacy and transportation at the New York Times.”
His journalism career began at the Philadelphia Inquirer, where he covered politics in New Jersey alongside prisons. He holds degrees from the University of Delaware and the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University. Now, the axe has fallen on his job despite publicly slandering the Modi government to his superiors.
Verma tried to beg the management to spare his position by claiming that the media house was one of the few in India that can do “accountability reporting without fear of government censure.” However, his statement, which was intended to portray the Modi government as autocratic and was actually a resume, a loyalty affidavit and an ideological confession consolidated into one, appeared to have fallen on deaf ears.
His attempts to satisfy his liberal employee were subsequently aided by his emphasis on the bureau’s repeated attacks against the Modi government, accompanied by unfounded allegations aimed to discredit not only the ruling party but the entire nation.
Verma went on to proudly highlight several articles including those on Indian billionaires being “treated far better than others,” accusations of crony capitalism under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, pieces about the nation’s corporations purportedly “fuelling Russia’s war in Ukraine” and the portrayal of India’s campaign to reduce illegal immigration as a “draconian deportation campaign of Muslims to Bangladesh.”
Each illustration was meant to reflect ideological conformity with the perspective that has progressively characterised The Washington Post’s international reporting especially in relation to India.
What is needed to become a journalist at the Washington Post
Verma made it abundantly clear what was required to be recruited as an Indian reporter at The Washington Post. The country which is presently governed by a “right-wing” government, already despised in liberal circles, should be painted as a dubious entity and its actions must be viewed through the lenses of tyranny, majoritarianism and moral delinquency rather than as a sovereign democracy confronting challenging issues.
Hence, Verma peddled a national security issue concerning illegal Rohingya immigration which involves falsified documents, border penetration and even criminal charges as a sorrow tale of communal persecution. Similarly, billionaires were presented as tools for government corruption rather than commercial players in a free market.
According to him, geopolitics does not serve as the origin of diplomatic strife, which is instigated by the personal and strategic ambitions of powers like the United States but is a “breakdown” resulting from India’s alleged moral failings. New Delhi is repeatedly vilified for its attempts to defend its sovereignty and the welfare of its people.
Verma was fundamentally gloating about the narrative his coverage disseminated and the detrimental effects his biased and inaccurate reporting has had on India over the years while leveraging it as a plank in hopes of keeping his job. It is indeed ironic that while he relentlessly attacked Indian billionaires and voiced concerns about censorship in India, he had to turn to an American mogul for work.
His arguments about freedom from power were contradicted by appeals to the generosity of the affluent owner but what defines a liberal if not blatant hypocrisy and double standards?
Meet Gerry Shih who is deeply committed to the cause of Khalistan separatism
The Washington Post stated that Gerry Shih, who attended Stanford University, became its part in 2018 and covered Israel, the Palestinian territories and the larger Middle East as the Jerusalem Bureau Chief. He previously “served as the New Delhi Bureau Chief from 2021-2025 and reported on politics, foreign policy, intelligence and technology in India and other South Asian countries.”
Gerry also covered China for the newspaper after “working for the Associated Press, Reuters and The New York Times. He was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting in 2024 for his reporting on India and received the 2020 Osborn Elliott Prize.” He is reportedly of Chinese descent.
“He reported for the Associated Pressfrom Beijing, where he covered the Chinese government crackdown in Xinjiang, domestic politics and foreign policy. He has also covered Silicon Valley’s social media companies for Reuters and Northern California for The New York Times,” informed The Media Rumble.
It is unnecessary to reiterate that being anti-India is not an oddity but rather a highly encouraged norm and requisite to join The Washington Post. Therefore, in line with this tradition, Gerry chose not only to use his pen to advocate for Khalistan separatists but also collaborated with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government in accusing India without any substantiation.
The collusion shattered the glass walls of journalistic integrity
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the government made grave but groundless allegations against India on 14th October 2024, contending that Indian agents, officials and senior Indian diplomats, including Sanjay Kumar Verma, who was India’s High Commissioner to the nation at the time had engaged in “criminal activities” on Canadian soil.
The newspaper produced a story written by Gerry and Greg Miller on the charges levelled by Canadian officials within hours and even declared Amit Shah as one of the conspirators in unlawful criminal operations. Canada’s National Security Advisor, Nathalie Drouin and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Morrison, were the government sources cited in the article.
However, it was already unveiled how the daily was briefed days before the RCMP and Canadian authorities accused India. It was merely waiting for a press conference before printing a prepared report. The assassination of terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar and other targeted killings as well as attacks on separatist elements were blamed on India. Canada’s NSA dictated these accusations to the media house long before any formal conclusions or evidence were made public.
The revelation adequately burst the bubble of the credibility of the newspaper’s independent journalism and integrity as its writers were discovered to be moonlighting as Ottawa’s instruments to demean New Delhi.
Unyielding attacks directed at India, promotion of conspiracy theories
Gerry, who had been using The Washington Post to accuse India of every “conceivable wrongdoing” from the withdrawal of “daring” content on Netflix and Amazon due to pressure from the Modi government to “hate speech” on Facebook to murders of terrorists in Pakistan spotted a golden opportunity to further the propaganda when the United States stated that India attempted to murder the banned “Sikhs For Justice” supremo, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in 2023.
Gerry insisted that Samant Kumar Goel, the former Chief of the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), was completely involved in the conspiracy while conversing with Karan Thapar on the propaganda channel The Wire.
He first wrote, “US intelligence agencies have assessed that the operation targeting Pannun was approved by the R&AW Chief at the time, Samant Goel” in his article and later defended the statement as an “assessment from what we understand of US intelligence agencies,” in the 2024 interview.
Gerry eloborated, “Again, this was not sort of a one-off a rogue actor, that this had higher up approval from within the agency including from the secretary Goel, and if we also take into consideration what our sources have told us about the pressure that he was under pressure to eliminate these threats, that has contributed to this understanding that this was an operation.”
However, his “reporting” raised strong doubts in light of his complicity with the Canadian government and his consistent propensity to fabricate in his criticisms of India. Gerry has continuously illustrated his intellectual deceit as he did not even hesitate to equate India with China in 2022.
The Modi government decided to follow an independent foreign policy and did not cave to Western influence in the Russia-Ukraine War. However, he slammed the government for not aligning with the polity he favours and serves.
“Modi on same page as China on the issues of human rights, climate change, the treatment of religious minorities and freedom of expression, claims of Western hypocrisy emanating from Indian diplomats could well be coming from Chinese diplomats,” he mentioned while reacting to a column on anti-India The Caravan, authored by another member of the leftist lobby, Sushant Singh who is at Yale University.
“WP (The Washington Post) would love the absurdities in this article (meaning Sushant Singh’s article in The Caravan) coming from a kindred spirit targeting his own country with a Yale connection in mind. No one with an iota of intellectual honesty can bracket India and China on the issues mentioned. Shih expelled from China enjoying India’s freedom,” former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal had appropriately fired back at him.
Conclusion
The firings are the most recent in a string of buyouts and personnel reductions that have occurred throughout the media outlet’s offices in recent years due to criticism of certain editorial choices made by the publication which conveyed that it will not support a presidential candidate before the 2024 US presidential election, a stance taken by Bezos. Afterwards, it swiftly lost tens of thousands of subscribers.
Interestingly, the newspaper had backed a candidate in the majority of presidential elections since the 1970s and all of them were Democrats. Moreover, the decision made by Bezos to centre the paper’s opinion section on “personal liberties and free markets” last year led to the resignation of the division’s editor.
The company is notorious for its partial and politically motivated reporting and has a deep-rooted prejudice against India as well as profound resentment towards the Modi government which has only grown over time. Verma and Gerry also devoted their utmost efforts to penetrate this narrative and were foundational to this corrupt legacy.
However, the fresh development has once again brought attention to the internal issues of the firm and has proved that disparaging India specifically by the modern brown sepoys does not ensure job security within liberal media. They are all disposable, irrespective of their eagerness to launch unwarranted attacks on their country.
A fresh controversy has erupted after WikiLeaks shared a long post on X on Wednesday, 4th February, highlighting previously released emails that expose the connection between the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and The New York Times.
The email is discussing the possibility of “outing” Arthur Ochs ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger Jr., the former publisher of The New York Times. The post has once again brought attention to Epstein’s behind-the-scenes connections with powerful media companies and the tone in which he spoke about influence, leverage, and elite institutions.
Epstein Email: “outing” New York Times publisher Sulzberger will see “the end of the establishment.”
One month before the abrupt departure of Arthur Ochs ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger Jr as publisher of the New York Times, Epstein wrote to attorney Brad Karp: “How about Sulzberger would… pic.twitter.com/8pv9k4kGca
In its post, WikiLeaks cited an email trail that took place about a month before Sulzberger abruptly stepped down as publisher of The New York Times in December 2017. His retirement became official two weeks later.
Emails that sparked the debate
According to the details highlighted by WikiLeaks, one month before Sulzberger’s retirement, Epstein wrote to attorney Brad Karp asking, “How about Sulzberger? Would that be funny?” Karp reportedly responded, “That would be pretty ironic and give whole new meaning to his nickname ‘pinch’.” The exchange appeared to suggest that Epstein was considering publicly exposing Sulzberger in some way.
The following day, Epstein had a conversation with journalist Michael Wolff about a potential sex scandal that, in their words, could mean “the end of the establishment as we know it.” Epstein asked, “If Bannon outed Charlie and Pinch Sulzberger, then what?” Wolff replied, “The end of the establishment as we know it.” Epstein responded, “That’s the way I see it. ‘Pinch’ = sulz your silver bullet.”
The discussion referenced Charlie Rose, the veteran television journalist who was fired from CBS just three weeks later following allegations of sexual misconduct. While the emails do not prove coordination or direct involvement in subsequent events, they reveal how Epstein privately framed scandals involving powerful media figures as tools capable of shaking the elite establishment.
In another exchange dated 11th December 2017, Wolff wrote to Epstein about “Big names on the horizon” for potential sexual abuse scandals and mentioned Arthur Sulzberger as his “favourite.” Epstein replied in a casual tone, “You and I are old news? :)”
On 13th December 2017, The New York Times officially announced that 66-year-old Sulzberger would retire as publisher. His departure took effect two weeks later. The day after the announcement, Epstein emailed Landon Thomas Jr., then a journalist at the Times, writing, “Sulzberger – told you.” When Thomas asked for proof of what was driving the retirement, Epstein responded with a single word: “Wait.”
🇺🇸 Apparently Epstein casually joked about “outing” ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger Jr., saying it would be “the end of the establishment,” with Brad Karp replying that it would be “pretty ironic and give a whole new meaning to his nickname ‘pinch’.”
Epstein’s relationship with the Sulzberger family reportedly dated back to the 1970s, when he spent time at the family’s country estate. This detail was mentioned in a draft profile written by Landon Thomas Jr. for New York Magazine in 2015, though the profile was never published.
The New York Times has also downplayed the significance of the latest document release, stating that the materials “reveal a bygone elite” and are “steeped in a clubby world that is all but gone.” This has raised questions about whether Arthur Ochs “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr. had any direct connection with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Today, the paper is led by A.G. Sulzberger, son of “Pinch” Sulzberger and the fifth generation of the family to run the newspaper since it was acquired in 1896. While there is no direct evidence showing that Epstein’s conversations resulted in action against Sulzberger, the tone of the emails has fueled speculation.
Who is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., born on 22nd September 1951, is an American journalist and longtime leader of The New York Times. He served as publisher of the newspaper from 1992 to 2018 and as chairman of The New York Times Company from 1997 to 2020. In December 2017, he announced that he would step aside as publisher, appointing his son, A.G. Sulzberger, to lead the company beginning 1st January, 2018.
Born in Mount Kisco, New York, Sulzberger is the son of Arthur Ochs “Punch” Sulzberger Sr. and the grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger. He is also the great-grandson of Adolph Ochs, who purchased The New York Times in 1896 and transformed it into a leading national newspaper. Sulzberger grew up in New York and graduated from the Browning School before earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Tufts University in 1974.
He began his journalism career as a reporter for the Raleigh Times in North Carolina and later worked as a London correspondent for the Associated Press. In 1978, he joined The New York Times as a correspondent in the Washington bureau and later held positions including metro reporter and assistant metro editor. He also completed Harvard Business School’s program for management development in 1985.
Throughout the 1980s, Sulzberger held key business and editorial roles within the company, including assistant publisher and deputy publisher. During his tenure, he oversaw major modernisation projects, including automated colour printing facilities and expanded distribution systems. When he became publisher in 1992 and chairman in 1997, he led the Times into the digital era while navigating the changing media landscape.
Background: The Epstein Files
The renewed focus on Epstein’s emails comes amid the broader release of investigative material under what is known as the Epstein Files. In December last year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) released millions of pages of documents following months of political pressure and a legal deadline established by Congress through the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
On 30th January, the DoJ released a massive cache of materials, over 3 million pages of investigative records, more than 2,000 videos, and around 180,000 images. The documents included interviews with victims of sex crimes and numerous email correspondences involving Epstein and various prominent individuals. Reports indicated that several high-profile names appeared in the materials, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and US former President George HW Bush. The newly released files have reignited public scrutiny over Epstein’s connections with influential personalities across politics, business, and media.
Nasser Hussain’s latest outburst against the ICC and the BCCI, triggered by Pakistan’s decision to boycott its T20 World Cup match against India on February 15, is being dressed up as a principled stand for “consistency” and “fairness” in world cricket.
On a Sky Sports podcast, Hussain questioned whether the ICC would have acted as firmly if India had cited government restrictions or security concerns and refused to travel. He lamented the “power imbalance” in the game, accused the apex body of bending to influential boards, and even applauded Bangladesh and Pakistan for “sticking to their guns”.
It all sounds lofty. It is also a masterclass in selective outrage, strategic amnesia, and false equivalence.
This is an absolutely clownish take. League organisers do not, and cannot, force franchise owners to sign specific players. No Indian investor is going to pour money into a league if they are compelled to buy Pakistani or Bangladeshi players against their will. That is not how… pic.twitter.com/ECi6qeqO6T
Hussain’s lies, false equivalence over India’s refusal to travel to Pakistan for the Champions Trophy
First, let us deal with the central misrepresentation. Bangladesh were not summarily or arbitrarily thrown out of the T20 World Cup at the BCCI’s whim. The ICC convened its members. Fourteen boards voted against Bangladesh’s inclusion. Only two, Bangladesh and Pakistan, supported it. That is not Indian strong-arming; that is the overwhelming majority of world cricket telling Dhaka that you do not get to tear up schedules and contracts a month before a global tournament and expect everyone else to absorb the chaos.
Why did Bangladesh suddenly find itself on the wrong side of that vote? Because after KKR terminated Mustafizur Rahman’s IPL contract amid public backlash, the Bangladesh Cricket Board abruptly discovered “security concerns” about touring India. For months, there was no such alarm. The team had toured India before. The calendar was known well in advance. The panic surfaced only after a franchise decision they disliked.
This is the part Hussain carefully tiptoes around. The BCCI does not run franchises like KKR. League organisers do not, and cannot, force private owners to sign or retain specific players. That is the entire commercial logic of franchise cricket. If investors are told who they must buy, the model collapses. No serious Indian bidder is going to pour money into a league where player choice is dictated by nationality quotas or political pressure. To pretend otherwise is either ignorance of how modern cricket economics works or deliberate misdirection.
If Bangladesh believed it was being treated unfairly, it had several options: take it up with the IPL, restrict its players from participating, or negotiate through boards. What it did instead was invoke “security concerns” barely weeks before the tournament, creating massive logistical and commercial disruption. The ICC responded in the only way any regulator would: by enforcing the rules and the timelines everyone had already agreed to.
Hussain’s next move is the oldest trick in this debate, false equivalence. He compares Bangladesh’s last-minute pull-out to India’s refusal to travel to Pakistan for the 2025 Champions Trophy. What he does not tell his listeners is that India communicated its position months in advance to both the ICC and the PCB. Nor does he mention the reason behind India’s refusal to travel: Pakistan’s well-documented record of exporting terrorism into India.
The Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025, where Pakistani terrorists opened fire on Indian tourists after identifying them as non-Muslims, happened barely weeks after that Champions Trophy concluded. This is not ancient history or abstract geopolitics. This is the security environment India operates in. Despite this, India went ahead and played its matches against Pakistan in the Asia Cup. BCCI could have easily walked away from the tournament, but it played purely for the commercial interests of associate nations. What did it get in return? A petulant Pakistan Cricket Board chief whisking away with the trophy because the Indian team refused to accept it from someone who represents Pakistan’s political leadership.
Bangladesh does not face cross-border terror from India. Pakistan does inflict it on India. To pretend these are comparable situations is not a plea for “consistency”; it is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. Either Hussain does not understand the difference between a genuine, long-communicated security red line and a last-minute political tantrum, or he is counting on his audience not to care.
Then comes the sentimental flourish: “At some stage, someone should say, enough with this politics, can we just get back to playing cricket?” A touching line, until you remember a basic fact Hussain also omits. It was not the PCB that publicly announced Pakistan would not play India on February 15. It was Pakistan government and later, Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif. When a head of government declares a sporting boycott, and former cricketers still insist it is the BCCI that is politicising the game, you are no longer in the realm of analysis. You are in the realm of narrative laundering.
There is also the tired accusation that the ICC is essentially an extension of the BCCI. This argument ignores a simple financial reality: the ICC’s biggest revenue drivers are India-centric broadcast deals, especially India–Pakistan matches. A significant portion of that money is redistributed to associate and smaller boards. When Pakistan boycotts fixtures or Bangladesh blows up schedules, it is not “hurting India”; it is shrinking the very pool that sustains global cricket’s weaker members. That is precisely why the idea that the ICC should indulge serial contract breaches is absurd. Rules exist for a reason. If you forfeit, you pay. If you violate agreements, you face consequences. That is not “BCCI control”; that is basic governance.
If Pakistan believes it has the financial muscle to survive outside this system, it is free to try. It can form a parallel body and invite others to join. What it should not be allowed to do is sabotage the existing structure while pretending to be a victim of it.
World Cup 2023: When Hussain-led England refused to play in Zimbabwe over political reasons
The most revealing part of this entire episode, however, is Hussain’s own history. In the 2003 World Cup, England, led by Hussain, refused to play Zimbabwe. The reasons were not concrete security threats in the way India faces from Pakistan; they were moral and political objections to Robert Mugabe’s regime. Hussain supported that decision. He did not accuse the ECB of bullying a smaller board. He did not thunder about the ICC’s “consistency”. He did not complain that cricket was being politicised. In fact, he later said he was “proud” of the stance.
2009: Hussain’s silence when England refused to issue visas to Zimbabwe over political grounds
Even more instructive is what happened in 2009, when Zimbabwe were effectively eased out of the T20 World Cup and replaced by Scotland in what the ICC called a “win-win” solution. England refused to grant visas to visiting Zimbabwean players. Again, no grandstanding from Hussain about powerful boards crushing minnows. No lectures about responsibility. No tears for “diminishing” Zimbabwe cricket. Apparently, politics in sport is acceptable when England does it, or when it suits the prevailing Western consensus, but outrageous when India insists on rules being followed.
Which brings us to the uncomfortable conclusion Hussain and his admirers would rather not confront. This is not really about consistency. It is about a shift in power. The centre of gravity in world cricket is no longer Lord’s or the ECB. It is the BCCI. That reality rankles a certain segment of Anglo commentary that was perfectly comfortable when “principles” conveniently aligned with English interests and remarkably flexible when they did not.
Cricket has never existed in a political vacuum. It did not in 2003. It did not in 2009. It does not today. The difference is that now, India is no longer expected to quietly absorb the costs of other boards’ political theatrics. The ICC should enforce its contracts. The BCCI should protect its interests. And Pakistan and Bangladesh should decide whether they want to be part of a rules-based system or a grievance-based circus.
As for Nasser Hussain, his sudden passion for “consistency” would be more persuasive if he applied it to his own record. When England boycotted Zimbabwe, politics and sport “inevitably clashed”. When Pakistan boycotts playing India at its government’s behest, suddenly, it is the BCCI that has corrupted cricket. That isn’t principle; it is indignation at losing control. The real discomfort is not about politicisation, it is about the fact that Western boards no longer run the game. India does, because it is India whose stakes in world cricket are now higher than anyone else’s.
RiftTV founder Elijah Schaffer, the fervent India hater infamous for his anti-Hindu content as part of his crusade to demonise the nation and the community, has now found himself embroiled in a degrading controversy which includes accusations of cheating, substance abuse, sexual violation and even homosexual inclinations.
On 4th February (Wednesday), he announced that his wife had divorced him and taken their children without informing him. However, the community notes soon revealed that he had initiated the divorce on 22nd January and even claimed that his family had been kidnapped before he removed the tweets. Furthermore, he had also cheated on his spouse.
Schaffer was in a relationship with another rabid anti-India voice and his employee, Sarah Setka, also known as Sarah Stock, who had a boyfriend. Interestingly, Milo Yiannopoulos, another member of this white supremacist cabal, posted a lengthy thread regarding the six-month relationship that started at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in February of last year.
He wrote, “The affair ended on the day she got engaged, about six months later. In that time, they experienced multiple pregnancy scares,” and added that a previous acquaintance even asserted that Stock underwent at least one abortion. Ironically, she supported the “pro-life movement” and wanted a “national ban” on abortion alongside “equal protection for unborn babies.”
In February 2025, Sarah Stock and Elijah Schaffer began sleeping together. The affair ended on the day she got engaged, about six months later. In that time, they experienced multiple pregnancy scares. It is alleged by one former acquaintance that Sarah got at least one abortion.
Milo additionally made public an audio recording of Stock admitting to the affair and stating that she would not unveil it to her husband, “who met Schaffer many times, but did not know about their sexual relationship when he proposed.” The duo declared their love for each other and Schaffer expressed his intention to leave his wife.
Stock’s husband has met Schaffer many times, but did not know about their sexual relationship when he proposed. In this recording, Stock can be heard admitting to the affair, adding that she does not plan to tell her husband about it. pic.twitter.com/RhwzNzt8cS
Milo mentioned that Stock claimed to be very drunk during her sexual encounter with Schaffer and thus could not remember all the events. Meanwhile, the pair acted as if they were devout Christians donning religious symbols in public. He posted that several people were “convinced that Schaffer is, or at least was, gay” while others viewed him “as a cookie-cutter drunk and womaniser. Both groups are correct.”
The twink and the virgin
Milo then shared that Schaffer underwent a “twink phase” prior to his wedding. “A twink is a slender young homosexual male who enjoys being aggressively anally penetrated by an older, active, usually more muscular partner. This period seems to coincide with Schaffer’s time as a youth pastor,” he informed. “Schaffer left the church in a hurry when he was discovered having sex with another man,” Milo further highlighted.
Milo remarked that there were too many hypocrisies to count, such as “Stock was posting online while she was cheating on her boyfriend with Elijah Schaffer almost weekly for six months.” She told her partner to wait till marriage as she pretended to be a virgin. “Sarah Stock’s husband believed he was marrying a virgin. That’s what she told him, or at least allowed him to believe. What we don’t know is how she explained not being intact on the big night,” he wrote.
Actually, that’s not quite true: We do know if she made him wait. She did. Because Sarah Stock’s husband believed he was marrying a virgin. That’s what she told him, or at least allowed him to believe. What we don’t know is how she explained not being intact on the big night.
Milo conveyed that Schaffer’s drug use, alcohol consumption and adulterous encounters have persisted throughout his marriage which was “hastily arranged once he decided to pursue a conservative media career” and “his fetish for pegging is sufficiently well known that it has been disclosed repeatedly, including by influencer Brittany Venti.”
He outlined, “Schaffer owns an electric dildo, which he has taken with him on vacations to El Salvador and other places.” The latter employs and boasts about hiring female prostitutes on these trips, however, “spends much of their time together being anally mechanically penetrated by the hookers.”
The broke drug addict with a proclivity for cheating and sexual assault
“Schaffer is on a cocktail of both illegal and prescription drugs, including peptides and accelerants. He has been blacking out from excessive alcohol consumption in combination with these chemicals multiple days per week for years,” Milo detailed and uploaded a recording of the former acknowledging the same.
Schaffer is on a cocktail of both illegal and prescription drugs, including peptides and accelerants. He has been “blacking out” from excessive alcohol consumption in combination with these chemicals multiple days per week for years, as he confesses in this third recording. pic.twitter.com/oia0uoimph
Milo commented that Schaffer’s “conduct as husband and father has been derelict, frightening and neglectful in the extreme” and asserted that his wife applied for divorce in Texas in January following years of adultery, insensible outbursts while intoxicated, abuse and wrongful charges of felonies. “Worried about his manly public image, Schaffer filed in Florida, so he could pretend he had instigated the divorce,” he added.
After years of infidelity, insensible drunken rants, abuse, and even being falsely implicated in felonies, Schaffer’s wife filed for divorce in Texas in January. Worried about his manly public image, Schaffer filed in Florida, so he could pretend he had instigated the divorce. pic.twitter.com/9nWE5bpexo
Afterwards, Milo revealed that Schaffer is dealing with a hard divorce that is made more challenging because he is “flat broke” and explained, “He raised money for a new endeavour, RiftTV, at a $5m valuation, including one investment of over $250,000. But that money is already gone, as are the staff. RiftTV is insolvent, heading for bankruptcy.”
Milo outlined that “dozens of stories about his private modus operandi are flooding in. They are all the same. Aggressive sexual assault. Profligate spending. Vast quantities of drugs and alcohol. And, at the end of the night, a foreign object in Elijah Schaffer’s rectal canal.”
Milo also attached screenshots of tweets from 2024 made by YouTuber Blaire White, who recounted Schaffer’s actions which involved taking her gay friend into a room alone, continuously cheating on his wife and sexually assaulting a married female coworker.
Meanwhile, Schaffer alleged that his wife and two kids were missing. He tweeted that a gun and his car disappeared. He also charged that federal authorities were attempting to frame him and drugs had been planted in his house. Those posts gained massive traction on social media but he deleted them.
These are his deleted posts. I have a horrible suspicion that Elijah Schaffer has killed his family with the gun he claims is stolen.
Milo stated that he has been in contact with Schaffer and posted images of their chat. He also verified that the latter’s wife and children were safe.
The deranged animosity towards India and Hindus
Schaffer and Stock take pleasure in their animosity towards India and Hindus as they appease their MAGA (Make America Great Again) audience, much like other neo-Nazis. He utilised a derogatory image and mocked that India possesses zero medals in the Olympics, even with a population of 1.4 billion.
The two went so far as to disparage Hindu deities, labelling them as false and wrote “Curse Vishnu” in a startling demonstration of their Hindumisia.
Schaffer lashed out at American politicians for their greetings during Diwali which he termed as “demonic anti-Christian culture.” He also characterised Hinduism as a “demonic religion,” insinuating that their ancestors did not die for this.
Schaffer labelled Vivek Ramaswamy as a “liar” and a “fraud,” asserting that the United States does not require India to confront China. “We are engaged in a cold war with China that requires serious intelligence,” he remarked, calling Indians as third-world individuals with an IQ of 72. He subsequently declared that their immigration would not enhance intelligence but would have the contrary effect.
Schaffer attempted to inaccurately equate Indians with Islamists, alleging that he is financing an expose regarding their takeover of Texas and the United States by taking money and manipulating the system.
Schaffer grabbed the headlines recently for attacking the accent of Abraham George, the chairman of the Texas GOP (Grand Old Party). “The Texas GOP is led by an Indian with an Indian accent. Now you know why Texas is turning into Mumbai and the centre of H1B immigration fraud,” he contended last month. He then slammed the Republican Party and charged, “Our own party is orchestrating it, it’s not just the Democrats. Indians are loyal to their race and non Indian politicians are paid off.”
The Texas GOP is lead by an Indian with an Indian accent
Now you know why Texas is turning into Mumbai and the center of H1B immigration fraud
Our own party is orchestrating it, it’s not just the Democrats. Indians are loyal to their race & non Indian politicians are paid off https://t.co/yFrXJQx4eA
Elijah Schaffer began his career as a conservative podcaster and on-camera analyst during the 2020 protests through street reporting and culture war discussions. He first became well-known for anchoring “Slightly Offensive” on BlazeTV. Man-on-the-street videos from the Black Lives Matter demonstrations following George Floyd‘s killing were the source of his early fame as videos of arguments, jokes, and altercations went viral on the internet.
Due to Schaffer’s increased visibility, he was able to secure a regular spot on BlazeTV, where his show focused on humour and outrage-driven commentary on issues such as gender politics, government policy and racism. He later co-hosted podcasts but was kicked out of the platform in 2022 due to accusations of misbehaviour. “Following an investigation regarding a recent personnel matter, Elijah Schaffer’s employment with Blaze Media has been terminated for violating company policies and standards,” read a statement issued by BlazeTV.
Schaffer then founded RiftTV as a stand-alone channel and shifted his focus to documentaries, independent media and guest spots on MAGA networks. It is noteworthy that Stock joined his team as a street interviewer and political analyst. Moreover, he was one of the rioters who overran the Capitol on 6th January 2021 after current President Donald Trump’s defeat at the hands of former President Joe Biden. He posted pictures of emails from a computer in the office of the ex-speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.
On the other hand, he maintained his attacks on Indians and Hindus in a repugnant showcase of racism and xenophobia before his MAGA fanbase, acting as a divisive and provocative figure.
A controversy has erupted over the name of a shop in Kotdwar of Pauri Garhwal district of Uttarakhand. A Muslim youth named Shoaib Ahmed ran a shop called “Baba School Dress and Matching Centre.” The use of the word “Baba” in the shop’s name sparked local protests.
Those familiar with Kotdwar know that the word “Baba” holds special religious and cultural importance, meaning “Siddhabali Baba.” The Siddhabali Baba Temple, dedicated to Lord Hanuman, located in Kotdwar, is not only an ancient and renowned religious site but also a centre of the city’s identity and faith. The sentiments of the local Sanatan community are deeply connected to Siddhabali Baba. The temple’s popularity can be gauged from the fact that people wait for years to organise a community feast here.
It is reported that Shoaib Ahmed had been running his shop using the name “Baba” for several years. Some Bajrang Dal activists objected to this. They argued that using the name “Baba” for personal gain was inappropriate when the shopkeeper did not believe in Siddhabali Baba. Based on this, they demanded that the word “Baba” be removed from the shop’s name.
Meanwhile, the situation escalated when Youth Congress District President Vijay Rawat and Deepak Kumar, who runs a nearby gym, arrived at the scene with some young men. They reportedly became angry over the demand to remove the word “Baba” from the shop’s name and began arguing with Bajrang Dal workers. When Deepak Kumar was asked for his name, he gave his name as “Mohammad Deepak.” The dispute escalated, and the atmosphere became tense.
“‘My name is Mohammad Deepak’ — Hindu man Deepak Kumar speaks up for a Muslim shopkeeper in Kotdwar, Uttarakhand.”#uttrakandpic.twitter.com/rfIcD40wcE
A dispute over the name of a shop in Kotdwar escalated into a violent clash. Youth Congress officials Vijay Rawat and Mohammad Deepak clashed with Bajrang Dal workers, leading to a scuffle. A video of the incident shows Vijay Rawat and Mohammad Deepak initiating the scuffle. The video also shows Deepak manhandling and shoving an elderly Bajrang Dal worker.
Videos of the incident quickly went viral on social media. The matter escalated from a local dispute into a political and ideological debate. Social media erupted with varying reactions to Mohammad Deepak. Some groups began to hail him as a symbol of “Ganga-Jamuni culture.” Overnight, Deepak became the beloved of the leftist, Islamist, LibTard, and Congress ecosystems. Simultaneously, those fighting Islamic jihad in Uttarakhand were vilified.
The issue sparked political rhetoric. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, reacting to the incident, described Mohammad Deepak as a “lamp of love” and accused the RSS of spreading hatred in society.
उत्तराखंड के दीपक भारत के हीरो हैं।
दीपक संविधान और इंसानियत के लिए लड़ रहे हैं – उस संविधान के लिए जिसे BJP और संघ परिवार रोज़ रौंदने की साज़िश कर रहे हैं।
वे नफ़रत के बाज़ार में मोहब्बत की दुकान का जीवित प्रतीक हैं और यही बात सत्ता को सबसे ज़्यादा चुभती है।
Meanwhile, former Uttarakhand Chief Minister and Congress leader Harish Rawat also jumped into the controversy. He described Mohammad Deepak as the “Light of Uttarakhand” and a “beacon of justice.” Harish Rawat has previously been in the news over the Muslim University issue, which some political analysts link to Congress’s defeat in the 2022 assembly elections.
#कोटद्वार का दीपक, अब उत्तराखंड का भी दीपक है और देश के उन सब लोगों का दीपक है। दीपक का अर्थ रोशनी दिखाने वाला है, जो लोग गलत के खिलाफ, अन्याय के खिलाफ, असहिष्णुता के खिलाफ उठ करके खड़े हो रहे हैं और अपनी आवाज बुलंद कर रहे हैं, विरोध प्रकट कर रहे हैं। मुझे गर्व है कि दीपक कुमार… pic.twitter.com/kA11hgJc06
Before delving further into the matter, it’s important to focus on one name: Mohammad Deepak. He runs a gym called “Hulk Gym” in Kotdwar and is considered an influential figure locally. Deepak is said to be closely associated with Youth Congress District President Vijay Rawat. Furthermore, photos available on social media reveal his close ties to several prominent Congress leaders.
Mohammad Deepak with senior Congress leader Surendra Singh Negi
Mohammad Deepak’s Facebook account also indicates his close ties to members of the Muslim community. Among these, Chand Maula Baksh, a Dubai-based businessman, is prominent. According to posts on social media, Chand Maula Baksh organises bodybuilding shows for Mohammad Deepak. However, he has now gradually begun deleting these posts.
Post of Mohammad Deepak
A video shared by Mohammad Deepak shows a young man dancing, along with which he wrote, ‘Chand Bhai has made Kotdwar like Dubai’.
Mohammad Deepak’s Facebook post
Mohammad Deepak has also posted an advertisement inviting young people to interview for jobs at 4 and 5-star hotels in Dubai. It’s worth mentioning another fact about Chand Maula Baksh: he’s also in the hotel business in Dubai.
Deepak’s post for interview in Dubai
In Dubai, a festival called Kauthig is held to celebrate the folk culture and traditions of Uttarakhand. A large number of people from the mountains of Uttarakhand live in Dubai, but the main organiser of their Kauthig is Chand Maula Baksh. Unfortunately, Garh Ratna Narendra Singh Negi also attends this Kauthig, organised by Chand Miyan and calls Chand Bhai a true Uttarakhandi.
Another video of Mohammad Deepak is going viral, in which he says that there is immense power in the name Mohammad.
Additionally, several of his photos and videos are going viral, clearly demonstrating his close friendships with Muslims, most of whom are gym owners or salon owners. Another viral post by Mohammad Deepak is calling those who call the terrorists involved in the Pahalgam attack Muslims “chutti@.”
Mohammad Deepak’s post on the Pahalgam attack
In a comment on the same post, he says that if the terrorists took off the pants of Hindu men before killing them, then what did they take off of the women?
Mohammad Deepak’s comment on women
Many questions are being raised about the process of Deepak Kumar becoming Mohammed Deepak. Available evidence suggests that there may be some social and ideological reasons behind his name change, which are being discussed.
An analysis of Deepak Kumar’s social media accounts reveals that his Facebook wall contains almost no greeting posts for Hindu festivals, while numerous posts for Muslim festivals like Eid are present. This raises the question: was an Islamic network at work brainwashing Deepak, who proudly adds “Mohammed” to his name and attributes his strength to Muhammad?
Mohammad Deepak is being described as secular, but his actions clearly show that he is deeply influenced by Islam. In such a situation, isn’t there a possibility that a conspiracy to wage ‘gym jihad’ is being hatched using this as a weapon?
Now, using Mohammad Deepak as an excuse, the game of tarnishing the image of Devbhoomi has also begun. Earlier, in the cases of Kashmiri Muslims in Dehradun’s Vikasnagar and the Bulleshah Majar in Mussoorie, attempts were made to create the same narrative that Devbhoomi Uttarakhand has now become a state of hatred. But the people’s outspoken opposition to this narrative has frightened the fundamentalists.
The hill community is now speaking out against the conspiracies of Muslims, and the plans of jihadists and rioters to engulf Devbhoomi appear to be failing. In this context, a new formula has been devised to denigrate those fighting against the jihadists. An environment should be created that conveys the message that the Hindus of Devbhoomi are against those fighting for Sanatan Dharma.
Mohammad Deepak is nothing more than a small pawn in this chess game of the jihadis, advanced across the board and turned into a knight. Those projecting Mohammad Deepak as a hero of India are said to be enjoying the spectacle, while Deepak considers it his promotion. However, according to the text, he does not realise that in the coming moves, he may be sacrificed to trap the king.
This chessboard has been laid out by Islamic jihadis, and leaders like Rahul Gandhi are present on the field to play the game, seeking to cultivate Muslim voters to reach power. It further claims that their combined objective is the establishment of “Dar-ul-Islam” in Devbhoomi. The text argues that if this were not the case, Mohammad Deepak would not see strength in the name “Mohammad,” nor would Rahul Gandhi allegedly be encouraging him.
However, the tricks this name has played are evident in history as well as geography, and they all have one goal: to implement the same model as Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh in Uttarakhand. The people of Devbhoomi should understand this as soon as possible; otherwise, when they fall under the influence of this secular cocktail, they won’t ask whether you’re a Congressman or a BJP supporter; they will simply and simply be infidels to them.
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, 4th February, took a firm stand in the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) bank fraud case, as it ordered the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate serious irregularities related to Reliance Communications, its group companies and industrialist Anil Ambani.
The court also noted that it has been assured that Anil Ambani will not leave the country without its permission.
#BREAKING Anil Ambani won't leave the country without the permission of the #SupremeCourt, his lawyer Senior Adv Mukul Rohatgi tells the Court.
The statement was made in the petition seeking investigation into bank fraud by Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group Companies.#AnilAmbanipic.twitter.com/Mv79zOWQ2F
The order was passed by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi. The bench stated that the ED must constitute a dedicated SIT of senior officers and that the investigation must be taken to its “logical conclusion”.
The court also made it clear that all necessary steps must be taken so that the investigation is not delayed or disrupted in any manner.
Anil Ambani was told not to leave India
During the hearing, there were apprehensions that Anil Ambani may leave the country during the course of the ongoing investigation. In response to this, Anil Ambani’s lawyer, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, told the court that his client would not leave the country without the court’s permission.
“He will not leave India without the leave of this court,” Rohatgi told the court, following which the bench recorded this assurance in its order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that there have been instances in the past where such assurances have not been sufficient. This led to some sharp exchanges in the court, but the bench made it clear that the government has assured that all preventive measures would be taken to ensure that the investigation takes place smoothly.
CBI asked to investigate the role of bank officials
The court also pulled up the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and asked it to expand its investigation. The bench asked the CBI to investigate if there was any role of bank officials in the sanctioning or release of funds.
The court said that the CBI must investigate any possible nexus, collusion, or conspiracy between the borrowers and the bank officials, and must take all legal steps to reach the end of the investigation.
The judges also expressed concern over the slow pace of investigation by both agencies and pointed out that there had been unexplained delays, especially on the part of the ED.
Status reports are sought every month
Taking note of the seriousness of the matter, the Supreme Court directed both the ED and the CBI to file detailed status reports within four weeks. The bench also said it expects regular monthly updates on how the investigation is progressing.
“This is a huge amount of public money. We expect the agencies to act promptly, independently and fairly,” the court observed while addressing the Solicitor General.
The bench added that based on a status report filed by the CBI, the FIR was initially registered only on a complaint by the State Bank of India (SBI), and was later expanded to include complaints from other banks. The court noted that this approach did not appear proper.
Arguments from both sides
The case is being heard on a petition filed by former Union Secretary EAS Sarma, who has sought a court-monitored investigation. Sarma has argued that the investigations conducted so far are not sufficient.
Representing Sarma, advocate Prashant Bhushan told the court that the FIR was registered in 2025 and the first arrest came only recently, even though this is one of the biggest corporate fraud cases in the country.
On the other hand, Mukul Rohatgi and senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for ADAG companies, denied claims of fund diversion. They said insolvency and bankruptcy processes should not be seen as criminal acts and also stated they were not opposing the formation of an SIT.
The Solicitor General countered this by saying banks had carried out forensic audits through independent auditors, which clearly pointed to the misuse of funds.
Court flags misuse of insolvency process
During the hearing, the bench also made strong oral remarks on how the insolvency process is being used. Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that assets often get undervalued and companies are later picked up by related parties through what appears to be pre-planned auctions.
“The haircut is phenomenal,” the court remarked, with the government also telling the bench that it is closely examining issues related to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
What is the ADAG Bank Fraud case?
The ADAG bank fraud case is connected with loans of ₹31,580 crore taken between 2013 and 2017 by Reliance Communications and its subsidiaries, including Reliance Infratel and Reliance Telecom. The loans were sanctioned by a set of banks headed by SBI.
According to the petition, a forensic audit ordered by SBI found that large amounts were used for purposes other than what the loans were approved for. These included repayment of other loans, transfers to connected entities, investments in mutual funds and fixed deposits that were quickly withdrawn, and circular transactions meant to keep loans running.
The petition further highlights that the forensic audit report was received by SBI in October 2020, but the complaint was filed only in August 2025, which raises serious doubts about the delay.
The Supreme Court has now made it clear that only strict monitoring and a focused investigation can ensure accountability in a case involving such large public funds.
