Home Blog Page 71

Christian pastor Joel Webbon calls Hinduism ‘insanely demonic’ Alex Stein’s podcast: Read how both Americans are notorious for mocking Hinduism using lies

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Christian pastor Joel Webbon calls Hinduism ‘insanely demonic’ Alex Stein’s podcast: Read how both Americans are notorious for mocking Hinduism using lies

In recent years, there has been an alarming mainstreaming of Hinduphobia in the United States. Incidents of temple vandalism, online slurs, racist attacks on American Hindus, and Christian extremists openly mocking and vilifying Hinduism on podcasts have become a disgraceful ‘normal’. In a fresh attack on the Hindu faith, Christian pastor Joel Webbon called Hinduism an “insanely demonic” religion during his appearance on the podcast of Comedian and notorious Hinduphobe, Alex Stein.

The clown-to-clown conversation took place in a segment of the episode ‘After Hours with Alex Stein’ podcast, which was aired on 8th April 2026. The discussion centred on the supposed demographic and cultural ‘changes’ in Texas, H1-B visas, Indian immigration, and Texas somehow turning into a “Little Mumbai”.

During the conversation, pastor and founder of Right Response Ministries, Joel Webbon, resorted to vilifying Hinduism when Alex Stein pivoted to mocking the religion’s practices and asking Webbon to rank its “craziness” relative to other religions like Scientology.

“Hindus “like to worship the cow, they drink the cow pee, they eat the cow poop.Is that one of the most demonic religions? How does Hindu rank on levels I guess craziness of religion. Is Hinduism crazier than Scientology?” Stein asked.

Stein’s question, riddled with hatred and ignorance, received an equally hateful and ignorant answer from Joel Webbon.

Webbon responded: “Oh… Scientology is pretty crazy. Yeah. No… Hinduism is insanely demonic because it’s not monotheistic. It’s literally millions of gods. And if you’ve ever watched—there have been videos that have gone viral of Hindu temples where they’re pouring blood-looking liquid on themselves or chopping off the head of a goat and then drinking the blood—so it is very pagan, very demonic, polytheistic. Hinduism is satanic in a lot of ways.”

The Christian pastor further proceeded to contrast Hinduism with Islam, saying that both “send you to hell” but Hinduism is “terribly pagan” and does not align with “western culture values.”

Webbon’s diatribe triggered a backlash from the Hindu community on social media.

Shridhar Vembu, the Chief Scientist at Zoho, called out Webbon for labelling Hinduism as some primitive and regressive faith, and wrote on X, “As a Hindu, I believe the entire Universe is the manifestation of the Divine. All of it – the river, the tree, the snake, the stone, the earthworm, the cow, the monkey, the elephant – all of it is divine manifestation. That belief is not Demonic, it is not Satanic, that is the path to living in harmony with nature and with other human beings. Arrogant, intolerant monotheism – see the video below – that goes around labelling reverence for all of nature as “demonic” and “satanic”- that belief is what makes men do evil.”

Vembu further highlighted how Christians used to run crusades and invade nations in the name of ‘civilising’ them, and wrote, “History supplies ample evidence. Hindus did not run crusades. Hindus did not burn witches at the stake. Hindus did not invade nations and enslave people in the name of bringing “Civilization” and “God” to “pagans”.”

Similarly, Suhag Shukla, the Executive Director of the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) also criticised Joel Webbon’s Hinduphobic remarks, and wrote, “Hindus are demonic! Oh the horror. They’re saying it with a straight face…so remember, this is the attitude that fueled & justified crusades around the world and the genocide of Native Americans—who like us “pagan” Hindus, see divinity in nature, in the feminine (and masculine), and in various forms.”

Joel Webbon and Alex Stein sounded like typical 15th or 17th-century entitled Christian fanatics who looked down upon those who did not share their faith and toiled for a self-imposed imperative of spreading Christianity in distant ‘pagan-dominated’ lands to ‘civilise’ the ‘heathens’.

Webbon’s argument rests on the usual evangelical critique that conveniently labels Hinduism as extremely polytheistic and idolatrous, and its certain practices like animal sacrifice, cow worship, and use of diverse substances as offerings to deities. The Christian extremists use half-truths and twisted narratives to declare Hindu rituals as ‘pagan depravity’ and the religion downright “demonic” or “satanic”.

Pastor Joel Webbon’s factually incorrect, hateful and oversimplified rhetoric comes from a strict Christian monotheistic framework. Hinduism, however, is too vast and diverse a faith to be comprehended from a singular or monotheistic lens. Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma does not fit at all in the Abrahamic concept of ‘demonic’ or ‘satanic’.

Webbon’s claim that there are “millions of Gods” in Hinduism is also incorrect. Hindu gods are no demons, and there are no 330 million gods, as many Christian extremists mindlessly claim. Hinduism does venerate many Devas (deities); however, the religion is rooted in the Vedic wisdom that all deities are manifestations or aspects of that one ultimate reality, Brahma, also spelt Brahman (not the Brahmin caste). Despite there being a multiplicity, the core of the Hindu concept of God remains that there is only one God, one absolute truth and one unchanging reality, which the Hindu scriptures describe as “Hari Om Tat Sat”.

The Rig Ved, the oldest Vedic text, explicitly states,

 “इन्द्रं॑ मि॒त्रं वरु॑णम॒ग्निमा॑हु॒रथो॑ दि॒व्यः स सु॑प॒र्णो ग॒रुत्मा॑न् । एकं॒ सद्विप्रा॑ बहु॒धा व॑दन्त्य॒ग्निं य॒मं मा॑त॒रिश्वा॑नमाहुः ॥
इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान् । एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः ॥ (1.164.46)

This hymn means: “They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān. To what is One, sages give many a title.”

Much before Jesus Christ supposedly walked this earth, Hindus had the Vedic wisdom guiding their daily lives and spiritual journey towards One God, Brahman, through Yajna, and other rituals. The Upanishads, particularly the Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads, further reinforce the Vedic concept of there being only one God, who may have diverse names and manifestations.

Later, the Shrimad Bhagavad-Gita reveals Lord Krishna, the avatar or human reincarnation of Lord Vishnu, as the Almighty, not without emphasising the divine unity. Take this shlok for example:

yo yo yāṃ yāṃ tanuṃ bhaktaḥ śraddhayārcitumicchati
tasya tasyācalāṃ śraddhāṃ tāmeva vidadhāmyaham

This verse from Chapter 7 of the Gita means, “Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form.”

While there is a more profound interpretation of this verse spoken by Lord Krishna, in simple terms, particularly in context of this discussion, it can be understood as: no matter which deity or God and in whichever manner you worship with true devotion, Lord Krishna makes your devotion in that believed form of God firm yet it is him who is ultimately accepting and giving the fruits of your prayers.

Dvaita, Advaita Vedanta, Shakta tradition, Vaishnavs, Shaivas, and more such sects exist and thrive within the Hindu fold as one. There is nothing demonic about polytheism. In fact, a Christian extremist’s description of Hinduism as demonic is nothing but a theological polemic. Hinduism has no Satan figure and no concept of eternal damnation for infidels, heathens, or simply non-believers, in the Christian sense. Hinduism is the path of Moksha (liberation) from the cycle of birth and rebirth through knowledge, devotion and Dharma. From a Hindu religious perspective, Jesus Christ, if believed to be real, will not be labelled a non-believer or infidel, as the Vedas, the authoritative text of the Hindu faith, do not have any such theological category. One can either be an Ārya (noble) or an Anārya (ignoble) based on one’s conduct.

Practices like animal sacrifice too are not mainstream but confined to specific traditions within the Hindu fold. These rituals are highly regulated and permitted to be performed only by specific learned practitioners and not by anyone.

While Webbon did not detail what he meant by Hindus offering their deities “blood-looking liquid”, it can be assumed that he was most probably talking about Sindoor or Kumkum. There is no mainstream Hindu tradition of offering blood to Devi Devtas in Hinduism.

Pastor Joel Webbon and comedian Alex Stein condescendingly claimed that Hindus eat cow dung and consume cow urine. Again, this is a misrepresentation of the relevance of cow worship in Hinduism. The cow is revered as a symbol of life, growth, and non-violence. The Panchagavya use exists for medicinal and ritual purposes in some contexts; however, it is not a daily practice or “eating cow poop” or “drinking cow pee”. This is more an hate-drive exaggeration that has been used to mock Hindus not only by the likes of Webbon and Stein, but also by Islamic terrorists.

Pluralistic civilisations and polytheistic faiths are not ‘demonic’ by default, just because Hinduism don’t have a Christian equivalent to crusades, inquisitions, and forced and deceitful conversions, does not mean the world’s most ancient religion and its adherents are ‘insanely demonic’.

Joel Webbon and Alex Stein: Two Christian fanatics notorious for mocking Hinduism

Pastor Joel Webbon regularly slanders religions other than Christianity. In recent times, Webbon has faced backlash for demonstrating doctrinal animosity towards Hindus and their faith.

In October 2025, Joel Webbon made abusive remarks on X, targeting Hindu deities in response to a Diwali greeting post. The incident began when Kash Patel, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, extended Diwali wishes from his official X handle. In response, Webbon quote-tweeted Patel’s message with a derogatory comment, stating: “Go back home (to India) and worship your sand demons. Get out of my country.”

The ‘sand demons’ jibe was directed at idols or murtis, which in Hinduism serve as tangible symbols through which devotees focus their devotion, perform rituals, and establish a spiritual connection with the divine.

‘Comedian’ Alex Stein has been even worse in his expression of blatant Hinduphobia. In February this year, Stein wore a traditional Kurta and a Tilak on his forehead as a caricatured Hindu persona at the Plano City Council.

Stein peddled hatred and lies against Hindus and said, he was being “bullied for drinking and eating special stuff that in your culture is not very respected but in my culture it has lots of healing properties. “I worship cows, but cow is not animal, cow is divine mother, her milk is Amrit nectar from heaven her urine Gomutra is purest medicine straight from the gods, her dung Gobar is holy old blessing for health and prosperity. Please, mayor, I beg you, let me eat the cow dung. It has healing properties.

Local media reports that Stein regularly uses municipal government meetings to further his Christian extremist and racist agenda.

While America has had a long and opprobrious history of targeted attacks and vilification of Hindus, there has been a dramatic surge in such attacks ever since Donald Trump came to power in 2025. Beyond online hate campaigns and podcasts, Christian extremists are working at organisational levels to vilify Hindus.

In November 2025, the New York State Council of Churches (NYCOC), through its Religious Nationalisms Project (TRNP) joined forces with the Islamist group, the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC), to hold anti-Hindu seminars.

OpIndia reported earlier how White and Christian supremacists ignited the H1-B visas debate after Donald Trump nominated American-born Indian Sriram Krishnan as senior policy advisor for Artificial Intelligence at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The online discussion soon snowballed into a full-fledged campaign against H1-B visas for highly-skilled Indians. This was followed by derision and insults directed at Hindus and Hinduism.

The Christian supremacists have normalised slandering and mocking Hindu deities, labelling them ‘demonic’ and ‘false gods’. In September last year, Alexander Duncan, the Republican Senate candidate for Texas, called Lord Hanuman a ‘false god’ and objected to the construction of his statue in the US, saying that America is a ‘Christian’ nation, although by law, America is not a Christian nation.

In July 2025, a video of a White American berating an Indian man with “Why are you in my country? I don’t like you guys here. There are too many of you guys here. Indians! You guys are flooding all the white countries. I am tired of it. Americans are sick of this sh**. I want you to go back to India…”

In Irving, Texas, three masked men carrying “Don’t India My Texas” signs showed up in a suburb where thousands of Indian tech professionals reside in October 2025.

Last year’s Diwali in America witnessed an unprecedented online hate against American Hindus and Hinduism. From vilifying FBI Director Kash Patel and US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard for wishingeveryone a happy Diwali, mocking the Trump administration for celebrating Diwali in the White House, attacking JD Vance’s Hindu wife Usha Chilukuri, and questioning Vivek Ramaswamy’s Hindu faith, to making absurd ‘Indians poaching wildlife in Canada and America’ claims, Indians and Hindus have been constantly targeted for their faith.

Besides, White racists and Christian supremacists have been villainising Indian Americans to lend credence to their ‘White Replacement Theory’. In fact, ‘Nuke India’ calls by these Christian extremists have also become a new ‘cool’ among American racists and Hinduphobes.

Unlike Islam and Christianity, Hinduism poses no proselytising threat. India, the natural homeland of Hindus, has never invaded a country with the intent to alter its religious demography or impose Hindu faith on non-Hindus. Muslims and Christians, however, have invaded lands and destroyed civilisations to establish their religious supremacy.

From the orientalist caricatures in the 19th-20th century, fears of ‘eastern/Asian mysticism’ eroding Protestant ‘purity’ to anti-Hindu violence and online hate, American Hindus have faced constant attacks. The unchecked expression of Hinduphobia by the many Joel Webbons, Alex Steins, Alexander Duncans, Nick Fuentas, Elijah Schaffer and others might become the precursor of religion-based violence against Hindus in the coming times.

Did Justice Nagarathna say Sabrimala treats women as ‘impure for 3 days’? Read what happened in court as Govt objected to ‘untouchability’ observation in 2018 verdict

Divyansh Tiwari
-
0
Did Justice Nagarathna say Sabrimala treats women as ‘impure for 3 days’? Read what happened in court as Govt objected to ‘untouchability’ observation in 2018 verdict

The Sabarimala controversy is once again at the forefront of national legal discourse due to the Supreme Court’s current nine judge bench hearing. However, it would be completely missing the bigger constitutional point if the issue were reduced to a straightforward question of whether or not women were allowed to enter one temple. The underlying legal framework governing religious freedom, denominational rights, judicial examination of religious acts, and the definition of constitutional morality in India is currently being explored in addition to the long-standing Sabarimala dispute. Because of this, the current hearing affects not just Lord Ayyappa’s followers but the nation’s whole religious legal framework.

Much of the discussion on social media following the first day of arguments has also been misleading. Justice B.V. Nagarathna made a comment that was taken out of context and turned into a cheap political slogan, as if the Court had somehow approved the notion that women were ‘untouchable’ by divine command. That interpretation is not only unfair, but also legally reckless. The discussion centred on the constitutional interpretation of Article 17, the particular historical extent of untouchability, and whether or not that clause can be expanded to include any kind of exclusion imposed by a religious practice. Put simply, the Court was being asked to accurately read the Constitution, not to endorse discrimination.

What is the court actually hearing?

The first crucial thing to grasp is that the current bench is not limited to hearing solely the Sabarimala entrance question. The nine-judge bench’s reference raises more significant issues about the relationship between the Constitution’s provisions of equality and dignity and Articles 25 and 26. The Court is examining what legal thresholds should be used when a custom seems to violate constitutional rights, how far religious communities can control their own practices, and how far the Court itself can examine those practices.

CJI Surya Kant, along with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, make up the bench currently unravelling this intricate web of religion and law.

The following is a layman’s explanation of the seven major concerns they are reviewing:

1. The limits of religious freedom:

 Article 25 protects the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion. However, this privilege is contingent upon public order, morality, and health. Before the State can intervene, the Court must specify the precise boundaries of an individual’s rights.

2. The clash of rights (Art 25 vs Art 26)

What happens when a person’s right to worship (Article 25) clashes with a religious denomination’s right to control its own internal affairs (Article 26)? Is it possible for an individual to force a community to change its traditions in order for them to take part? Critics contend that a denomination’s right to control its own places of worship cannot be superseded by an individual’s freedom of conscience.

3. The meaning of Constitutional Morality

The 2018 judgment mainly relied on Constitutional Morality, a broad concept that judges are increasingly using to overturn legislation. Because they see them through a contemporary, Westernized lens. Traditionalists contend that constitutional morality cannot be a blank check for unelected judges to overrule thousands of years of established religious traditions.

4. Courts determining essential religious practice?

 Should courts, presided over by judges versed in modern law, have the authority to determine what constitutes a ‘essential religious practice’ for an ancient religion? The Center has consistently maintained that the Court should not function as priests and that the judiciary’s creation of the ERP test has flaws.

5. The scope of state interference

Are a religious community’s rights limited to the particular restrictions of public order, morality, and health listed in Article 26, or are they also subject to other fundamental rights in the Constitution (such as Article 14 on Equality)? Every gender specific or tradition specific practice in India would become unlawful overnight if Article 14 were to apply strictly to sacred places.

6. Defining a religious denomination

What does the Constitution say about a religious denomination or a ‘section of Hindus’? Advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan asked the Court to consider the Hindi translation of the Constitution, which employs the phrase Sampradaya, during the recent proceedings. He maintained that Hinduism is fluid and pluralistic, and that putting it into rigid, Western style organizational hierarchies (such as a Church) deprives native traditions of constitutional protection.

This is important because many outsiders see the hearing as a replay of the 2018 issue. It isn’t. The Court is currently dealing with a reference that surfaced during the review step and encompasses broader legal problems, many of which were never limited to Sabarimala alone. The truth is that a temple issue has turned into a constitutional test about equality, religion, and the role of the judiciary itself.

Why did Article 17 come up?

The social media outrage over Article 17 has disguised more than it has revealed. Article 17 eliminates untouchability. However, in constitutional and historical terms, that word has a very specific meaning rooted in caste oppression and social exclusion experienced by India’s untouchable communities. It was never intended to be a blanket term for all forms of exclusion, no matter how unjust or offensive they may be.

The Solicitor General’s remark to Article 17 makes sense because of this. His main argument was that the Court should exercise caution in equating a religious practice that is being contested with untouchability in the strict sense of the Constitution. That is also how Justice Nagarathna’s statement should be interpreted. She did not say that women should be excluded or that the deity wants them to be excluded. It was because the constitutional term ‘untouchability’ has a very definite legal history and cannot be stretched beyond recognition, making it impossible to casually state that women are ‘untouchable’ on some days and not on others.

That is an important distinction. The Court did not endorse discrimination. It clarified legal categories. A judge may reject a faulty constitutional comparison without endorsing the challenged behaviour. The online fury is thus based less on legal reading and more on selective clipping, which is unfortunately becoming the most popular approach of making constitutional arguments on social media.

The 2018 judgment in context

The 2018 Constitution Bench judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala is necessary to fully understand the purpose of the current proceeding. In that judgment, the Sabarimala temple’s ban on women of menstrual age was overturned by a majority of the Supreme Court. The majority concluded that the practice was against the freedom of religion, equality, and dignity guaranteed by the constitution. It reasoned that the exclusion was not a fundamental religious practice worthy of constitutional protection and that the followers of Lord Ayyappa did not, for the purposes of Article 26, form a distinct religious denomination.

Supporters of the decision saw it as an essential remedy for a discriminatory custom. Critics saw it as a grave invasion of a living religious tradition’s internal affairs. That gap has never truly closed. The controversy around women’s admission to a single temple is still ongoing. It is a question of whether courts should act as final arbiters of what is vital in religion, or whether they should pay more attention to the tradition’s own understanding of its practices. 

The 2018 judgment became historically significant since it dealt with more than just a temple entry controversy. It demonstrated the Court’s willingness to prioritize constitutional equality over long standing religious customs when they appear to contradict. That was a risky but contentious move. The current nine judge bench is effectively being asked whether that approach should be refined, curtailed, or articulated in a more principled manner.

The core concept: Sui generis and Naishtika Brahmacharya

The theology of Sabarimala, which SG Mehta and advocates like C.S. Vaidyanathan have masterfully presented in the 2026 hearings, is essential to understanding the justification of the practice. In Hinduism, a god in a temple is seen as a living, legal person with unique qualities, rights, and character, rather than just a symbol. Lord Ayyappa appeared in Sabarimala as a Naishtika Brahmachari, a god who observes strict, perpetual chastity.

Before the nine-judge panel, SG Mehta argued, “This unique attribute of the deity can’t be tested by the Supreme Court.” It doesn’t mean that women aren’t equal. In fact, as Mehta pointed out, India has always held women in higher regard. The only purpose of the restriction is to honour the principles, the religion, and the particular sampradaya (tradition) of that particular temple.

Why didn’t the review end the matter?

Following the 2018 decision, review petitions were filed, and the matter entered a new level of constitutional complexity. Rather than simply concluding the case at the review stage, the Court referred broader questions to a larger bench. That ruling is significant because it reveals that the Court acknowledged that the legal issues highlighted by Sabarimala were not isolated. They were linked to a broader set of cases involving religious autonomy, denominational rights, and the idea of essential religious practices. 

This is where the nine-judge bench enters the picture. The Court did not assemble such a huge bench solely to debate who can enter a temple. It did so because the disagreement raised fundamental constitutional doctrines that had previously been invoked in cases but were now being questioned or disputed. In layman’s terms, when an legal concept causes problems in several cases, the Court frequently has to pause and define the concept itself. That is the actual significance of this hearing. It is a doctrinal cleanup operation, not a publicity gimmick. The Court is attempting to establish the appropriate framework for deciding religious freedom matters.

Conclusion

Sabarimala remains a significant and controversial case since it involves religion and constitutional reform. The 2018 decision altered the legal landscape by placing equality and dignity at the forefront of the argument. The subsequent review and reference broadened the argument to include questions concerning how Indian courts should interpret religious practice, denominational rights, and judicial action.

Because of this, the current nine judge bench is justified, and it would be deceptive to reduce the hearing to a social media catchphrase. Justice Nagarathna’s remark was not an endorsement of exclusion, and the Solicitor General’s allusion to Article 17 was not directed at women. Both were involved in a significant constitutional discussion regarding precision, history, and the legal process. Precision is not pedantry in a sensitive subject like religion, it is a need.

If anything, the hearing demonstrated that constitutional interpretation requires patience. Traditions deserve respect. And public discourse requires more seriousness than selective fury. The Court is currently attempting to clarify a problematic area of law that has persisted for years. That effort should be read carefully rather than dragged into a quarrel.

“Never had a relationship with Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell’: Melania Trump denies being a victim of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein or being associated with him

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
“Never had a relationship with Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell’: Melania Trump denies being a victim of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein or being associated with him

On Thursday (10th April), the US First Lady, Melania Trump, issued a rare public statement wherein she denied association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Melania Trump said that she was neither Epstein’s victim nor was introduced by him to her husband and US President Donald Trump.

“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today…I have never been friends with Epstein.  Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach,” Trump stated.

Melania Trump also denied having any links with Ghislaine Maxwell, the main accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein.

“To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell.  My email reply to Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence.  My polite reply to her email doesn’t amount to anything more than a trivial note. I am not Epstein’s victim.  Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump.  I met my husband, by chance, at a New York City party in 1998.  This initial encounter with my husband is documented in detail in my book, MELANIA.  The first time I crossed paths with Epstein was in the year 2000, at an event Donald and I attended together.  At the time, I had never met Epstein and had no knowledge of his criminal undertakings,” Trump stated.

Melania Trump added that numerous fake images and statements about Jeffrey Epstein and her have been circulating on social media for years now.

Further refuting the allegations of her association with Epstein, Trump said, “I am not a witness or a named witness in connection with any of Epstein’s crimes.  My name has never appeared in court documents, depositions, victim statements, or FBI interviews surrounding the Epstein matter. I have never had any knowledge of Epstein’s abuse of his victims.  I was never involved in any capacity—I was not a participant, was never on Epstein’s plane, and never visited his private island.”

“I have never been legally accused or convicted of a crime in connection with Epstein’s sex trafficking, abuse of minors, and other repulsive behavior,” she continued.

The US First Lady also highlighted how “several individuals and companies have been legally obligated to publicly apologize and retract their lies about me, such as The Daily Beast, James Carville, and Harper Collins UK.”

Melania Trump demands a congressional hearing

Reading her statement in the Grand Foyer on Thursday, Melania Trump called for a congressional hearing focused on  survivors of Epstein’s crimes, saying that the accusations against her came from “individuals and entities looking to cause damage to my good name.”

The US First Lady added that those behind targeting her are financially and politically motivated.

“Now is the time for Congress to act.  Epstein was not alone.  Several prominent male executives resigned from their powerful positions after this matter became widely politicized.  Of course, this doesn’t amount to guilt, but we still must work openly and transparently to uncover the truth,” she said.

“I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors.  Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress, with the power of sworn testimony.  Each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public, if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered into the Congressional Record. Then, and only then, will we have the truth,” added.

Melania Trump did not take media questions after reading her statement on Thursday at the Grand Foyer of the White House. Her call for a congressional hearing on the matter is significant, as lying there will be a crime of perjury.

Melania Trump’s name appears multiple times in the Epstein Files

The US First Lady’s statement comes after the Department of Justice confirmed that former Attorney General Pam Bondi would not be appearing for a subpoena before the House Oversight Committee on 14th April. The subpoena addressed Bondi’s handling of the DOJ documents about Epstein.

The controversy began when Melania Trump’s name appeared in the tranche of Epstein files documents published in January this year. Donald Trump’s name had also appeared in the files.

While Melania Trump claimed to have had only a passing acquaintance with Jeffry Epstein, she was photographed with Jeffrey Epstein several times at a party at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago beach club in 2000.

A partially redacted 2002 email exchange reportedly between Melania Trump and Ghislaine Maxwell was posted online in January this year by the US Justice Department.

“Sweet pea thanks for your message. Actually plans changed again and I am now on my way back to NY. I leave again on Fri so I still do not think I have time to see you sadly. I will try and call though.<br><br> Keep well<br><br>Gx<br>At 03:40 PM 10/23/2002-0400, you wrote:<br><br><blockquote type-cite class-cite cite><font face=”Bookman Old Style, Bookman”color=”#0000FF”>Dear G! <br>How are you? <br>Nice story about JE in NY mag.You look great on the picture. <br>I know you are very busy flying all over the world. How was Palm Beach? I cannot wait to godown. Give me a call when you are back in NY. <br>Have a great time! <br>Love, <br>Melania</font><font face=”arial”> </font></blockquote></html>,” the US DOJ-released email file reads.

A purported email sent to Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, shows Melania Trump lauding how Maxwell looked in a photo.  “Nice story about JE in NY mag. You look great on the picture. I know you are very busy flying all over the world. How was Palm Beach? I cannot wait to go down. Give me a call when you are back in NY. Have a great time! Love, Melania,” Melania Trump wrote.

Interestingly, Melania Trump admitted to having written a friendly email to Maxwell during a media interaction on Thursday. However, she made no mention of the email in which she praised a profile of Jeffrey Epstein in New York magazine in 2002 as a “nice story”. The profile contained a quote from Donald Trump, heaping praises on Epstein.

Another email sent by “Jeffrey E.” to author Michael Wolf reads, “achlles heal , melania, transcipt. melania also focused on dates of porn star, before birth of baron or after. . they also now have two army people escorting her to kids school :)”

Another controversial email mentioning Melania Trump’s name, sent to Jeffery Epstein in 2016, reads, “I remember flying back with Donald on his plane the first weekend I went to v=sit you in Florida was the weekend he met Melania and he kept on coming out=of the bedroom saying ‘ wow what a hot piece of ass’.”

Who was Jeffrey Epstein?

Jeffrey Epstein was an American financier who was convicted by a Florida state court for procuring a child for prostitution and soliciting a prostitute. He served 13 months in jail and was arrested again in July 2019 after being charged with sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York. He died a month later in August while undergoing trial. Authorities deemed the death a suicide, but there have been questions around the circumstances and handling.

Epstein files are investigative documents containing files, records, videos, and contacts compiled by federal agencies during the investigation into Epstein’s criminal activities. The files are said to contain flight logs from Epstein’s private aircraft, contact lists, accounting records, and even video evidence of abuse.

During his presidential election campaign, Donald Trump promised to release the Epstein Files in public, which would have exposed numerous celebrities who were at some point in time involved in sexual abuse at Epstein’s Island. Trump himself was reported to have had links with Jeffrey Epstein.

While biographer Michael Wolf has consistently been levelling serious allegations against Donald Trump and his wife Melania Trump regarding their relations with Jeffrey Epstein and his sexual abuse scandal, with Melania threatening a $1 billion lawsuit, the fresh controversy erupted after the release of another tranche of Epstein files January this year.

Back in 2017, Michael Wolf claimed that Jeffrey Epstein told author Michael Wolff he “had sex with Melania a full year before” she met Donald Trump. Wolf also claimed that Trump and Melania’s first encounter was on Epstein’s plane, Lolita Express. Melania had strongly denied these claims back then.

With Melana Trump’s fresh statement and online chatter, conspiracy theories have picked up steam again.

‘Civilisation will die’, ‘back to the Stone Age’, ‘a fate worse than Maduro’s’ and more: Understanding Trump’s penchant for using threats and coercion as tools of diplomacy

Rukma Rathore
-
0
‘Civilisation will die’, ‘back to the Stone Age’, ‘a fate worse than Maduro’s’ and more: Understanding Trump’s penchant for using threats and coercion as tools of diplomacy

President Donald Trump of the United States possesses a unique ability to dominate the news, not only because he holds one of the most powerful positions in the world but also because of his propensity to create headlines with remarks that can range from outrageous to downright genocidal, regardless of the situation. He recently consented to an uncertain peace agreement for 2 weeks with Iran; however, this occurred before he issued a series of shocking statements designed to intimidate the regime with the supremacy of American military capabilities.

Likewise, other nations have also been subjected to Trump’s startling comments aimed at forcing them to comply with Washington’s directives. Additionally, close partners, comprising the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), have experienced a similar confrontational approach for opposing his policies in relation to Europe and other regions. The president has deployed every weapon, including tariffs to obliteration, from his arsenal of offensive diplomacy, if it can even be labelled as such.

The whole civilisation will die tonight

“A whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” Trump posted on Truth Social, delivering a stark threat amid the escalating war with Iran on 7th April. He subsequently asserted that there has been a “total and complete” change in government, where different, smarter, and less radicalised minds prevail, and perhaps “something revolutionarily wonderful” was on the cards. He ominously described the event as one of the most significant moments in the lengthy and intricate history of the world. “47 years of extortion, corruption, and death will finally end,” he declared.

Trump had threatened to destroy all bridges and power plants if the blockade on Gulf oil was not lifted by Iran, which vowed retaliation against the allies of the United States in the Middle East. The clock ticked, and attacks on the latter’s infrastructure grew intense as an airport, a petrochemical factory, road and railway bridges were hit. Kharg Island, the location of Iran’s primary oil export terminal, which Trump publicly considered seizing, was also bombed.

He frequently targeted public infrastructure, such as energy plants, and even resorted to abusive terms to insist on the opening of the “Strait of Hormuz.” “Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it. Open the f**king strait, you crazy b**t**ds, or you’ll be living in hell. Just watch. Praise be to Allah,” he announced on 5th April.

Will bomb Iran back to the Stone Age

Trump and his officials routinely predicted that Iran would be returned to the Stone Age through relentless bombings. “Iran’s navy is gone. Their air force is in ruins. Most of their leaders are dead. Never in the history of warfare has an enemy suffered such clear losses in a matter of weeks. Thanks to the progress we have made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly,” he highlighted in a speech at the White House on 1st April.

“We’re going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We are going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong,” Trump warned, emphasising that the measures were “on the cusp” of terminating Tehran’s “sinister threat” to the US and the world, while the nuclear risk had also been eliminated.

All potential Iranian leaders are dead

On 3rd March, Trump informed that recent attacks on Iran killed the senior leadership and preferred successors of his administration. He mentioned that those who have not yet been reported dead will be confirmed in the near future.

“Most of the people that we had in mind are dead. We had some in mind from that group that is dead. Now we have another group, they may be dead also, based on reports. So, I guess you have a third wave coming in. Pretty soon, we’re not going to know anybody,” he conveyed during an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, after the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “Venezuela was so incredible because we did the attack and we kept govt totally intact,” he added, astonishingly.

“And the leader of the pack is gone. And as you know, 49 people were taken out in the first hit. And I guess there was another hit today on the new leadership, and it looks like that was pretty substantial also,” Trump pointed out. “Just about everything’s been knocked out. They have no navy; it’s been knocked out. They have no air force. It’s been knocked out. They have no air detection, that’s been knocked out. Their radar has been knocked out,” he further detailed concerning the assault.

No peace in Greenland without a Nobel Prize

Trump was not given his much-desired Nobel Peace Prize, which was handed over to Venezuela’s opposition leader María Corina Machado in October 2025. Afterwards, the former expressed that he no longer feels obligated to care only about peace. He accused Norway of not awarding him the honour in a scathing letter to Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, who clarified that the decision was made by an independent committee rather than the government.

“Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the US,” Trump responded after Støre and Finnish President, Alexander Stubb urged him for deescalation over Greenland.

Trump has continually shown his desire to take control of the resource-rich, autonomous Arctic island, within the Kingdom of Denmark, and imposed 10% tariff on 8 European states for not supporting him in his demands. He later rescinded the move.

Trump contended that Denmark was unable to defend Greenland from China or Russia. “Why do they have a right of ownership anyway? There are no written documents; it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also,” Trump asked. “I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland,” he further stated.

On 9th April (Thursday), Trump restated that NATO has never been there to assist the United States during difficult times and this trend will persist in the future, ominously adding, “remember Greenland, that large, poorly managed, piece of ice,” after a two-hour White House meeting with the Secretary General of the bloc, Mark Rutte. He has used diverse platforms, in media, politics and otherwise, to lay claim to the precious territory.

The Trump administration wanted aid from NATO in the conflict against Iran and dispatched ships to secure the Strait, but was refused. He mocked the group as “coward” and “paper tiger,” and is currently mulling a proposal to penalise the nations he believes were unhelpful, which would entail removing US soldiers from their lands and putting them in places that were more supportive of the military camping, reported The Wall Street Journal. He previously revealed that he was prepping for this step.

Fate worse than Maduro’s

The Trump administration threatened that more military action might put the overthrown Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s inner circle at risk of suffering a similar fate to coerce them into toeing the US line. Washington could execute another operation if the South American country’s interim rulers refused to cooperate.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” he stated while talking about Delcy Rodriguez to The Atlantic. This unfolded after he lauded her after Maduro and his wife were apprehended. “If they don’t behave, we will do a second strike,” he later told journalists.

According to Trump, Rodriguez should grant private businesses and the United States “total access” to Venezuela’s struggling oil infrastructure as well as its dilapidated roads and bridges. “I just say that she will face a situation probably worse than Maduro,” he cautioned and reminded that the captured president “gave up immediately.”

Notably, the accusation that Maduro was in command of the “Cartel de los Soles,” an organisation that various US government platforms asserted was involved in narco-terrorism were dropped by the Department of Justice. Moreover, it is not even an outfit but rather a colloquial expression to describe politicians tainted by drug money.

Military invasion in Nigeria

Last November, Trump declared that if Nigeria failed to take decisive action against the massacre of Christians, he had instructed the Defence Department to get ready for “fast, vicious and sweet” possible military action. Additionally, the US government would immediately cease all aid and support to the country, which is the largest oil producer and most populous region in Africa.

He remarked that the US troops “may very well go into that now disgraced country, guns-a-blazing, to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.” This aggressive ultimatum was made just a day after Trump declared Nigeria a “country of particular concern” for its inability to uphold religious freedom.

Trump could have easily extended a helping hand to address the menace of jihad and protect the Christians, but the inclination towards invasion is difficult to shake off for his Western mind.

Conclusion

Trump does not value politeness and is recognised for his odd “sense of humour” and absurd statements. He never hesitates to threaten both his adversaries and allies if they are perceived as not conforming to his administration’s policies and objectives. He utilises “tough” diplomacy and military force as tools. He resorts to the latter when he presumes that it would not result in significant consequences and employs the former to “punish” nations with economies like India, as that is his only available recourse.

More importantly, he also tends to reverse his decisions upon strong opposition, as demonstrated by the tariffs on New Delhi or the extension of deadlines, and then the establishment of a ceasefire with Iran, which presently seems exceedingly vulnerable. However, the propensity to heighten disputes with further bloodshed and violence is consistently evident and reflected in his startling threats.

2 Hindus found innocent in Delhi riots case: False testimonies by Muslim ‘witness’ who lied in multiple cases, ‘victim’ who absconded from hospital and more – What judgement says

Aditi
-
0
2 Hindus found innocent in Delhi riots case: False testimonies by Muslim ‘witness’ who lied in multiple cases, ‘victim’ who absconded from hospital and more – What judgement says

The Karkardooma Sessions court in Delhi on Wednesday (8th April) upheld the discharge of two Hindus, named Ajay and Gaurav Panchal, who were accused in a case relating to the 2020 anti-Hindu riots. Expressing “grave suspicion” on the police investigation and the prosecution’s version of the case, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the Delhi Police challenging the trial court order of discharge.

Ajay and Gaurav Panchal were booked by the Delhi Police in connection with a rioting incident during the February 2020 anti-Hindu riots in Delhi. The Delhi Police filed an FIR against the accused in March 2020, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 435, 323, 188 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. While examining the facts of the case, the trial court had noted that the accused were arrested under the FIR in question based on the testimony of one Mohammed Aslam, whom the court treated as a stock witness. Notably, a stock witness usually appears as a witness in multiple cases, often on the side of the police or prosecution. Such a witness is relied on by an investigating agency to back its version of events. However, courts do not usually rely on the testimony of a stock witness and subject it to greater scrutiny.

Contentions of the Delhi Police against the discharge of the accused

In July 2022, the trial court discharged the accused, after which the Delhi Police approached the Sessions Court. The Delhi Police contended before the Sessions Court that the trial court made grave errors in discharging the accused. The prosecution challenged the trial court order both on the question of law and on the facts. It contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence presented before it and erred in declaring Mohammed Aslam a stock witness, treating the delay in filing the FIR as a discrepancy, and raising suspicion on the statement of the complainant.

Contentions of the accused against the prosecution’s case

The respondents (accused) pointed out several discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. They argued that the prosecution’s case lacked merit and the investigation conducted by the Delhi Police was manipulative. “Further, the falsity of the case can be seen from the very fact that the respondents have been made accused persons in at least 5-6 FIRs of the same kind of incident, which was not possible,” the respondents emphasised in their submission before the Sessions Court. They also accused the police of picking innocent persons and implicating them while the actual culprits were roaming free.

Observations made by the Sessions Court regarding the trial court’s decision

While hearing the criminal revision petition of the Delhi police, the Sessions Court examined the trial court’s findings in detail and upheld its decision to discharge the two accused. The Additional Sessions Judge analysed the grounds relied on by the trial court in passing the impugned order. Here is a pointwise summary of the observations made by the Sessions Court regarding the discrepancies highlighted by the trial court:

Unexplained delay in filing the FIR

In its judgment, the trial court questioned the unexplained delay, first on the part of the complainant in informing the police about the alleged attack on him and the subsequent filing of the FIR by the police. The complainant was allegedly attacked by the accused on February 25, 2020, and he informed the police about the attack on March 3, 2020. The trial court was not satisfied with the Delhi Police’s explanation, which cited a shortage of staff at the Jyoti Nagar police station on the day of the incident. Agreeing with the trial court on the point of delay in the lodging of the FIR, the Sessions Court noted, “The Ld. Trial Court was correct in observing that the reason for the delay, i.e. the chaotic situation due to widespread protests, was left to the presumption of the Court, whereas a reasonable explanation about the delay should have been there on record.”

Suspicion as to the injuries alleged by the complainant and the mismatch in the names stated in the MLC and the Complaint

The trial court doubted that the injuries to the complainant were caused by the alleged attack by the accused. It also questioned the credibility of the medical report adduced by the complainant. The trial court pointed out the inconsistency in the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC), dated February 25, 2020, submitted before it by the complainant. The MLC mentions Mohd. Ishaq S/o Mohd. Hanis R/o Maharajpur, Uttar Pradesh, was the injured, while the complaint to the police was made by Mohd. Tisam S/o Mohd. Anish R/o E-84/114, Rajeev Gandhi Camp, Chitra Vihar, Preet Vihar, Shakarpur, East Delhi.

The complaint, in his initial statement, told the court that his name was inadvertently mentioned as Mohd. Ishaq in the MLC, but he could not explain why the name of the father and the place of residence were also different in the MLC and the complaint. Additionally, the trial court took notice of the fact that the doctors who issued the MLC did not give a final opinion, as the complainant absconded from the hospital and never returned, when the Investigation Officer (IO) asked him to furnish the treatment papers from another hospital to which he had gone.

“The Ld. Trial Court further correctly observed that the MLC shows that the injured/complainant absconded from the Hospital and even on giving notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C., the complainant failed to provide the treatment papers from another Hospital and as such the injuries to the complainant cannot be attributed to the alleged act of the accused persons,” the Additional Sessions Judge said, agreeing with the trial court.

No details of the police official deployed at the place of occurrence of the incident, and no CCTV footage

The Sessions Court agreed with the trial court’s observations regarding the lapses on the part of the police in obtaining evidence, including the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence of the alleged attack, as well as the details of police officials who were deployed in the area. “The Ld. Trial Court was further correct in observing that the police did not make any effort to find out as to which officer was already present or deputed at the scene of occurrence after receiving the PCR calls, and further no attempt was made to find any witness, and further no photographer or videographer had been deputed by the police to capture the scene of occurrence,” the Sessions Court noted.

Criticising the police inaction, the Sessions Court further said that the failure of the police in collecting material evidence through CCTV footage, etc., had the effect of letting the real culprits go free.

Major discrepancies in the statements of the complainant

The trial court also noted that the statement of the complainant did not have the details about the identification of the persons who allegedly attacked him. The court further pointed out a contradiction in the statement made by the complainant in his complaint dated March 3, 2020, and the statement subsequently recorded by the IO under section 161 of the CrPC.

In the statement made in the complaint, the complainant said that when he returned from the hospital to the spot of occurrence of the incident, he found that his vehicle had been burnt, which meant that the vehicle was not burnt in his presence. But in the later statement recorded by the IO, the complainant said that he could identify the persons who set his vehicle on fire. Besides, in the statement given to the IO, while the complainant gave a general description of the rioters aged 20-25 years, he also said that he could identify them if they appeared before him in future.

Regarding the discrepancies pointed out by the trial court in the complainant’s statements, the Sessions Court said that such inconsistencies raise suspicion about the prosecution’s case. “…this is also a major contradiction in the two statements of the complainant and creates doubt in the story of the prosecution. The Court observes that these kinds of contradictions would come only when the manipulations are done, and the case is cooked up,” the Sessions Court stated.

Suspicious manner of identification by the complainant of the accused persons, who were arrested in a different case

The trial court was not convinced by the manner of identification of the accused persons by the complainant. The court noted that the accused were arrested and brought to the police station by HC Raj Kumar, in connection with a different FIR about two months after the incident. In a strange coincidence, the complainant was also present at the police station on the exact same date and time, without being called by the IO, to inquire about the progress in his case. He saw the accused in the police station and immediately identified them.

“It is also not convincing as to how could the complainant identify the accused persons after a gap of around two months between the date of the incident and the date of chance identification at the police station, considering firstly, the general nature of the description given by him in his supplementary statement recorded on 03.03.2020 and secondly, the fact that he would have had little opportunity to identify them as a part of the mob which attacked him, without attributing such specific role to them, as got so permanently and irrevocably etched in his memory,” the trial court noted.

Furthermore, the trial court examined the statement of HC Raj Kumar as recorded by the IO, where he explained how he came to arrest the accused. The court did not find the statement to be reliable. “… he (HC Raj Kumar) had stated that one Mohd. Aslam (stock witness) met him near Meet Nagar Flyover, and informed him that two persons “who were involved in the riots of 25.02.2022″ are sitting in bushes near the railway line beneath the Meet Nagar Flyover, and upon this information, dripping with the generality and casualness, the investigating officer proceeded to arrest both the accused persons, recorded their disclosure statements wherein they stated that they can get the weapons of offences, i.e. a danda and an iron pipe recovered, and upon this disclosure, again very conveniently, the investigating officer recovered both the aforesaid articles from the very place of arrest, which also was an open space, not hidden from the public and not within the possession of the accused persons, as is visible from the comparison of their disclosure statements in the FIR no. 60/20 PS Jyoti Nagar, with the statement of HC Raj Kumar in the present case,” the trial court said, raising suspicion on Kumar’s statement.

The trial court pointed out that HC Raj Kumar was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident and that Mohd. Aslam, named by him, was not mentioned in the list of prosecution witnesses. “A perusal of the initial complaint of the complainant police shall also reveal that the place of the incident, the place of arrest after around two months, and the place of the alleged recovery of the incriminating material are roughly the same, which speaks volumes about the manner in which the present investigation has been conducted by the police. It is also clear that even HC Raj Kumar is not an eyewitness to the commission of the alleged offences, and the person by the name of Mohd. Aslam, upon whose information he allegedly acted, has not been cited in the list of prosecution witnesses,” the trial court said.

The Sessions Court agreed with the doubts raised by the trial court about the manner of identification of the accused by the complainant and the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the weapons. The Sessions Court said that the procedure of arrest and the recovery of weapons, as described by the police, was vitiated due to non-compliance with the law. “…the recovery of the articles, i.e. a Danda and an iron pipe, would not fall within the purview of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and clearly hit by the bar as imposed by Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. It is observed that the police did not even take the police remand of the accused persons in order to recover the alleged weapons, i.e. Danda and iron rod and immediately after their arrest, judicial custody of the accused persons was obtained,” the Sessions Court observed.

While dismissing the criminal revision petition, the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the findings of the trial court and said that it was “difficult to believe the prosecution material at its face value”.

The case of missing loyalty: The Wire Editor Arfa Khanum Sherwani chooses Ummah over nation, mocks India while hailing the Islamic Republic of Iran as ‘vishwaguru’

Rukma Rathore
-
0
The case of missing loyalty: The Wire Editor Arfa Khanum Sherwani chooses Ummah over nation, mocks India while hailing the Islamic Republic of Iran as ‘vishwaguru’

The conflict in West Asia reached a brief cessation after a 2-week precarious ceasefire was announced between the United States and Iran on April 7th (Tuesday). However, this peace was short-lived, even more so than expected, as reports of attacks continued to surface, including severe Israeli bombings in Lebanon. Iran also complained about the non-fulfilment of all terms of the 10-point proposal it had submitted and threatened to withdraw from the agreement. Pakistan, which allegedly brokered the deal, is facing accusations of presenting distinct versions of the documents to both Tehran and Washington.

The accord did not result in any resolution as controversies erupted and tensions continue to escalate in the region. However, the usual suspects in India took the opportunity to mock the country and praise the Iranian regime as the world’s most powerful. Arfa Khanum Sherwani from the propagandist website “The Wire” has been jubilant since the declaration, insisting that the Islamic Republic is not only a “superpower” but also a “vishwaguru” (global leader).

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has often invoked the term from numerous national and international forums as well as public addresses to articulate his aspiration for India’s enhanced global prominence. However, the ambitious vision for a nation of over a billion of her fellow citizens is a target of ridicule for Arfa, who has been excessively enthusiastic about the truce that merely exists only on paper and not in practice.

The Iranian Embassy in South Africa remarked, “Say hello to the new world superpower,” and in a striking display of “more loyal than the king,” she complied.

The ‘journalist’ proclaimed that Iran “defeated” America to emerge as the ultimate “vishwaguru,” in an earlier tweet. Similarly, she has been consistently retweeting posts from Iran and its embassies both within India and abroad, asserting victory following the news of a pause in the deadly assaults between Iran and United States.

In a video released on “The Wire,” Arfa proudly conveyed that the halt is not only in relation to the war but also the pretension of the United States to be an uncontested global authority. She referred to this development as the most embarrassing blow endured by the country in recent history at the hands of an entity that does not even possess an air force. “Both the US and Israel possess nuclear capabilities, yet they were brought to their knees by a sanctioned Iran,” she added gleefully.

Arfa went on to argue that the Islamist state has created its own “universe” over the last 50 years. She mentioned that her audience, knowing their allegiance, would be both astonished and pleased to learn how such a small and weak country, which has endured confrontations and conflicts for the last five decades, pushed American might to capitulate after hearing the 10 points presented by the mullah government. She poked fun at the White House for failing to achieve its long-sought “regime change” goal and even labelled Pakistan as the fresh “messiah” of peace.

Arfa maintained that Iran was met with dismissal when it challenged that the faceoff would persist, defeat was not going to be accepted, and the triumph would be accomplished on its own conditions. “However, we were all wrong, and only Iran and its leadership were correct,” she gloated and depicted the demands with a derisive laugh to illustrate her joy.

Arfa praised Iran for “exacting revenge” for the purported Israeli “atrocities” against the Palestinian people. Moreover, she rejected the oppression of females by the hardline government, contending that they are empowered through higher education and employment in both public and private sectors which is also applicable to the Iranian community in foreign lands. “Iran has sustained for 40 days against a nation that invests billions of dollars to penetrate its soft power through advertising, Hollywood and other sources, exposing it,” she reaffirmed.

Arfa then showcased her interview with another anti-India voice, Aakar Patel, as they united to hail Iran and deprecate its “foes” in their conversation. They both even charged the Indian government with prioritising elections over 1 crore Indians stranded in the Gulf and criticised PM Modi’s visit to Israel.

Ideology above nation

The armistice, although unstable, does not provide Arfa with relief regarding the impending military altercation; rather, it serves as her chance to portray India as a subordinate on the global stage while glorifying Iran as an invincible force. She even wrote a Quranic verse, “You honor whom You will, and You humble/disgrace whom You will,” to clearly insinuate that the loyalty lies with the religion, which always supersede the feelings of nationality, if any exists within this cabal that perceives the hostile neighbour, notorious for terrorism, as peacemaker just for their hateful campaign.

On the other hand, the regular successful rescue operations of Indians from critical situations, the effective management of price hikes due to the energy shortage following the takeover of the Strait of Hormuz, choosing national interests and acting with sovereignty without succumbing to external pressures by the centre do not count for such elements whose only aim is to view everything through the prism of their ideology. Additionally, the Modi government not only issues regular advisories but also facilitates the repatriation of those who do not comply with the official directives.

Nevertheless, this specific faction cannot help but paint it negatively through a false narrative. Additionally, they refuse to acknowledge the considerable evidence provided by the defence forces and the government on their significant decisions, such as “Operation Sindoor” or the “Balakote airstrike,” while aking for further clarification but accept Pakistan’s word as a “mediator.”

Thus, Arfa’s disgraceful antics represent just another display in this ongoing disinformation campaign, where India consistently appears to fall short, and no amount of effort or factual persuasion will deter them, as the truth is invariably the first casualty of their deceptive propaganda. Islamo-leftists are devoted only to their religion and ideology, which extends beyond the borders of their nation, popularly known as “Ummah” in Arabic.

Karnataka: NIA court convicts 4 Bangladeshi nationals in transnational human trafficking case; Read how illegal entry, fake Indian IDs and trafficking network were uncovered – Exclusive details

Anurag
-
0
Karnataka: NIA court convicts 4 Bangladeshi nationals in transnational human trafficking case; Read how illegal entry, fake Indian IDs and trafficking network were uncovered – Exclusive details

On 8th April, a Special NIA court in Bengaluru convicted four Bangladeshi nationals, Zakir Khan, Badal Houladar, Kabir Talukdar and Mohammed Bachchu Gharami, in a transnational human trafficking case.

The four were sentenced in a 2023 case that was registered suo motu by NIA in November that year. There were a total of fourteen accused in the case and the convicted individuals are Accused No 9 to Accused No 12.

The court has sentenced all four to three years of rigorous imprisonment. They were also fined Rs 15,000 under Section 14 and Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, Rs 5,000 under Section 3 of the Passport Entry into India Act, with additional imprisonment in case of default.

Notably, all four had pleaded guilty in the last hearing that happened on 9th March this year. The court directed that all substantive sentences would run concurrently and the period already spent in judicial custody would be set off against the sentence. The court further ordered that the accused be deported to Bangladesh if not required in any other case after the completion of the sentence.

The trial of the remaining accused will continue and the next date of hearing is 15th April.

OpIndia went through over 20 court documents related to the case.

How the case began

The case originates from specific intelligence inputs received by the National Investigation Agency in early November 2024 regarding a transnational human trafficking network operating in Karnataka. The network was linked to facilitators in Assam, Tripura and Bangladesh.

The information received by the investigation agency indicated that Bangladeshi nationals were being illegally brought into India. They were being provided fraudulent Indian identity documents and employed in waste segregation units under exploitative conditions. Based on these inputs, NIA registered the case and initiated searches at multiple locations.

On 7th and 8th November 2023, raids were conducted on several locations including one at a garbage dumping yard at Horamavu Main Road in Seegehalli, Bengaluru. According to the deposition of one of the witnesses recorded in October 2025, who accompanied NIA officials as an independent witness, the investigating team identified a tarpaulin shed at the location based on the intelligence inputs.

When they knocked at the shed, a person came out who was identified as Mirazul, accused no 8 in the case. The officials conducted a search and recovered multiple Aadhaar cards, PAN card, bank passbook, ATM card, driving licence, mobile phone with SIM cards and additional SIM cards. Mirazul was arrested and the items were seized.

Subsequently, other locations linked to other accused were raided and the investigators recovered Bangladeshi documents, passports, Bangladeshi currency and identity records. They recovered Bangladeshi documents and passport copies from accused no 1, identified as Firdoush Bapri alias Firdous Mohammed Moksed.

Similarly, Bangladeshi passport and documents were recovered from accused no 2, Muhammad Oli Ullah, Bangladesh currency, passport related material and documents from accused no 4, Masud Sardar, Bangladesh issued birth certificate from accused no 9, Zakir Khan and more.

As investigation moved ahead, investigators found that several accused possessed Indian identity documents including Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, ration cards and voter ID cards despite being Bangladeshi nationals. This indicated that the documents were procured via fraudulent means.

Witness statements recorded during investigation and court hearings stated that the accused collected money from Bangladeshi nationals and trafficked them into India through the Indo Bangladesh border near Benapole. Victims were promised jobs and valid Indian identity documents.

Once they arrived, they were confined in sheds and made to work in waste segregation units for meagre wages. When they demanded better employment, the accused threatened that they would be handed over to police and arrested.

How the trial proceeded and why court rejected bail applications

According to the court documents accessed by OpIndia, several accused applied for bail and claimed they were innocent. However, based on the investigation and evidence, the court rejected several bail pleas over time.

In an order passed on 4th April 2024, the court rejected the bail application of accused no 6 identified as Suma Shaikh Zakir. He claimed in his plea that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the case. He further claimed that he had been living in Bengaluru for over 20 years. He sought bail on medical grounds claiming a knee fracture.

The prosecution opposed the plea and stated that chargesheet material showed he was actively involved in trafficking Bangladeshi nationals. The prosecution further contended that Zakir failed to provide valid proof that he was an Indian national. It was also argued that if released on bail, he could abscond and threaten witnesses.

While rejecting the bail plea, the court observed that witness statements and seized documents prima facie showed that Zakir was indeed a Bangladeshi national and he trafficked persons into India, confined them in sheds and forced them into labour for meagre wages. The court held that the possibility of absconding and influencing witnesses could not be ruled out.

First batch rejection of bail pleas

On 8th April 2024, the court rejected bail pleas filed by Firdoush, Mohammed Sohag Gazi, Zakir Khan, Mohammed Kabir Talukder and Mohammed Bachchu Gharami. The accused claimed in the plea that they were innocent and the allegations against them were baseless. They further argued that they belonged to respected families and have no criminal past. They also contended that they were in custody for over six months.

While opposing the bail pleas, the prosecution informed the court that the accused trafficked at least 22 Bangladeshi nationals into India on false promises of employment. They confined the illegal immigrants in waste segregation godowns. The prosecution argued that the accused also entered India illegally, possessed fraudulent Indian identity documents and were part of a transnational trafficking network.

Witness statements identified them as Bangladeshi nationals who brought victims into India. The prosecution also pointed to recovery of Bangladeshi documents, passports and currency from residences of accused.

While rejecting the plea, the court observed that there was prima facie material showing illegal entry into India, fraudulent procurement of Indian identity cards and trafficking of Bangladeshi nationals for forced labour. The court noted that the offences the accused were booked under were punishable with life imprisonment and victims were under the influence of the accused.

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, risk of absconding and possibility of witness tampering and rejected the bail.

Bail rejection of main accused Firdoush

Just two months after that, on 22nd June 2024, the court rejected the bail application of Firdoush. The prosecution described him as the key organiser of the trafficking network operating in Bengaluru. The defence claimed that the alleged victims were working voluntarily in waste segregation units and were not confined or forced into labour.

The defence further claimed that Firdoush was an Indian citizen and had been residing in Bengaluru for years. They also argued that he had already undergone substantial judicial custody while pointing to delay in trial. They also claimed parity with other accused who had sought relief from the court.

The prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea and placed reliance on statements of rescued victims, seizure material recovered during raids, and documentary evidence that indicated that Firdoush played a central role in trafficking Bangladeshi nationals into India.

The prosecution submitted that Firdoush and his associates lured victims from Bangladesh with promises of employment and legal identity documents. After entering India illegally, they were housed in temporary sheds and forced to work on minimal wages. Furthermore, Firdoush controlled movement of the victims, collected money from them, and arranged forged Indian identity documents including Aadhaar and other records.

The prosecution told the court that several documents seized during searches linked Firdoush directly to other accused and to Bangladesh nationals. These included mobile phone data, contact numbers with Bangladesh country codes, identity papers of suspected Bangladeshi nationals, and records that indicated coordination for illegal entry into India.

The NIA also argued that the accused had failed to produce credible proof of Indian citizenship and that authenticity of documents relied upon by him was under verification.

While rejecting the bail, the court observed that the material placed on record showed prima facie involvement of the accused in a well structured human trafficking operation. The court noted that witness statements indicated victims were transported across the Indo Bangladesh border and then shifted to Bengaluru where they were made to work at waste segregation godowns. The court also recorded that the allegations included illegal entry into India, fabrication of identity documents, and trafficking for labour exploitation.

The court emphasised the seriousness of the allegation and the organised nature of the network. It observed that Firdoush was alleged to be the principal coordinator who facilitated illegal entry of Bangladeshi nationals into India, arranged accommodation, and controlled their employment.

The court held that if he was released on bail, there was a real possibility that he could abscond, particularly because his nationality itself was disputed. The court also noted that witnesses were vulnerable and could be influenced, especially as several victims were allegedly under the control of the accused earlier.

The court rejected the argument regarding delay in the trial and observed that the investigation involved multiple accused and a transnational element which justified the time taken by the investigation agency. It further noted that the plea was successive in nature and no substantial changes in circumstances had been shown since the earlier rejection of bail.

The court concluded that the accusations were serious, punishable with severe penalties, and supported by documentary and oral evidence at the prima facie stage. The court rejected the bail noting that his release at that stage could hamper trial.

Series of bail applications rejected

For months, several bail pleas were submitted in the court by the accused in the case and all of them were rejected. On 23rd September, the court rejected bail pleas of Mohammed Oli Ullah and Mohammed Bellal. Both claimed innocence and argued lack of material linking them to offences.

However, the prosecution argued that they were Bangladeshi nationals who illegally entered India and forged Indian identity documents, and trafficked victims. The court observed that the documents recovered from them during searches and witness statements indicated both of them were involved in the case. The court rejected the bail plea stating there was risk of absconding and influencing witnesses.

Then on 13th November, the court rejected the bail plea of Muhammed Idris. The defence claimed that he was an Indian citizen working as a waste picker. The prosecution stated he received trafficked victims in Bengaluru, confined them and forced them into labour.

The court observed that witness statements, seized documents and mobile phone data containing Bangladeshi contacts indicated his involvement in trafficking. The court noted that authenticity of identity documents was under verification and that he failed to produce citizenship proof and rejected the bail plea.

Framing of charges

On 19 May 2025, the Special NIA Court framed charges against all fourteen accused after examining the charge sheet, seizure material and witness statements. The court held that there was sufficient prima facie material indicating the existence of an organised trafficking network bringing Bangladeshi nationals into India and employing them in waste segregation units in Bengaluru. The court observed that the allegations disclosed offences relating to criminal conspiracy, human trafficking, illegal entry, illegal stay, and violations of passport and immigration laws.

The court first recorded that Firdoush, Muhammed Oli Ullah, Amol Chandra Das, Masud Sarder, Md Sohag Gazi, Suma Shaikh Zakir, Sk Md Bellal, Md Mirazul Islam, Muhammed Sahajalal Haldar and Muhammed Idris had allegedly entered into a conspiracy over a long period prior to November 2023. As per the prosecution case accepted at the stage of charge, they identified Bangladeshi nationals, arranged their illegal entry into India through agents operating near the Indo Bangladesh border, and lured them with promises of employment, accommodation and Indian identity documents. The court held that these allegations constituted prima facie criminal conspiracy to traffic foreign nationals into India.

The court further observed that Firdoush, Muhammed Oli Ullah, Amol Chandra Das, Masud Sarder, Md Sohag Gazi, Suma Shaikh Zakir, Muhammed Sahajalal Haldar and Muhammed Idris were alleged to have directly trafficked Bangladeshi nationals into India and transported them to Bengaluru. The victims were allegedly confined in sheds and waste segregation godowns where they were made to work for long hours for meagre wages. Witness statements indicated that victims were threatened with police arrest and deportation if they attempted to leave. The court held that these allegations disclosed offences of trafficking for forced labour.

Separate allegations were recorded against Sk Md Bellal and Md Mirazul Islam. The court noted that these two accused allegedly trafficked specific victims identified as CW 31 and CW 32 into India under similar false assurances. After being brought into India, the victims were allegedly confined and forced to work in waste segregation units. The court observed that threats of arrest and deportation were allegedly used to control their movement.

The court also recorded that all fourteen accused, namely Firdoush, Muhammed Oli Ullah, Amol Chandra Das alias Sujib, Masud Sarder, Md Sohag Gazi, Suma Shaikh Zakir, Sk Md Bellal, Md Mirazul Islam, Zakir Khan, Md Badal Houladar, Md Kabir Talukder, Md Bachchu Gharami, Muhammed Sahajalal Haldar and Muhammed Idris, had allegedly entered India illegally without valid documents and continued residing in Bengaluru for several years. They were also alleged to have possessed Indian identity documents such as Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, ration cards and voter IDs which were suspected to have been obtained fraudulently.

The court further observed that the accused allegedly facilitated illegal entry of other Bangladeshi nationals by arranging border crossings and promising documentation. These acts, according to the court, attracted offences under the Foreigners Act relating to illegal entry, illegal stay and abetment of infiltration. The court also held that the accused entered India without valid passports and remained in violation of passport laws, attracting provisions of the Passport Entry into India Act and relevant rules.

After considering the witness statements, seizure material, and documentary evidence, the court concluded that there were sufficient grounds to proceed to trial against all fourteen accused for conspiracy, trafficking, illegal migration and related offences.

Discharge application of Suma Shaikh Zakir rejected

On 25th March 2025, the discharge application of Suma Shaikh Zakir was rejected. He claimed innocence and relied on Indian identity documents. The prosecution cited seizure of a Bangladeshi SIM card, visiting cards, mobile phones and chats with Bangladeshi numbers. The court held that witness statements and seized materials created grave suspicion and warranted trial.

Bail pleas of Amol alias Sujib rejected

On 23rd August 2025, bail of accused no 3 Amol Chandra Das alias Sujib was rejected. He claimed Indian citizenship and parity with Suma Shaikh Zakir. The prosecution argued he illegally entered India and trafficked Bangladeshi nationals. The court noted the plea was successive and risk of absconding existed.

On 24th January 2026, bail of accused no 4 Masud Sarder was rejected. He claimed Indian citizenship and denied involvement. The prosecution cited recovery of Bangladeshi currency, passport details, vaccination certificate, mobile phones and birth registration certificates. The court also relied on a letter dated 4th September 2025 stating his birth certificate was not found in official records. The court held that he illegally entered India, obtained fraudulent identity documents and trafficked victims. Bail was rejected.

Guilty plea and conviction

During proceedings, accused nos 9 Zakir Khan, 10 Badal Houladar, 11 Kabir Talukdar and 12 Mohammed Bachchu Gharami pleaded guilty on 9th March 2026. On 8th April 2026, the court convicted the four and sentenced them to three years rigorous imprisonment with fines. The court ordered sentences to run concurrently and directed deportation after completion of sentence.

Trial continues

The case involves fourteen accused including Firdoush, Muhammed Oli Ullah, Amol Chandra Das, Masud Sarder, Md Sohag Gazi, Suma Shaikh Zakir, Sk Md Bellal, Md Mirazul Islam, Zakir Khan, Md Badal Houladar, Md Kabir Talukder, Md Bachchu Gharami, Muhammed Sahajalal Haldar and Muhammed Idris. With accused nos 9 to 12 convicted after pleading guilty, the trial against the remaining accused continues and the matter is listed for 15th April.

Pakistan accused of passing different versions of agreement to Iran and US after White House said they didn’t agree to Lebanon ceasefire and uranium enrichment: Here is what happened

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Pakistan accused of passing different versions of agreement to Iran and US after White House said they didn’t agree to Lebanon ceasefire and uranium enrichment: Here is what happened

The desperate attempt of Pakistan to gain global attention and praise by ‘mediating’ between the warring nations of Iran and the US has backfired monumentally into a diplomatic embarrassment. From quick violations of the ceasefire announced by US President Donald Trump, Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif and confirmed by Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, open contradictions over the “acceptance of uranium enrichment” demand, and the obvious discrepancies in proposal texts have left the ‘unexpected mediator’ expectedly red-faced.

Yestreday White House confirmed that the 10-point plan released by Iran differs from the plan referred to by President Trump. Trump has confirmed he never agreed to some points mentioned in the plan floating in the media, including the extension of the ceasefire in Lebanon and agreeing to enrichment by Iran. US also disagreed with Iran’s claim of permanent control over the Strait of Hormuz.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also said that President Trump threw Iran’s 10-point plan in the garbage, saying that it was “fundamentally unserious, unacceptable and completely discarded.” She rejected media reports that Trump accepted Iran’s wish list, making it clear that the 10-point list released by Iran to the media was different from the agreed-upon list.

“Acceptance of Uranium enrichment” included in Farsi version, missing in the English versions passed by Pakistan to the US

Pakistan was not even done gloating over rare emergence as a ‘drafted’ peacemaker, when reports emerged that the ‘mediator’ passed different versions of the same Iranian 10-point ceasefire proposal to Washington.

As per an Associated Press report, the Farsi version of the 10-point ceasefire proposal Iran put forth contained the phrase “acceptance of uranium enrichment” for its nuclear program. This key point was reportedly missing in the English version of the document routed through Pakistan to the US.

It must be noted that Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has maintained that the continuation of uranium enrichment is its core and non-negotiable demand and sought foreign acceptance of the same.

In simple terms, media reports suggest that ‘mediator’ Pakistan provided the US a version different from the one it received from Iran, and handed Iran a different version from what it received from Washington.

JD Vance confirms Iran misunderstood that Lebanon was a part of the ceasefire agreement

It is interesting to note that discrepancies in the Farsi and English versions of Iran’s 10-point proposal routed to Iran and the US respectively, are not confined only to the uranium enrichment point. Another major confusion pertains to the Lebanon conflict, wherein Israel is fighting against the Iran-backed Hezbollah and regularly bombing the country.

The Farsi and English versions of Iran’s 10-point plan, widely reported in the media, made explicit mention of Lebanon, stating: “Cessation of hostilities across all fronts, including Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as attacks on ‘Axis of Resistance’ allies.”

This was also mentioned by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in his post on X, as he wrote, “I am pleased to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.”

However, President Trump’s original ceasefire announcement post on Truth Social made no mention of Lebanon despite acknowledging the reception of the 10-point proposal and accepting it as a “workable basis to negotiate”.

This baffled Israel, and it quickly issued a clarification that the Lebanon conflict is not a part of the ceasefire agreement between Iran and the US. Just hours after the ceasefire announcement, Israel launched a fresh wave of attacks in southern Lebanon and targeted the Tyre and Nabatieh areas in southern Lebanon. On 8th April, Israeli forces targeted over 100 Hezbollah sites in 10 minutes in Lebanon.

Israeli PMO refuted Pakistan’s claim that the ceasefire it supposedly mediated also included cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, although Lebanese President Joseph Aoun welcomed the ceasefire between Iran and the US.

When asked about it, Donald Trump told a journalist that the Israel-Lebanon conflict is a “separate skirmish”, and Lebanon was not included in the agreement because of Hezbollah. He said that the Israel-Hezbollah fight is a separate skirmish, and everyone was aware of it.

However, Ibrahim Moussawi, a Hezbollah member of parliament, stressed that the Iran-US ceasefire would fall apart if the Lebanon-Israel conflict is not made a part of it. He said that if Iran does not comply with the ceasefire, both Hezbollah and Iran will launch fresh attacks.

This indicates that even Lebanese politicians and authorities were under the impression that the Pakistan-mediated Iran-US ceasefire included cessation of hostilities for a two-week time period, not only in Iran but also in the Middle East, and Lebanon.

Amidst Iran claiming victory and boasting that it has “forced” the US to accept its 10-point plan, essentially its demands for continuation of uranium enrichment and cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, US Vice President JD Vance said that Lebanon was never a part of the ceasefire agreement and that Iranians had a ‘misunderstanding’.

“I think this comes from a legitimate misunderstanding. I think the Iranians thought the ceasefire included Lebanon, and it just didn’t. We never made that promise; we never indicated that was gonna be the case. What we said was that the ceasefire would be focused on Iran and America’s allies, Israel and the Gulf states,” Vance told the media.

Trump called Iran’s 10-point proposal “a workable basis to negotiate”, White House said the US President threw the original 10-point plan in the garbage

Just hours after prophesying the ‘death’ of the Iranian civilisation, Trump took a dramatic U-turn and announced a ceasefire and informed about the reception of a 10-point plan from Iran. He called the proposal a “workable basis on which to negotiate”.

“…We received a 10-point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated,” Trump posted, adding that he was honoured to represent the US as President, and the Gulf countries affected by the war, in bringing the “problem close to resolution.”

Trump had also reposted Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi’s statement, which mentioned both the US’s 15-point proposal and Iran’s 10-point “general framework”. Araghchi mentioning this, and Trump acknowledging the same, indicates that either Trump was under the impression that Iran had given up on its uranium enrichment ambition, while Iran thought that Trump had accepted this demand.

The Pakistan-orchestrated ‘discrepancy’ allegations make even more sense when it is recalled that Trump had on Monday (a day before the ceasefire announcement) called the Iranian proposal a “significant step” but “not good enough”. It came as a shock to US-Israel supporters, and a pleasant surprise to Iranian Mullah regime backers, that Trump accepted Iran’s “acceptance of uranium enrichment” demand, which essentially was the reason why Israel and the US launched a joint attack on Iran. Acceptance of this demand essentially meant a US betrayal of its ally Israel, which sees a nuclear-armed Iran as an “existential threat”.

It is an interesting note that White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, while addressing a press conference on Wednesday, said that the version of the 10-point plan Iran had released publicly was very different from the one President Trump and the US had agreed to. She added that the original version, apparently, the one containing “uranium enrichment acceptance” demand and call for “cessation of hostilities in Lebanon” was “unacceptable” and relegated to garbage by President Trump.

“So let me be clear and correct the record. The Iranians originally put forward a 10-point plan that was fundamentally unserious, unacceptable and completely discarded. It was literally thrown in the garbage by President Trump and his negotiating team,” Leavitt said while reprimanding the American legacy media for reporting that Trump was wildly accepting Iran’s 10-point proposal that mentioned its uranium enrichment-related demands.

Leavitt, however, did not delve into the details of the “different version” of Iran’s 10-point proposal that Trump agreed to, accepted as “workable”, announced a ceasefire based on it, and went on to float plans of launching a joint US-Iran venture to charge tolls in the Strait of Hormuz and make “big money”.

Leaving Pakistan’s Shehbaz Sharif red-faced, Donald Trump stated on Wednesday that the ceasefire agreement does not extend to Lebanon, where Israeli forces continue operations against Hezbollah. Talking to a journalist, Trump said that the Israel-Lebanon conflict is a “separate skirmish”, and Lebanon was not included because of Hezbollah.

It is essential to recall that in an X post, Sharif declared that Iran, the US and their allies had agreed to “an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY”. He also invited delegations to Islamabad for further talks.

With American leadership confirming that uranium enrichment and the Lebanon conflict were not a part of the version of the 10-point plan Iran that was routed to them through Pakistan, Iran threatened to abandon the ceasefire if Israel continues strikes on Hezbollah.

All of this confusion and even more confusing ‘clarifications’ suggest that the ‘mediator’ Pakistan created a big mess. As the messenger passing proposals between the US and Iran, Pakistan was essentially the conduit. Either Pakistan deliberately passed tailored versions to each side to make the “deal” work, with the English version being softer on uranium enrichment for the US, and the Farsi version stronger for Iranian domestic consumption.

Or, Pakistan, in its desperation to capitalise on the rare opportunity to depart from its reputation as a global Islamic-terror sponsor to a global ‘peacemaker’, failed to detect and flag the discrepancy during backchannel talks.

There is another possibility that the Iranian regime took Pakistan into confidence and employed a dual-texted strategy to secure a reprieve from Trump’s threat to annihilate the Iranian civilisation.

The episode has inflicted a massive blow to Pakistan’s reputation. Even before Islamabad could relish fully in the joy of being called a ‘saviour’ and ‘peacemaker’, the country began to be called incompetent and duplicitous, although the ‘draft’ fiasco already brought Pakistan’s mediation and seriousness into question. Pakistan enjoyed its two seconds of fame, but at the cost of bringing a lasting disrepute and embarrassment to Islamabad.

Going by the details that have emerged so far, it would be appropriate to conclude that a ceasefire between Iran and the US would never have happened if Pakistan had routed real, untailored Farsi and English versions of Iran’s ceasefire plan.

The US, however, should release the version of the 10-point Iranian plan it received and agreed to build up negotiation talks on.

The White House staged Pakistan’s ‘peacemaker’ gimmick: Did Iran betray the ceasefire terms agreed upon during talks, or has America changed tone after Israeli pressure and global embarrassment?

Trump chose Pakistan as a useful idiot to advance ceasefire talks with Iran. A Financial Times report says that Pakistan’s volunteering to be a peacemaker was staged by the White House. While Trump was giving open threats and deadlines to Iran to pressure it to open the Strait of Hormuz, behind the scenes, it was pushing Pakistan to convince Iran to accept a temporary ceasefire.

The report claims that shortly after Trump issued his first ultimatum to Iran, Pakistan’s top officials, including Asim Munir, started passing messages between Iranian political and military figures and the White House, pitching Islamabad as a venue for a peace summit. They shared the US’s 15-point proposal and Iran’s five and 10-point responses. They also mediated a discussion on the period of temporary ceasefire, ranging from 45 days to two weeks.

While both sides initially stuck to their demands, subsequently, Iran reportedly became compliant on diluting and accepting limits on its stockpile of uranium. Later on, Araghchi and other Iranian leaders agreed to a temporary ceasefire-for-Hormuz deal in principle days ago, following weeks of heavy US and Israeli strikes.

Now, either Iran has betrayed the ceasefire terms by agreeing to accept limits on its stockpile of uranium, only to publicise a “acceptance of uranium enrichment” phrase-containing 10-point plan post ceasefire announcement. Or, America initially yielded to Iran’s intransigence about becoming a nuclear-armed state, only change the tone only after Israel pushed back hard against the US, agreeing to those concessions and intensified attacks on Lebanon to deliberately puncture the ceasefire. Now Washington has forced Pakistan to absorb the global embarrassment aimed at Trump and the US, effectively throwing its credulous accomplice, Shehbaz Sharif, under the bus.

Or perhaps, Pakistan has simply bitten off far more than it can chew and is now choking on the ignominious consequences of its diplomatic overreach.

Gujarat: AAP MLA Gopal Italia claims police harassed his mother but hides that police came with court-issued warrant, audio recording discloses his arrest warrant for ignoring summons

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Gujarat: AAP MLA Gopal Italia claims police harassed his mother but hides that police came with court-issued warrant, audio recording discloses his arrest warrant for ignoring summons

On 7th April (Tuesday), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Gopal Italia garnered significant attention by making a shocking claim on social media concerning a personal incident that took place in his village during the local body elections in Gujarat. He accused the police of visiting his residence in Surat, where they allegedly harassed, threatened and mistreated his mother. With tears in his eyes, Gopal asserted that all of this was occurring at the direction of Deputy Chief Minister Harsh Sanghavi.

He asked, “Is it a crime for Gopal Italia, born in a simple farmer family in a remote village, to enter politics? Gujarat’s Home Minister Harsh Sanghvi has gone beyond all limits of decency today. This morning, he sent police to my Surat home and attempted to intimidate my elderly mother. The police mistreated her. The society’s security guard was also openly and indirectly intimidated with inquiries like, ‘When does Gopal come and when does he leave?’ What is my mother’s crime?”

He further charged, “Will Harsh Sanghvi punish my mother for giving birth to me and teaching me to fight for the people of Gujarat? How justified is it to send the police to threaten a senior citizen? If Harsh Sanghvi has any problem with me, he should call me and let me know. If he wants to arrest me, he can summon me to any police station at any time. I will be there but why was there a need to threaten my mother?”

“I entered politics solely to transform the culture of abuse. However, I am deeply saddened today that my involvement in politics has led to my mother experiencing humiliation. If Harsh Sanghvi wishes to arrest me, he should simply call and inform me, rather than sending the police to intimidate my mother or family in the future. I pray that God grants Harsh Sanghvi the wisdom he needs,” Gopal added.

Afterwards, the post was extensively shared by AAP supporters, who sought to show that their leader and his family were subjected to harassment through police intervention during the recent elections. National Convener of AAP Arvind Kejriwal also accused, “The Gujarat BJP government has exceeded all boundaries of hooliganism.”

However, this narrative quickly fell apart within a few hours as the actual facts emerged. The police had not visited Gopal’s home without justification, nor had they harassed or threatened his mother or anyone else during their presence. The reality is that an FIR was filed against him in Mehsana in 2020, and the case is currently pending in court. However, he did not attend the hearings in person despite summons, and as a result, the court issued a non-bailable warrant against him.

The issuance of a warrant signifies that it is the obligation of the police to serve it to the individual concerned and bring them before the court. To carry out this duty, a team from the Mehsana Police went to Gopal’s house.

According to police sources, he was not there when the team arrived. His mother was questioned, and she confirmed the same. As a result, the police merely took photographs of the house and left the scene without using any form of coercion or violence. Given that the police had visited the place particularly to execute the warrant, this was required to be officially recorded in their logs. The police maintain that no threats were made to anyone during the visit.

Throughout the day, Gopal cried about facing harassment, even invoking his mother’s name during this claim, but he failed to mention the critical fact that the police had shown up with a warrant. Following the revelation of the facts related to this incident, an audio clip also became viral online, in which he can be heard talking. A conversation recorded in the clip with someone named “Jitu” unveiled that he was, in fact, aware of the police’s arrival with a warrant.

Jeetu notifies Gopal that the police may come with a warrant, however, the latter reassures him not to be concerned, promising that he will manage the situation when necessary. A discussion about Gopal’s mother also occurs between them, during which he proposes to assert that the BJP members were intimidating his mother.

A few hours after this audio emerged, on the morning of the next day, Gopal filmed a second video and stated that the conversation was produced via AI at the behest of Harsh Sanghavi. The Aam Aadmi Party has also made the same charge. Nonetheless, a significant point has come to light: if Gopal truly believes that the audio has been manipulated or fabricated through AI, he should insist on an FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) investigation to definitively distinguish between truth and falsehood.

However, the Aam Aadmi Party has not taken any such action, and instead, they have persisted in peddling the narrative that the audio is bogus. The claims made by the Aam Aadmi Party and Gopal seem particularly unconvincing, considering that the dialogue recorded in the audio, especially the choice of words, emotional depth and, most importantly, the unique Kathiawadi accent, appears strikingly genuine and realistic. Achieving such a degree of accuracy with AI technology is an exceptionally challenging task.

The authenticity of the audio recording is a separate issue, but Gopal’s dramatics were short-lived. On one side, he claims that the police have the liberty to arrest him and can call him to any police station of their choosing, yet, conversely, he does not show up in court when summoned, which forces the court to issue a warrant. When the police come to carry out their duty, he starts to portray himself as the “victim,” conveniently neglecting to mention the true reason for the action.

The Aam Aadmi Party is currently asserting that Gopal may face arrest before the elections. Nevertheless, they are not revealing that a non-bailable warrant has been issued for him. In the lead-up to each election, the leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party partake in such dramatics, and each time, their act is busted. A similar situation has arisen in this matter as well.

Ceasefire yet to take effect? Kuwait, UAE being hit by Iranian missiles, Israel strikes Lebanon while Trump dreams of making ‘big money’ at the Strait of Hormuz

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Ceasefire yet to take effect? Kuwait, UAE being hit by Iranian missiles, Israel strikes Lebanon while Trump dreams of making ‘big money’ at the Strait of Hormuz

The two-week ceasefire announced by US President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Iranian regime is showing severe signs of collapse within hours. Israel, which though backed the ceasefire agreement, made it clear that the ceasefire does not apply to the Lebanon front, even as it is a part of Iran’s 10-point proposal, Trump described as “a workable basis for negotiations”. The UAE and Kuwait have also reported missile and drone attacks by Iran, alleging a blatant violation of the newly-agreed-upon ceasefire.

While ‘mediator’ Pakistan is busy gloating over its ‘drafted’ role in the ceasefire and announced that cessation of hostilities will take immediate effect, Gulf countries targeted by Iran continue to grapple with the barrage of Iranian missiles and drones. This has raised questions over the credibility of Pakistan as a mediator and also over the seriousness of Iran in achieving lasting peace.

UAE under attack from drones and missiles originating from Iran, confirms the defence ministry

On 8th April, the Defence Ministry of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) confirmed that its air defence systems were engaging with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones fired by Iran despite a ceasefire announcement.

“The UAE’s air defenses are currently engaging with missile and drone attacks originating from Iran. The Ministry of Defense confirms that the sounds heard in various parts of the country are the result of the UAE air defense systems intercepting ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones. UAE Air Defences system are actively engaging with missiles and UAV threats MOD asserts that the sounds heard across the country are the result of ongoing engaging operations of missiles and UAV’s,” the Emirati Defence Ministry said in a statement.

The UAE stated that its Habshan gas complex has been attacked, forcing the country to suspend gas production due to multiple fires at the facility caused by falling debris during the interception of an attack. It is reported that two Emirati and one Indian national suffered minor injury in the attack.

In a more detailed statement, the Emirati Defence Ministry said, “UAE air defense engaged 17 ballistic missiles and 35 UAV’s launched from Iran.”

“Since the onset of the blatant Iranian attacks, UAE air defenses have engaged a total of 537 ballistic missiles, 26 cruise missiles, and 2,256 UAV’s. These attacks resulted in injuries to 3 individuals, all of whom sustained minor injuries, bringing the total number of injuries to 224, involving individuals of various nationalities, including Emirati, Egyptian, Sudanese, Ethiopian, Filipino, Pakistani, Iranian, Indian, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, Azerbaijani, Yemeni, Ugandan, Eritrean, Lebanese, Afghan, Bahraini, Comorian, Turkish, Iraqi, Nepalese, Nigerian, Omani, Jordanian, Palestinian, Ghanaian, Indonesian, Swedish, Tunisian, Moroccan, and Russian,” it added.

It further confirmed that in the attacks post-ceasefire, no casualties have been reported.

The MoD reiterated its commitment to protect its citizenry from Iranian attacks, and said, “The Ministry of Defence affirmed that it remains fully prepared and ready to deal with any threats and will firmly confront anything that aims to undermine the security of the country, in a manner that ensures the protection of its sovereignty, security and stability and safeguards its interests and national capabilities.”

Kuwait confirms Iranian attacks on its oil facilities post ceasefire announcement

Meanwhile, Kuwaiti Defence Ministry spokesperson Colonel Saud Abdulaziz al-Otaibi has confirmed that the country’s air defence systems intercepted 28 Iranian drones since 05:00 GMT.

Kuwait said that the attack was “an intense wave of hostile Iranian criminal attacks”, with “a large number of hostile drones” downed.

According to al-Obaiti, some of the Iranian drones targeted Kuwait’s vital oil facilities and power stations in the south. The attacks have caused material damage to oil infrastructure facilities, power stations, and water desalination plants

Sirens sounded in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, Qatar intercepts missiles

In Bahrain, sirens were sounded on Wednesday after Iran launched a fresh wave of attacks. These attacks came after Iran targeted houses in the Sitra area, injuring two people from shrapnel falling after the interception of an Iranian drone on Tuesday night.

On Wednesday morning, Qatar’s Ministry of Defence announced that its armed forces intercepted a missile attack against its territory.

Saudi Arabia’s oil pipeline bypassing Hormuz targeted in Iranian attack

A Reuters report published on 8th April evening says that Saudi Arabia’s crucial East-West oil pipeline, currently its only outlet for crude exports, was damaged in ‌an Iranian attack and other facilities in the country were also targeted despite a ceasefire in effect.

Earlier, the Civil Defence of Saudi Arabia issued an early warning on Wednesday of potential danger in the central governorate of Al-Kharj.

Iran launches ballistic missiles on Central and Northern Israel

In the wee hours of 8th April, the Israeli media reported that sirens sounded in southern Israel due to an Iranian ballistic missile attack. Later, early warnings are issued in central and northern Israel after the Israeli Defence Forces detected additional missile attacks originating from Iran.

Iran says its oil refinery in Lavan Island attacked after the ceasefire, state broadcaster confirms retaliatory attacks on UAE and Kuwait

Iran’s state media has claimed that its oil refinery in the Lavan Island was targeted in an “enemy attack” just hours after the Tuesday ceasefire announcement. The National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC) stated that its facility was struck at around 10 a.m. (0630 ​GMT). The company said that no casualties have been reported; however, firefighters were deployed to douse the blaze.

In a statement, NIORDC said, “Fortunately, due to the timely evacuation of personnel, no casualties have been reported thus far. We request our dear compatriots to assist their servants in this industry by managing their fuel consumption, avoiding unnecessary travel, and utilizing public transportation.”

Iran’s state broadcaster, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), confirmed that the missile and drone attacks on the UAE and Kuwait were in retaliation for the attack on Iran’s Lavan Island.

Israel pounds southern Lebanon after saying that the ceasefire does apply on this front

While Israel has backed the Iran-US ceasefire, it has expressed discontent over the Lebanon point in Iran’s 10-point proposal, and said that Lebanon is not a part of the ceasefire agreement.

“In accordance with directives from the political echelon, the IDF has ceased fire in the operation against Iran, and is highly prepared to respond defensively against any violation. Overnight, the IDF conducted a wide-scale wave of strikes targeting missile launch sites and launchers across Iran, in order to significantly degrade its launching capabilities. Simultaneously, in Lebanon, the IDF is continuing to conduct targeted ground operations against Hezbollah. The IDF will continue to operate across all fronts to defend Israel,” the Israeli Defense Forces said.

Right after making it clear that Iran’s demand for discontinuation of Israeli attacks on Lebanon, on Iran-backed Hezbollah, to specific, is not acceptable to Tel Aviv, Israel launched a fresh wave of attacks in southern Lebanon.

Israeli PMO refuted Pakistan’s claim that the ceasefire it supposedly mediated also included cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, although Lebanese President Joseph Aoun welcomed the ceasefire between Iran and the US.

Hours after the ceasefire announcement, Israeli airstrikes targeted  the Tyre and Nabatieh areas in southern Lebanon.

On Wednesday, Ibrahim Moussawi, a Hezbollah member of parliament, stressed that the Iran-US ceasefire would fall apart if the Lebanon-Israel conflict is not made a part of it. He said that if Iran does not comply with the ceasefire, both Hezbollah and Iran will launch fresh attacks.

Meanwhile, Israel has claimed that its forces targeted over 100 Hezbollah sites in 10 minutes in Lebanon on 8th April.

“In 10 minutes, the IDF completed the largest coordinated strike across Lebanon since the start of Operation Roaring Lion. The strike targeted 100+ Hezbollah headquarters, military arrays, & command-and-control centers in Beirut, Beqaa and southern Lebanon, including: • Intelligence command centers and central headquarters used planning terror attacks • Infrastructure of firepower and naval arrays, responsible for launching missiles • Assets of the Radwan Force, & the Aerial unit—Hezbollah’s elite units,” the IDF said.

Clearly, in the absence of neutral monitors and ironclad enforcement of the ceasefire, the warring nations are continuing to target each other, apparently in a bid to gain last-minute upper hand before full cessation of hostilities during the two-week reprieve. This, however, does not apply to Israel, as it does not even acknowledge any possibility of stopping the conflict in Lebanon under the US-Iran ceasefire agreement.

Gulf countries grapple with Iranian missile and drone attacks, Trump talks regime change in Iran, ‘big money’, and all things fun

While the Gulf countries have their air defence systems deployed to intercept Iranian missiles and drones despite Trump taking the “honour” of representing the Middle East, alongside representing the US, in the ceasefire engagement with Iran, the American President is busy announcing plans for making “big money” through a joint US-Iran venture in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is talking about the same Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian nation that he wanted the “crazy bastards” to open and the civilisation he declared would “die”.

The American president described the potential Iran-US economic collaboration as the beginning of a “Golden Age” of the Middle East, akin to the one America is supposedly experiencing.

In a Truth Social post published at 9:31 AM (local time) on 8th April, Trump said, “A big day for World Peace! Iran wants it to happen, they’ve had enough! Likewise, so has everyone else! The United States of America will be helping with the traffic buildup in the Strait of Hormuz. There will be lots of positive action! Big money will be made. Iran can start the reconstruction process. We’ll be loading up with supplies of all kinds, and just “hangin’ around” in order to make sure that everything goes well. I feel confident that it will. Just like we are experiencing in the U.S., this could be the Golden Age of the Middle East.”

In another Truth Social post, Trump has claimed that there will be a “regime change” in Iran and that there will be “no enrichment of Uranium”, which is a key point in Iran’s 10-point peace proposal that Trump called “workable basis for negotiations” only hours back.

“The United States will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has gone through what will be a very productive Regime Change! There will be no enrichment of Uranium, and the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried (B-2 Bombers) Nuclear “Dust.” It is now, and has been, under very exacting Satellite Surveillance (Space Force!). Nothing has been touched from the date of attack. We are, and will be, talking Tariff and Sanctions relief with Iran. Many of the 15 points have already been agreed to,” Trump wrote.

This marks an interesting shift in tone and future action plan of the American President. While the original ceasefire announcement and Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Araghchi’s statement emphasised Iran’s 10-point plan as the main framework for a ceasefire and peace talks, Trump has begun asserting Washington’s 15-point plan.

It remains to be seen how Iran and Israel would react to Trump’s claim that Iran will no longer indulge in enrichment of Uranium, essentially, giving up its nuclear ambition. While the core trigger of Israel-US joint attacks on Iran was the existential threat Iran would supposedly have posed to Israel if it acquired nuclear weapons, it seems that for Trump, Iranian oil was the main concern. Emboldened by the global silence over Trump’s takeover of the Venezuelan oil by abducting Nicholas Maduro, the American President perhaps attempted to pull off an even more spectacular show in Iran, though he seems to be failing miserably.

Trump, who wanted the Gulf countries to cover war expenses, is busy planning regime change in Iran, a joint venture for the operations in the Strait of Hormuz and beginning a ‘Golden Age’ in the West Asian nation. The Gulf countries continue to be on edge and endure Iranian attacks on their oil facilities.

The ceasefire is falling apart within hours of its announcement. Israel refuses to acknowledge a key point in Iran’s peace proposal and attacks Lebanon. Trump claims there will be no Uranium enrichment in Iran, while Iran maintains that it has “forced” the US to accept its 10-point plan and that any lasting peace would hinge on sweeping concessions outlined in its proposal.

Iran’s 10-point plan

The Iranian regime has proposed a 10-point plan to achieve a permanent resolution of the prevailing dispute and war. It is essentially maximalist and focuses on security guarantees, regional dominance, economic relief and most importantly, nuclear legitimacy. The 10 points of Iran’s proposal are:

  • A fundamental and binding US commitment to ensure no further acts of aggression against Iran.
  • Continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz with a secure transit protocol under Iran’s armed forces’ coordination.
  • Acceptance of Iran’s uranium enrichment rights for its nuclear program.
  • Lifting of all primary sanctions.
  • Lifting of all secondary sanctions.
  • Termination of all resolutions targeting Iran by the UN Security Council.
  • Termination of resolutions by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors.
  • Full payment of damages to Iran for war losses.
  • Withdrawal of US combat forces from the bases and deployment points in the region.
  • Cessation of hostilities across all fronts, including Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as attacks on “Axis of Resistance” allies.

Iran has also demanded the release of all its frozen assets abroad and a UNSC resolution to make any final peace deal binding.

Trump’s ceasefire announcement, hours after prophesying the death of the Iranian civilisation, was embarrassing, considering he was portraying himself as a victor despite the reality being otherwise. Now, the ceasefire’s falling apart is further exacerbating this embarrassment, although this time, Pakistan too has a share in it.

1...707172...7,637Page 71 of 7,637