Home Blog Page 72

Islamists and liberals play victim about ‘Muslim names’ being deleted from electoral rolls: How illegal migration is the highest in Bengal, and how their victim narrative misses the glaring truth

Shriti Sagar
-
0
Islamists and liberals play victim about ‘Muslim names’ being deleted from electoral rolls: How illegal migration is the highest in Bengal, and how their victim narrative misses the glaring truth

A major political debate has broken out in West Bengal after a large-scale revision of electoral rolls led to the deletion of nearly 90 lakh voter names. According to the latest data shared by the Election Commission of India (ECI)  on Tuesday, 7th April, a total of 27,16,393 voters were found ineligible during the final stage of scrutiny. 

Initially, the EC deleted 58.25 lakh voters who were found to be deceased, absent, shifted, or had duplicate entries in the draft rolls published last December. This alone brought the total voter base down from 7.66 crore to 7.04 crore. Following this, an additional 5 lakh names were removed from the final rolls on 28th February. This takes the overall number of deletions to just under 91 lakh.

Out of 60.06 lakh voters who were initially placed under adjudication, nearly half were found ineligible. The highest number of deletions happened in Murshidabad, a district with a high Muslim population, where over 4.55 lakh voters were found ineligible out of 11 lakh marked for adjudication. The number is obvious as the district shares a border with Bangladesh, so the highest number of illegal immigrants.  

On the other side, Jhargram saw the lowest impact with only 1,240 deletions. In Kolkata, the numbers were also significant: 39,164 names were struck off in Kolkata North, and 28,468 in Kolkata South, the very district where Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is contesting a high-profile battle against Suvendu Adhikari.

The political blame game and “targeting” narratives

As soon as these numbers hit the public domain, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government and various media organisations immediately began spinning a narrative that the Election Commission was specifically targeting Muslim voters. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee didn’t hold back, accusing the EC and the BJP-led central government of “targeted deletions.” 

During a rally in Nadia, she charged that the authorities were deliberately excluding Matuas, Rajbanshis, and minority community members to dilute their voter base. She even questioned why this “discrimination” was happening, suggesting it was a calculated move to hurt the TMC’s prospects.

This narrative was quickly amplified by certain media organisations, too. Headlines across the country began focusing exclusively on the “lakhs of Muslim voters” being removed, framing the entire administrative exercise as an Islamophobic project. 

For instance, The Siasat Daily, an Urdu newspaper from Hyderabad, published a report on Tuesday, 7th April with a striking headline: “95 pc of deleted voters are Muslims in West Bengal’s Nandigram SIR.”

Screengrab of the report

The report, citing data from a Kolkata-based research body called the Sabar Institute, claimed that in seven supplementary lists for Nandigram, Muslims accounted for 95.5% of the deletions. It pointed out that while Muslims make up only 25% of Nandigram’s population, they bore the brunt of the removals, whereas the 75% non-Muslim population saw only a 4.5% removal rate. These reports were designed to prove a “clear pattern” of targeting. 

Other outlets like The Scroll followed suit, using the same Sabar Institute data to suggest that the SIR process was fundamentally biased against the minority community.

Screengrab of the post

Thousands of Hindu voters also removed

However, a closer look at the data shows that the “Muslim-only” narrative is far from the full truth. In reality, thousands of Hindu names, specifically from the Matua-Namasudra community, have also been struck off the rolls, leading to a massive crisis for the BJP in its own strongholds. In the Bongaon Lok Sabha constituency, represented by BJP Union Minister Shantanu Thakur, voter deletion rates are among the highest in the state.

Across five assembly segments in the Matua belt, about 1.38 lakh names have been deleted. In one specific instance at Chandpara Gram Panchayat, a supplementary list deleted 183 out of 186 names, most of whom were Matuas. 

The Sabar Institute’s own analysis noted that the Matua belt had an “unmapped rate” of 7.8%, which is nearly double the state average. This suggests that these voters failed to establish a direct documentary linkage with the 2002 electoral rolls during the scrutiny process.

Even in BJP-won seats like Bagda, Bangaon Uttar, and Gaighata, tens of thousands of voters were removed. Local BJP leaders are now struggling to answer their supporters, who are asking why their names are gone if the party is in power at the Center. 

Many of these voters reportedly failed to establish proper linkage with older electoral rolls, especially the 2002 records. In some areas, deletion rates have gone as high as 7–15%, which is much higher than the state average. 

Bigger issue: illegal immigration and fake voters

At the core of this entire exercise is the issue of illegal immigration and fake voter entries. India, with Bangladesh, forms a 4095 K.M long border line, West Bengal shares 2216 km, which is more than 54%, and the people of both geographical regions are linguistically and ethnically similar. So, as an Indian state, West Bengal is highly affected by Bangladeshi infiltrators. Over the years, concerns have been raised about illegal immigrants obtaining forged documents and getting enrolled as voters.

There are ten districts of West Bengal which share a border with Bangladesh, namely North 24 Paraganas, Nadia, Murshidabad, Malda, North Dinajpur, South Dinajpur, Darjilling, Koochbihar and Jalpaiguri. People on both sides of the border are often linguistically and ethnically similar, making cross-border movement historically difficult to track. 

This has made West Bengal one of the most affected states when it comes to illegal infiltration from Bangladesh. Over the years, many such individuals living in these districts are believed to have managed to obtain local identity documents and get their names added to voter lists.

It is not a secret that West Bengal is among the states with the highest numbers of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. In the last three years, over 2600 Bangladeshi nationals were apprehended and sent back to Bangladesh.

It is a simple matter of logic: if an exercise is designed to weed out people living in India illegally with fake papers, and the worst infiltration is happening in Bengal, then obviously a large number of deleted names will be those of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.

This isn’t a “conspiracy” against a religion; it’s an administrative crackdown on a long-standing problem.

The fear factor: Illegal immigrants fleeing the border

The most telling evidence that the SIR is working isn’t found in a spreadsheet, but at the border. Ever since the ECI announced the house-to-house enumeration for the second phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in November last year, a sense of panic has gripped illegal settlements. Viral videos on social media have shown groups of people carrying bags and luggage, heading back toward the Bangladesh border at checkposts like Hakimpur (Basirhat).

Reports from DD News and social media clips show individuals who had been living in India illegally for 5, 7, or even 10 years suddenly deciding to leave. Some of them openly admitted on camera that they had no documents and were staying here illegally. One man revealed he lived in Birati, near the Kolkata airport, but had no papers and was fleeing because he feared the stricter verification process. Others were working as taxi drivers or in brick kilns, having blended into the local population with the help of forged IDs.

In one such video, people openly admitted that they had been living in India without documents. When asked, one woman said, “No,” when questioned about having any papers, and confirmed she had been working in India despite being undocumented. Another man admitted, “Yes,” when asked if he was staying illegally.

Many of them were reportedly working in sectors like construction, transport, and small businesses, blending into local communities over the years.

This sudden exodus proves that the fear of being caught during a door-to-door verification is real. For years, political patronage and the “secular” shield allowed these illegal residents to stay and vote. But with the EC taking a firm stand and demanding documentary proof linked back to 2002, the game is up for many.

In conclusion, while the media focuses on “targeted deletions” and political parties use the SIR to play victim, the reality is much more straightforward. The electoral rolls in West Bengal were heavily inflated by illegal immigrants and fake entries. 

The current deletion of 91 lakh names is a necessary, albeit painful, surgery to ensure that only legitimate Indian citizens decide the future of the state. Whether it’s a Muslim in Murshidabad or a Matua in Bongaon, if you can’t prove your residency, your name doesn’t belong on the list. It’s about the law, not the label.

From “regime change” to retreat: How Iran outmanoeuvred the US in the West Asia war as ceasefire hands strategic edge to Tehran

Rukma Rathore
-
0
From “regime change” to retreat: How Iran outmanoeuvred the US in the West Asia war as ceasefire hands strategic edge to Tehran

On 28th February, a major conflict erupted in the Middle East due to the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which was carried out by a joint operation of the United States and Israel. The subsequent events resulted in a considerable military escalation between the two parties, a severe disruption of the global energy supply chain, and a sequence of attacks and counterattacks, accompanied by violent threats. However, the growing tensions appeared to be temporarily halted after more than a month by a fragile two-week ceasefire announced between Washington and Tehran on 7th April (Tuesday).

Drone raids and missile strikes in the Middle East have currently ceased as the Americans accepted Iran’s Supreme National Security Council’s 10-point proposal, which specified broad demands ranging from sanctions relief to military withdrawal and control over the “Strait of Hormuz.”

Notably, the development occurred just hours after President Donald Trump threatened, “A whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” insinuating a more aggressive course of action. However, his administration has made a dramatic U-turn from its previously tough stance.

Trump even claimed to have achieved “complete and total regime change, where different, smarter, and less radicalised minds prevail”, which could potentially lead to “revolutionary” and “wonderful” occurrences. “We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World,” he added. The

It is evident that the recent declaration has not only invalidated all the president’s chest-thumping and repeated assertions of having the upper hand, but also shed light on the confusion surrounding his policy decisions in the confrontation. More importantly, Iran has emerged as a much stronger and, at least for the moment, the dominant rival, as the United States caved in to the pressure after making contrary statements earlier.

The tenuous peace agreement: America’s loss and Iran’s gain

Iran emphasised in a strong statement that the dispute has merely paused rather than resolved, and the future hinges on the complete recognition of its “workable” expectations, which are:

The offensive against Iran must end entirely and permanently, with no time limit: Iran wants an official commitment of non-aggression. It is not looking for a temporary suspension, but a binding guarantee that Washington will not launch another assault on the country. This is articulated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) backed “mullah government,” labelled as “radical” by Trump before agreeing to a compromise with them.

The “regime change” initiative he proudly touted has failed spectacularly, as no civilian government has assumed authority. On the other hand, Tehran, with its longstanding power structure, both political and military, has fortified its position and risen as the superior contender in the fight.

The war in the region, including Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, must end permanently: Iran has called for a ceasefire to be enforced across all fronts, including “heroic Islamic Resistance of Lebanon,” where Hezbollah, Israel’s sworn enemy, is located. The group is backed by the Iranian government and has consistently launched strikes on the Jewish state even during the present altercation.

“Iran no longer poses a nuclear, missile and terror threat to America, Israel, Iran’s Arab neighbours and the world,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office stated while welcoming the truce, but stressed that it “does not include Lebanon.” The noticeable differences between the two close allies, Washington and Tel Aviv, have transpired during the crucial period, clearly benefiting Iran.

Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz: The crucial chokepoint transports roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and was closed by Tehran to retaliate against the United States, taking oil prices to over $100. Afterwards, Trump pleaded, threatened, mocked and even lambasted North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) partners for their refusal to send warships to the area for security; however, they declined.

It is going to be reopened following the formation of “a safe transit protocol”, but will remain under Iran’s shadow, which indicates that the waterway could be shut down again at the regime’s discretion. The United States has not succeeded in weakening the West Asian nation’s potential to jeopardise or impact the most important energy passage, even after the deadly campaign. Trump has been unable to ensure a continuous supply of fuel to the world, despite promising.

Removal of all primary and secondary sanctions: The US will lift both primary and secondary sanctions imposed on Iran. The latter are especially crucial as they target non-Iranian companies that operate with Tehran, effectively forcing them to take a stance in an unrelated conflict. The removal of these sanctions would signify a major transformation in how the US applies economic pressure.

This move sends a significant message to the global community, as US sanctions have been employed as a vital instrument by Washington targeting nations it perceives as “threats” to the “world order.” It is also important to highlight that the US previously eased the restrictions on Iranian oil to mitigate the energy crisis, thus delivering a victory to the Islamic nation amid the conflict.

Iran has also called for the repeal of all resolutions passed by the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council. Its nuclear program has been observed and examined through the IAEA. “It is to be noted that the adoption of such a resolution shall render all these agreements binding under international law and shall constitute a significant diplomatic victory for the Iranian nation,” highlighted the Islamic Republic.

The right to Uranium enrichment: For decades, Iran’s “Uranium enrichment” has been at the centre of the standoff between these adversaries. Its stockpile of enriched uranium has neither been confiscated, destroyed, nor moved. The issue that prompted international concern remains unresolved. Meanwhile, the country has assured that it would refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons, but it has asked for formal acknowledgement of its uranium enrichment program, seeking approval of the right rather than a limitation. It has surfaced as yet another massive setback to the American goals in the war.

Full reimbursement to Iran for the costs of reconstruction: Iran attacked the Middle Eastern countries, their infrastructure and the US bases in the region, in a striking illustration of its capacity to eliminate long-range objectives well beyond its borders. Its missile forces, air defence networks and command structures were functional despite the protracted armed struggle. The downing of modern American jets, likewise, was a testament to its military prowess.

US air defence reserves were reportedly depleted and had to invest a lot of money in interceptors in the Gulf due to the intensity of Iranian missile and drone hits, as systems from Pacific allocations were taken out. Worries were expressed by US partners throughout the globe over the fall in advanced weapons.

Moreover, Tehran did not try to use sheer volume to tackle the defences of its nemesis but even mounted a counter-sensor endeavour, focusing on the fire-control and detection apparatus designed to support the defensive architecture as a whole unit.

Of course, Iran incurred losses, and the Trump administration is set to compensate for the destruction caused to the country, and, certainly, the funds will not solely be used to repair damaged roads and buildings. The regime is amusingly making Americans shoulder the financial expenses of the war.

Conclusion

A verbal spat has existed between Trump and Iran since the onset of the tensions. He persistently argued that the latter was yearning for him to broker a deal and cease military operations against them. He even fluctuated between the ultimate aim of the war, from insisting on “regime change” to clarifying that it was not on the agenda. The Iranians ridiculed him and challenged his comments regarding their submission to American might.

However, at present, Trump has proven to be much more eager to negotiate a ceasefire, opposing his own prophecy of the “end of a civilisation.” He has not only negated his lofty vows but has offered Tehran an opportunity to maximise its benefits and capitalise on the war, as the US utterly failed to meet any of its outlined purposes.

“This does not mean an end to the war, and Iran will accept an end to the war only when, in view of its acceptance of the principles envisaged in the 10-point plan, its details are also finalised in the negotiations,” the statement from the regime should adequately show who has been in command of the situation throughout and in the aftermath.

Last to strike, first to win: The quiet revolution that made India’s Navy a global force

Divyansh Tiwari
-
0
Last to strike, first to win: The quiet revolution that made India’s Navy a global force

On April 1, 2026, during a Naval Investiture Ceremony in Mumbai, Indian Navy Chief Admiral Dinesh K. Tripathi revealed a bombshell unrelated to the ceremony. ‘It is not a hidden fact anymore that we were just minutes away from striking Pakistan from sea, when they requested the stoppage of kinetic actions,’ he declared quietly but firmly in front of a hall packed with distinguished officers and naval personnel.

The hush that followed was telling. The Admiral was referring to Operation Sindoor, which was India’s tri-services military reaction to the terror attack that killed 26 civilians in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, in April 2025. Sindoor, which was initiated on May 7, 2025, was designed as a targeted and punitive effort to destroy terrorist infrastructure both inside Pakistan and over the Line of Control. However, in the midst of the precision artillery and airstrikes, something else was taking on, far from the public eye, the Indian Navy had positioned itself in the Arabian Sea, weapons hot, and was just seconds away from a sea-based strike that could have drastically altered the history of the Indian subcontinent.

Pakistan requested that the operation be halted. The Indian Navy backed off. However, the world is now aware of how near it was. For ages, military, legal experts, and governments have struggled with this crucial strategic question: Why is the Navy usually the last force to be unleashed, and what happens when it is? The answer encompasses military doctrine, international law, catastrophic logistics, human cost, and, in India’s case, a decade of quiet but tremendous maritime transformation.

Understanding the arena: What kind of war are we talking about?

Understanding what we mean by ‘armed conflict‘ is necessary before we can comprehend why the Navy waits. This is because not all wars are the same, and international law handles them very differently.

The traditional state versus state conflict is known as an International Armed Conflict (IAC). Consider the Gulf War or the 1971 India-Pakistan War. Complete international humanitarian law is applicable under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Both sides must refrain from attacking hospitals or other protected areas, protect civilians, and treat prisoners humanely.

Conflicts between armed groups within a state or between a state and a non-state armed group, such as a terrorist organisation, are referred to as non-international armed conflicts (NIAC). Operation Sindoor, which was purposefully and strategically presented as an attack on terrorist infrastructure rather than Pakistani state forces, operated in an impasse of law between these two groups.

Operation Sindoor was cautious when walking this line. The fact that India’s attacks were directed against terror camps rather than Pakistani Army troops is relevant from a legal standpoint. It conveyed a message: we are not at war with your country, but we will not allow your land to be used for terrorist activity.

Two fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law (IHL) are proportionality and military necessity. Any attack must not result in an excessive number of civilian casualties and must be proportionate to the military gain sought. This is where naval warfare becomes more important and complicated from a legal standpoint.

A cruise missile launched from a destroyer in the Arabian Sea can travel over 700 kilometres and kill a target with surgical precision. However, if the target is near a populated port city, the effects are far-reaching; civilian shipping channels are blocked, coastal economies are paralysed, and international neutral parties (including ships from third countries) may be caught in the crossfire.

The laws of naval warfare

Most individuals are familiar with the Geneva Conventions. Far fewer people are aware of the exact regulations that govern maritime combat, and these are extremely important.

The San Remo manual

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, adopted in June 1994 after six years of deliberation by international lawyers and naval experts, is described as the only comprehensive international instrument that has been drafted on the law of naval warfare since 1913. The Manual codifies customary international law by integrating existing legal norms for naval conflict with the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Protocol I of 1977.

The manual is rather difficult. The law of naval warfare is divided into three major categories: international humanitarian law that applies at sea, maritime neutrality law, and prize law. IHL applied at sea oversees conflicts and the protection of people from the effects of armed conflict at sea, including regulations on weapons and methods of combat, as well as the treatment of the sick, wounded, and shipwrecked.

It states that naval troops cannot target civilian vessels, hospital ships, or vessels transporting humanitarian aid. Prior to firing on commerce vessels, warnings must be issued. It prevents neutral countries’ exclusive economic zones from becoming inadvertent battlegrounds. Furthermore, it requires belligerents to evaluate the impact of naval mines, blockades, and missile strikes on the global civilian maritime environment.

This is not a theory. Approximately 95% of India’s external trade by volume and 77% by value passes through Indian Ocean maritime routes. A naval conflict in the Arabian Sea threatens not only Pakistan but also the global supply system.

The neutral ship problem

One of the most underrated issues of naval combat is what legal experts refer to as the neutral ship problem. On any given day, the Arabian Sea is home to hundreds of vessels, including Saudi tankers, Chinese container ships, Omani fishing trawlers, and Qatari LNG carriers. When naval missiles start flying, everyone is at risk.

States and other maritime entities must traverse a complicated legal framework in a maritime environment that has evolved considerably since its conception. Recent attacks on civilian ships and ports have highlighted the serious humanitarian ramifications for seafarers and the global community of states, which rely greatly on open and secure sea lines of communication.

Admiral Tripathi emphasised this point during the event, stating that the seas have arisen as new battlegrounds. We have gathered here at a time when the global order is distinguished by increasing fragmentation and tension. In such a scenario, the seas are no longer secondary battlegrounds where continental battles spill over. Instead, they are becoming the primary place where strategic purpose is signalled and debated, frequently with disproportionate consequences.

This is why fleets have greater legal and geopolitical weight than land forces. A tank breaching a boundary infringes sovereignty. A naval strike in contested international waters can disrupt global trade.

Reasons why the Navy is almost always the last resort

Throughout history, throughout centuries and continents, fleets have typically been the last, not the first, card to be played.

The logistics of Leviathan

One of the most logistically challenging tasks in human civilisation is the deployment of an aircraft carrier combat group. An aircraft carrier, two guided-missile cruisers, two or three destroyers, a submarine, and a supply ship usually make up a single carrier group, which employs about 7,500 personnel to run what is effectively a floating city.

Satellites, reconnaissance aircraft, and naval intelligence networks can see a carrier battle group as soon as it is sent near a hostile coastline. Every country in the area, as well as a few outside of it, instantly adjusts their strategic stance. Because of the automatic escalation ladder created by this visibility, carriers are frequently referred to as the most lethal diplomatic instruments on the planet. ‘When a crisis breaks out, the first question asked in Washington is where are the carriers?’ American strategists have often joked.

However, that visibility is a limitation as well. Pulling back without accomplishing anything when in an aggressive stance is perceived as weakness. Unintentional war is a risk of moving forward. As a result, the Navy establishes a threshold that is extremely difficult to retreat from once crossed, making its deployment a decision that needs to be made with extreme caution.

Nuclear shadow

Another existential reason for caution in the India-Pakistan relationship is that both countries possess nuclear weapons. The psychological calculus entirely shifts when a naval strike occurs in a Pakistani port, such as when an Indian submarine launches a BrahMos missile into Karachi harbour.

Pakistan’s nuclear policy is purposefully vague. Pakistan has made references to the potential for tactical nuclear use in the event that its conventional military forces are overpowered, in contrast to India, which upholds a ‘No First Use’ policy. That calculation might be triggered by a naval blockade of Karachi, Pakistan’s economic lifeline.

This isn’t speculative. When US naval ships imposing a blockade of Cuba depth-charged a Soviet submarine whose captain was authorised to deploy a nuclear torpedo, they came within hours of starting a nuclear exchange during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Vasili Arkhipov, the political officer of the submarine, declined to approve the launch. One man’s decision allowed the world to survive. This shadow is always present during naval standoffs with nuclear-armed adversaries.

The damage is extraordinary and irreversible.

A surgical air strike is not the same as a sea-based strike. The damage was limited to a few sites in a hilly border region when India’s air force attacked terror camps in Balakot in 2019. During Operation Trident in 1971, the Indian Navy sank Pakistani destroyers and fuel tanks, causing weeks of long repercussions. Over half of Karachi’s fuel reserves were destroyed, warehouses and naval workshops were destroyed, the Pakistani economy suffered, and the Pakistan Navy’s operations along the western coast were hampered. Over $3 billion was estimated to have been damaged.

Naval attacks have an impact on ports, which have an impact on trade, which has an impact on civilian populations located far from any military target. Because of this precedent, blockades that starve civilian populations are prohibited in the San Remo Manual. The damage potential has increased by an order of magnitude with today’s hypersonic missiles, submarine-launched cruise missiles, and carrier-based strike planes. This is precisely what makes these weapons so powerful as deterrents and so disastrous if they are actually employed.

The human cost at sea is uniquely terrible

There is something especially tragic about maritime casualties. The crew of a vessel has nowhere to go when it is sunk in battle. The Pakistani destroyer PNS Khaibar, carrying 222 sailors, sank in the Arabian Sea during Operation Trident. India lost INS Khukri to a Pakistani submarine during the same conflict; 192 personnel perished along with the ship. In the greatest traditions of naval service, the ship’s skipper, skipper MN Mulla, heroically refused evacuation and perished along with his crew.

Naval conflicts are frequently cruel binary events, survive or sink, in contrast to terrestrial combat, where soldiers have the option to withdraw, surrender, or be evacuated. A single warship loss can result in the loss of billions of dollars’ worth of equipment, the deaths of hundreds of skilled sailors, and a severe blow to the country’s morale. Admirals around the world advise political leaders to consider all other options before putting their fleet in danger just for this cause.

A naval strike is a statement to the entire world, not just the enemy

Aggression occurs when an army crosses a border. An air force attack is considered retaliation. However, since everyone owns the sea, when a navy moves into an offensive position in international waters and starts firing, it simultaneously sends a signal to all maritime nations.

China observes. The US keeps an eye on things. Saudi Arabia keeps an eye on the waters that any Indian naval force must go through in order to reach Pakistani ports. The countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which have a strong stake in the stability of the Arabian Sea, observe. The moment India’s naval troops fire on Pakistan from the sea, it becomes a worldwide event with unforeseen diplomatic implications. Because of this, the Navy is kept in reserve until the very last minute and utilised as a deterrent long before it is ever used as a weapon.

History’s classroom: What previous naval standoffs taught us

The Falkland War (1982)

Argentina invaded the British Falkland Islands in April 1982. Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister, had to decide whether to send a naval task force 13,000 kilometres across the Atlantic to recover the islands or negotiate and accept a fait accompli. The islands were too far away for ground forces to reach without naval power projection; the navy was the only choice. Two warships, two frigates, and a container ship were lost by Britain. 323 men were killed when Argentina lost a cruiser, the General Belgrano. The sinking of the Belgrano, which took place outside the British exclusion zone and sparked an ongoing worldwide discussion concerning naval rules of engagement, is still regarded as one of the most contentious naval operations of the modern era.

The lesson is that once committed at that size, a naval force is extremely difficult to control. After the task force sailed, Britain was unable to scale back.

Operation Trident and Python (1971)

The most instructive instance comes from India’s own history. During the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, the Indian Navy conducted Operation Trident, an onslaught against Pakistan’s port city of Karachi. On the evening of December 4-5, anti-ship missiles were used in action for the first time in the area.

With SSN 2B Styx surface-to-surface missiles manufactured in the Soviet Union, three Indian missile boats, INS Nipat, INS Nirghat, and INS Veer, raced for Karachi harbour. The first Styx missile was fired by INS Nirghat at the Pakistani destroyer PNS Khaibar. The ship activated its anti-aircraft systems, believing it to be an Indian aircraft missile. When the missile struck the ship, the first boiler room exploded.

Pakistan’s Armed Forces Command was taken aback by the attack’s total surprise. Four nights later, more of Pakistan’s fleet tanker capacity was destroyed by the Indian Navy’s Operation Python. The strike destroyed more than half of Karachi’s fuel supplies. For the duration of the conflict, the Pakistan Navy was essentially contained in the safe haven of Karachi Harbour. Bangladesh’s formation marked the conclusion of the war in 13 days.

In remembrance of Operation Trident, India observes December 4 as Navy Day.

The USS Cole and the limits of deterrence

17 American sailors were killed, and 39 were injured in a suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden in October 2000. Al-Qaeda’s raid illustrated a lesson as ancient as naval warfare: asymmetric tactics may put a strong navy at risk. For a generation, American Navy policy was altered by the psychological effects of witnessing a billion-dollar warship, a guided missile destroyer, almost sunk by a little boat loaded with explosives.

India can learn a valuable lesson that using naval forces in an offensive stance carries some danger. Pakistan has midget attack vessels, coastal missile batteries, and submarines. In the Arabian Sea, a standoff is never entirely one-sided.

How the Indian Navy was quietly rebuilt

Admiral Tripathi was able to confidently state in front of his men that the Indian Navy was minutes away from attacking Pakistan for a reason. Through a combination of political will, financial commitment, and an ambitious concept of indigenous production, that confidence was developed over the past ten years, ship by ship and submarine by submarine. It was not inherited.

From a coastal force to a Blue water navy

India’s Navy was the poor cousin of the armed forces for many years after independence. It was underfunded, ill-equipped, and frequently neglected by military strategists who prioritised land. The Air Force received the glamour, while the Army controlled the defence budget. As a result, the fleet was unable to challenge a rival in broad waters, let alone project force beyond India’s near coastline.

That started to change, and the shift has accelerated significantly. With resources and aspirations that now rival those of all but the biggest world powers, the Indian Navy has become one of the most important forces in the Indo-Pacific.

Floating aircraft and strategic power

India’s aircraft carrier program is the most obvious representation of its naval aspirations. Only a few countries on Earth have two entire carrier combat groups, as India now has.

INS Vikramaditya, originally constructed in Russia, was purchased and renovated for $2.3 billion. Since 2014, Vikramaditya has been in operation. It is equipped with Ka-28 anti-submarine helicopters, Kamov-31 airborne early warning helicopters, and MiG-29K fighters. On June 14, 2014, it was dedicated to the nation.

Launched on September 2, 2022, INS Vikrant is the largest warship ever built in India and the nation’s first aircraft carrier to be built domestically. It was designed by the Indian Navy’s Warship Design Bureau and constructed at Cochin Shipyard Limited. It represents the potential, resources, and talents of indigenous people. For the first time, India had two complete Carrier Battle Groups when INS Vikrant reached full operational status in November 2023. The Indian Navy’s offensive deterrent posture during Operation Sindoor was centred on INS Vikrant and its Carrier Battle Group.

Both carriers took part in the historic Milan 2024 international naval exercise, deploying MiG-29K fighters at the same time, marking the first time dual carriers operated together.

The submarine surge: India’s hidden fist

If India’s aircraft carrier is its visible sword, its submarine is its covert dagger, and it is currently sharper than it has ever been.

India quietly commissioned INS Aridhaman, its third nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, at a naval facility in Kerala just three days ago, on April 3, 2026. The third Arihant-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine in the Indian Navy is called INS Aridhaman (SSBN 82), which translates to ‘Vanquisher of Foes’ in Sanskrit. The 7,000-ton ship was constructed at the Ship Building Centre in Visakhapatnam as part of the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) project. Attending the commissioning event, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said in Hindi, ‘It’s not words but power, Aridaman.’ To put it simply, INS Aridhaman can reach almost any city on the subcontinent from somewhere in the Bay of Bengal or the Arabian Sea without ever being seen.

In terms of indigenous competence, the Arihant class program has gradually changed. About 70% of the content in INS Arihant (S2), which was commissioned in 2016, was indigenous. This was enhanced to about 75% with the induction of INS Arighaat (S3) in August 2024, and it has increased to about 85% with INS Aridhaman. Indian Defence Research Wing Launched at Visakhapatnam in October 2024, the fourth vessel, which is anticipated to be named INS Arisudan (Slayer of Enemies), is presently undergoing sea trials and is anticipated to be commissioned in 2027. Up to 90% of the content is anticipated to be indigenous, which would be the highest level of localisation in India’s nuclear submarine program to date.

In addition to the Arihant class, India is now developing the next generation of S5-class submarines, which are anticipated to displace approximately 13,500 tons, or nearly twice the size of the Arihant class. The first two S5 SSBNs are currently under construction, and four of the class are anticipated to be put into service by the late 2030s.

In terms of infrastructure, Project Varsha on the eastern coast of India is building reinforced underground pens for nuclear submarines to expand an existing submarine station south of Visakhapatnam. The project is anticipated to be operational by 2026. With the use of this new base, India’s submarines will be able to undertake deterrence patrols in fortified areas and sneak into the Bay of Bengal while avoiding satellite surveillance.

It is impossible to overestimate the strategic importance of all of this. Along with the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and China, India is now one of a few countries that develop, produce, and use nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. That is a small club, and India’s membership is completely due to local engineering.

By guaranteeing that at least one SSBN is constantly on patrol, the commissioning of INS Aridhaman enhances India’s position of continuous at-sea deterrence. Now, more than 200 local MSMEs are supporting the SSBN program by providing previously imported high-yield specialised steel, cutting-edge electronics, sonar systems, and other vital components.

The visible punch of Operation Sindoor is concealed by this fist. Pakistan knew that India’s submarines were waiting somewhere beneath the Arabian Sea, silent, invisible, and prepared, when they requested a halt.

The strategic doctrine shift: Pragmatic, Proactive, Lethal

Over the last ten years, doctrine has evolved in addition to hardware. India’s military forces now adopt a more proactive, joint force paradigm instead of a reactive, border-protection stance. The appointment of the Chief of Defence Staff, the establishment of integrated theatre commands that unify Army, Navy, and Air Force operational planning, and the formation of tri-services commands are examples of this.

Hypersonic missiles, contemporary precision artillery, domestic drones, artificial intelligence for battlefield awareness, and a new space warfare doctrine, with a focus on surface and submarine naval expansion, are all part of India’s 15 year military modernization plan, which was unveiled following Operation Sindoor.

During Operation Sindoor, the Navy conducted simultaneous humanitarian operations, deployed quickly, maintained an aggressive posture for weeks, and remained prepared to strike. Admiral Tripathi also emphasised the Navy’s wider responsibility, citing Operation Sagar Bandhu in Sri Lanka and Operation Brahma in Myanmar as instances of maintaining India’s dedication as a First Responder in the area. That is a significantly different type of military capability than India had even ten years ago.

Conclusion

Admiral Tripathi’s revelation during the Naval Investiture Ceremony was not boastful. It served as a lesson on the realities of contemporary deterrence.

There was no firing from the Indian Navy. However, Pakistan was aware that it could. According to the Navy chief, Pakistan’s call for a pause in military activities came as Indian troops were preparing for possible confrontation, forcing a strategic decision to cease further kinetic moves in favour of de-escalation. More potent than any missile was the warning conveyed by the deployment of two carrier battle groups, nuclear-capable submarines, and surface combatants armed with BrahMos. ‘We have the means, we have the will, and we have restraint, but restraint has limits. Navies are therefore the last option.’

They are too strong to use recklessly, not because they are weak. Every escalation ladder, legal, political, economic, and existential, is activated concurrently by naval warfare. Not only may a naval strike destroy a ship, but it can also impede trade, destabilise international seas, lead to neutral party involvement, and, in a neighbourhood with nuclear weapons, raise the possibility of civilizational repercussions.

With homegrown carriers, cutting-edge submarines, hypersonic-capable platforms, and an aggressive deterrence strategy, India’s Navy has been rebuilt over the past ten years to become a truly blue water force. As a result, it now has the capability and legitimacy to actually pose a threat. Operation Sindoor provided a glimpse of that to the globe. The Navy was last. It was ready. And that preparation, that quiet, patient, terrible readiness, is exactly what matters.

The Telegraph UK’s Samaan Lateef spins ‘colonial purge’ lie to demolition of 115-year-old Elphinstone Road Overbridge in Mumbai: Read about his pro-Pakistan shenanigans

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
The Telegraph UK’s Samaan Lateef spins ‘colonial purge’ lie to demolition of 115-year-old Elphinstone Road Overbridge in Mumbai: Read about his pro-Pakistan shenanigans

The Telegraph, a UK-based media outlet, has for the past few years been consistently pushing anti-India narratives and platforming brown sepoys for the pursuance of this sinister agenda. In continuation of weaving a misleading narrative to tarnish India’s image, The Telegraph gave the demolition of Mumbai’s 112-115-year-old Elphinstone Road Overbridge a ‘British colonial legacy purge’ spin. The propaganda piece headlined, “India demolishes British-built bridge in purge of colonial legacy”, is authored by a Mumbai-based Kashmiri journalist, Samaan Lateef.

Telegraph UK peddles misinformation that the Elphinstone Bridge was demolished ‘overnight’ in a “purge of British Colonial legacy”

In the article published on 6th April 2026, Samaan Lateef wrote, “The Elphinstone Road Overbridge, which was built in Mumbai in 1913, was knocked down overnight as India continued to purge its colonial legacy.”

The tone of Lateef’s article suggests that the Indian authorities committed a sin by demolishing a century-old British colonial regime-built bridge by giving the excuse that it has “outlived its utility”.

Built in 1911-1913, the Elphinstone Bridge was a British Colonial era road-over-rail structure connecting Parel and Prabhadevi in Central Mumbai. The bridge was named after John Elphinstone, the 19th-century governor of Bombay. The Elphinstone Bridge carried heavy traffic over Central Railway tracks. Due to continued usage, the bridge suffered from structural wear and corrosion, offered limited capacity, and required accommodation of the new elevated corridor, which drove the decision to demolish it.

Notably, the bridge was demolished to make way for a modern four-lane double-decker flyover as part of the 4.5 km Sewri-Worli Elevated Connector project. This will link the iconic Bandra-Worli Sea Link and Atal Setu, forming a signal-free east-west corridor. It would widen the bridge, raise its height, and significantly improve traffic flow in one of Mumbai’s most congested areas.

Contrary to The Telegraph and Samaan Lateef’s narrative that the British-era Elphinstone Bridge was “knocked down” overnight, the demolition process, in reality, was conducted in multiple phases, with the final stretch recently completed.

In fact, the demolition process faced repeated delays owing to local residents’ protests in 2025 over the relocation and rehabilitation of families from nearby chawls and buildings. The Elphinstone Bridge was neither ‘knocked down’ overnight, nor was there any politics involved.

Moreover, the project is executed by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and MahaRail at an estimated cost of Rs 167 crore for the double-decker portion. Both MMRDA and MahaRail are Maharashtra state agencies, and the directive to demolish the Elphinstone Bridge did not directly come from the Modi government in the Centre, with specific instructions to erase colonial symbols.

The British-era bridge’s demolition was nothing but a standard infrastructure renewal. Several countries have, in the past, demolished ageing bridges regardless of their historical origin and the supposed nostalgia attached, when they no longer align with modern capacity and safety standards.

Samaan Lateef, however, serving as a true brown sepoy, inserted the “colonial purge” bogey into a routine traffic and connectivity project and related demolition.

“Since Narendra Modi was elected prime minister in 2014, India has renamed many places and dismantled much infrastructure redolent of the British legacy,” Lateef wrote.

The author also listed previous moves by the Modi government aimed at ending the unnecessary continuation of the British colonial legacy. Be it the removal of the bust of Edwin Lutyens (whom Telegraph article names Edward Lutyens), the chief architect of New Delhi, “purging” British military portraits from Rashtrapati Bhavan, scrapping colonial-era railway uniforms, renaming places, or the adoption of new ensign for the Indian Navy inspired by the seal of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, ‘erasing’ the St George’s cross, these changes were made with unambiguous declaration that they meant for shedding the unwarranted burden of British colonial legacy.

However, Samaan Lateef decided to link the Elphinstone Bridge demolition with the Modi government’s justified decisions to shed the colonial past, in an apparent attempt at creating clickbait and stoking hatred and backlash against ‘Modi’s India’.

Interestingly, if we go by The Telegraph’s logic of ‘colonial legacy purge’, even the UK has constructed multiple motorways, parkways be it M25 London Orbital Motorway, A1139 Frank Perkins Parkway in Peterborough, Multiple A-roads and motorways, among other structures by destroying Roman-era roads, villas and settlements, as per the contemporary requirements. Would Telegraph apply the same lens in its home country and label such demolitions as Britain’s purge on Roman-era legacy?

Samaan Lateef pushing anti-India and pro-Pakistan narratives

Coming back to Samaan Lateef’s anti-India shenanigans, this is not the first time that Samaan Lateef has indulged in clickbait journalism to embarrass India globally and push anti-India narratives.

In January 2026, Lateef wrote an article for The Telegraph, headlined: The Pakistani Thunder fighter jet air forces are lining up to buy. Evident from the propaganda piece’s headline itself, Lateef’s article carried a certain amount of excitement in the imaginary surge in buyer interest in Pakistan’s JF-17 Thunder fighter jet.

Comparing it to India’s French-manufactured Rafale fighter jets, Lateef wrote, “Low in cost, high in performance, the jets were tested in combat against India as the two nuclear powers went to war in May. The JF-17 excelled against India’s French-made Rafales, and now other countries are lining up to buy their own.”

However, while Lateef claimed that Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iraq and Libya were interested in buying Pakistan’s JF-17, Indonesia denied any such commitment, while except Libya, none of the other countries named have demonstrated any explicit interest or given official confirmation regarding the finalisation of any deal to procure the Pakistani fighter jet.

Almost expressing glee over the 2019 capture of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman by Pakistani forces during a short conflict, Lateef attributed his swift return to India to Chinese and American intervention. He even describes India’s Jammu and Kashmir as “Indian-administered Kashmir”.

This came even as a former Pakistani senator, Ayaz Sadiq, who also served as a member of the Pakistan National Assembly and a leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (N), admitted that  Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi had said that India would attack Pakistan if they don’t return Abhinandan.

Replying to the allegations of bowing before India in returning the captured IAF pilot, Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Ali Muhammad Khan said that leaders of all the parties had agreed to the decision. He said that he was also present in the meeting, which was attended by leaders of the Muslim League (Nawaj), Pakistan People’s Party’s Asif Ali Zardari, and other opposition parties. The minister didn’t deny the claims made by Ayaz Sadiq that Pakistan had feared an attack by India.

Lateef also cited the purchase of 3 JF-17 Thunder fighter jets by Nigeria; however, he did not mention the fact that Nigeria sidelined the Pakistani-manufactured jets due to “sluggish manoeuvrability, limited avionics, outdated radars, frequent glitches and maintenance nightmares.”

Similarly, while Lateef attributed the delay in the supply of JF-17 jets to Myanmar to the sanctions on the military junta, in reality, Myanmar received deliveries but reported technical faults and structural cracks, which, much to Pakistan’s embarrassment, Pakistani engineers could not fix. Myanmar then pivoted to Russian Su-30s.

The narrative concocted by Samaan Lateef in the British media outlet was then amplified by the Pakistani media and other ISPR-trained and planted Pakistani journalists in Western media outlets. The Telegraph article’s rapid, uncoordinated cascade of announcements, “countries lining up to buy Pakistani jets” bogey, reeked of classic state propaganda, perfectly timed to counter India’s Rafale acquisitions, and rising interest in purchase of India’s battle-tested weaponry post Operation Sindoor, wherein Indian forces pounded Pakistan in the aftermath of Pahalgam Islamic terror attack and stopped after achieving desired objectives.

Samaan Lateef’s limerence for Pakistan was also seen during Operation Sindoor in May 2025. Lateef has written a story for The Telegraph, which the newspaper had to retract. In the story headlined “India sends warships to Karachi after more clashes”, Lateef falsely claimed that  New Delhi had deployed a large fleet targeting the Karachi port, which handles 60% of Pakistan’s foreign trade. It also stated that India had sent warships equipped with supersonic cruise missiles following border clashes between the two nuclear powers.

Several media outlets reported the Karachi port blast, and social media also readily picked it up. The Indian authorities had denied any such deployments.

In another article published on 10th May, Samaan Lateef claimed that “Pakistan ‘committed’ to ceasefire amid allegations of violations by both sides.” In another, he gave full credit for the ceasefire to the United States, writing, “How US helped pull India and Pakistan back from all-out war

This came even as the Indian government made it clear that the ceasefire agreement was arrived at between India and Pakistan only after Pakistan approached the Indian DGMO, and that no third-party involvement was heeded.  Lateef’s reporting essentially attempted to undermine India’s credibility on the international stage.

In another anti-India article, Samaan Lateef described the torpedoing of Iran’s naval warship IRIS Dena by the US amidst the ongoing war in March this year, as the ‘shattering’ of the “illusion of Indian power.”

“When India bade them farewell, it appeared a successful gathering for the 18 foreign warships from 84 countries, exemplifying the event’s slogans “Bridges Through Friendship” and “United Through Oceans”. But one delegation was not there to make friends,” he wrote.

In sharp contrast to the reality, Samaan Lateef presented the sinking of IRIS Dena as India’s ‘betrayal’ against Iran. Throwing his weight behind ‘analysts’, Lateef wrote, “the brazen strike not only showed the vulnerability of Iranian assets around the world, but served as an affront to India after it graciously welcomed its guests, only for one of them to be blown up on the way home.”

Lateef portrayed the sinking of the IRIS Dena in the Indian Ocean as India’s ‘humiliating failure’ to protect the Iranian frigate that participated in India’s MILAN 2026 naval exercise. This alarming misrepresentation came even as the ship was operating approximately 20 nautical miles west of Galle, within the SAR region under Sri Lankan responsibility, nowhere near India’s territorial waters. Despite this, India had offered sanctuary to IRIS Dena three days before it was torpedoed by a US submarine. Just because IRIS Dena partook in an Indian naval exercise, the Indian Navy was not obliged to provide a safe escort to the Iranian warship all the way back home. India could only have extended a humanitarian hand in the form of search and rescue operations, which the Indian Navy was already conducting.

India has, since the war between the joint Israel-US front against Iran erupted, provided refuge to multiple Iranian warships and humanitarian assistance to the crew onboard. India is also among the few countries which have earned Iran’s gratitude and cooperation, as exemplified by the unrestricted access to the Strait of Hormuz, which the IRGC has blockaded for most of the countries as leverage, even at the cost of causing global energy supply disruptions and price hikes.

The Telegraph deploying an Indian Kashmiri ‘brown sepoy’ to push anti-India narratives is not surprising. The British newspaper has quite consistently been peddling propaganda vilifying India and the Modi government.

In February this year, The Telegraph platformed leftist ‘historian’ Ramachandra Guha, who wrote an op-ed contending that a supposed ‘Hindu majoritarianism’ is turning India into a ‘Hindu Pakistan’. OpIndia reported how the article was riddled with usual anti-Hindu narratives and equated the destructive and divisive Islamic fanaticism with Hindutva.

In July 2025, The Telegraph published an opinion piece authored by Tom Sharpe where he boldly declared India “an enemy, not a friend or a neutral” simply because India has energy, trade and military ties with Russia. The Telegraph’s outrage was triggered, in part, by the commissioning of INS Tamal, a stealth frigate built in Russia’s Yantar shipyard.  The newspaper questioned India’s continued military ties with Russia, as if a warship being built abroad were a betrayal rather than a strategic decision. OpIndia exposed Britain’s hypocrisy, highlighting London’s long love affair with Russian wealth. We also called out their audacity to declare India an ‘enemy’ while it provides safe haven to Indian wanted fugitives like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi.

As is the trait of all Islamo-leftist propagandists, Samaan Lateef and The Telegraph have also been pushing a one-sided Muslim victimhood bogey, villainising Hindus as ‘extremists’ while no such coverage is given to incidents of Muslim mob violence against Hindus.

It’s worth noting that this is the same Saman Lateef who was nominated for the “Freelancer of the Year” award by the Society of Editors UK in September 2022. He was also invited to the awards ceremony in London. He is a Kashmiri journalist who has previously written for the UK’s Independent, Germany’s DW, and Israeli leftist rag Haaretz. Media publications changed, but Lateef’s anti-India agenda didn’t.

US-Iran ceasefire: Read how Trump acknowledged Araghchi’s 10-point plan, talks to start in Pakistan as Iran insists on full control over Strait of Hormuz

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
US-Iran ceasefire: Read how Trump acknowledged Araghchi’s 10-point plan, talks to start in Pakistan as Iran insists on full control over Strait of Hormuz

In a matter of a few hours, the US President Donald Trump went from prophesying the ‘death’ of a “whole civilisation” in Iran to accepting a humiliating two-week ceasefire. On 7th April 2026, Trump published a Truth Social post, wherein he announced haltig the US forces out to ‘destroy’ Iran and suspending military attacks on Iran for two-weeks as Iranian regime agreed to a “complete, immediate, and safe opening” of the Strait of Hormuz, the vital global oil chokepoint that the Iranian regime had blockaded for all except a few countries like India, Russia, and China.

Donald Trump announces ceasefire, accepts Iran’s 10-point proposal as a “workable basis for negotiation”: US President boasts victory as Iran agrees to open the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before America’s attack

Announcing the ceasefire agreement on Truth Social after Iran’s ‘deadline’ loomed, Trump said, “Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE!”

While the American did not explicitly use terms like “victory”, the tone of Trump’s post indicates that Iran’s agreement to open the Strait of Hormuz as a massive win. Basically, Trump told the world that it is a US victory because Iran has agreed to open the Strait, as if the whole point of the war was opening the Strait of Hormuz, or else he would’ve bombed Iran into oblivion.

However, the same Strait was open before the US and Israel decided to launch airstrikes against Iran over the latter’s nuclear ambitions and a perceived existential threat to Israel.

In a classic Trump-style false bravado and chest-thumping, the US President boasted, “The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning Longterm PEACE with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East.”

Trump further 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 reposts Iran Foreign Minister’s statement and acknowledges the 10-point plan: US’s rhetoric boasts victory, actions demonstrate capitulation

Soon after President Trump announced the Iran-US ceasefire on social media, the Foreign Minister of Iran, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, issued a statement confirming the understanding arrived at between the two countries. In no time, Trump shared the statement on Truth Social and the US administration’s official handles also posted it.

What stood out here was both Araghchi’s tone and Trump’s acknowledgement of Iran’s 10-point proposal. While Trump consistently threatened to decimate Iran, Araghchi called America’s 15-point proposal-based push for negotiations a “request”.

“In response to the brotherly request of PM Sharif in his tweet, and considering the request by the U.S. for negotiations based on its 15-point proposal as well as announcement by POTUS about acceptance of the general framework of Iran’s 10-point proposal as a basis for negotiations, I hereby declare on behalf of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council: If attacks against Iran are halted, our Powerful Armed Forces will cease their defensive operations. For a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations,” Araghchi’s statement reads.

Notably, the US had pushed a 15-point framework for a temporary ceasefire, including the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, however, rejected this as insufficient and stressed a permanent end to the war rather than a pause. The Iranian regime proposed its own 10-point plan, which was delivered via Pakistan.

It is interesting to note that Trump had on Monday called the Iranian proposal a “significant step” but “not good enough”; however, as his self-announced deadline to unalive the Iranian “civilisation” neared, Trump turned on his TACO mode and declared the same “not good enough” plan as a “workable basis for negotiations”.

Iran’s 10-point plan and Trump’s acceptance of it, even as a “workable basis”, amounts to America’s defeat and betrayal of Israel

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.

In addition, Iran has also demanded the release of all its frozen assets abroad and a UNSC resolution to may any final peace deal binding. While Iran has consistently presented its 10-point proposal as the negotiation framework, now Trump has also acknowledged and accepted it as the same.

The criticisms of the Iranian regime’s past actions aside, the West Asian nation has managed to secure a major narrative victory in the immediate phase, though not without enduring losses of lives and resources.

From social media narratives to limited diplomatic backchannel engagements with the US, Iran maintained tight control on the agenda. Iran showed absolutely no urgency to secure a ceasefire, and perhaps, taking a page from India’s playbook of letting the bully bark until it gets tired and frustrated with your dignified silence while you speak of your own interests and core stance at the time of your choosing. India’s Modi government demonstrated this courage, dignity and diplomatic acumen last year when Trump launched a tariff tirade to ‘punish’ India for buying Russian oil.

Now the times have taken such a turn that Washington itself has insisted that New Delhi purchase Russian oil to achieve global energy supply stability, which is similar to the status of the Strait of Hormuz; India was already doing so before Trump launched his tariff tirade.

Coming back to Iran-US ceasefire terms, Donald Trump’s ultimatum was neutralised without Iran making any immediate and pertinently humiliating concessions beyond a temporary and conditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran retaining military coordination over the strait. Best part from Iran’s perspective? It can theoretically re-shut the strait if the talks with the US set to be held in Pakistan’s Islamabad fail.

In its 10-point proposal, Iran has essentially sought a reversal of all its historical grievances and managed to make them central to peace talks now. From full sanctions relief, nuclear enrichment acceptance, US troop withdrawal, war compensation, legitimising its regional posture to seeking discontinuation of Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran momentarily made Trump accept these otherwise unacceptable terms, as the “workable basis for negotiations”.

From weaponising the Strait of Hormuz to keeping its Axis of Resistance in play as a bargaining chip, Iran played its cards right. It, however, should be remembered that the peace talks and a deal based on Iran’s 10-point proposal could still collapse.

Iran’s continuing uranium enrichment essentially means the country will become a nuclear-armed nation in the future. This is Israel’s red line and the core reason behind the Israel-US front launching an offensive against the West Asian country. American legitimising Iran’s nuclear ambitions would essentially amount to letting Iran pose an existential threat to Israel.

Israel has already expressed discontent over the Lebanon point in Iran’s 10-point proposal, going even to the extent of saying that Lebanon is not a part of the ceasefire agreement. In rhetoric, Israel has backed the Iran-US ceasefire agreement; however, in action, it will never allow Iran to continue Uranium enrichment even if the West Asian country promises enrichment only for civilian purposes.

For now, Tehran has the momentum. If the upcoming peace talks fall apart, this momentum can shift in favour of Israel, and the US and Iran can witness the resumption of Israel-US attacks. Time alone will tell what turn these talks will take, but one thing is certain. Trump has invited monumental embarrassment for himself throughout the conflict and caused irreparable damage to America’s prestige. From European allies refusing his importunate appeals to deploy warships to clear the Hormuz blockade, failure to subjugate Iran even after the elimination of Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei, to now accepting the unacceptable Iranian demands as a ‘workable basis’, Trump has lost the narrative and the game.

‘Poor tribal Hindus lured into converting via financial and other inducements’: Inside the Gujarat HC’s rejection of Muslim clerics’ Discharge Pleas in Bharuch Mass Conversion case

પ્રાર્થના અમીન
-
0
‘Poor tribal Hindus lured into converting via financial and other inducements’: Inside the Gujarat HC’s rejection of Muslim clerics’ Discharge Pleas in Bharuch Mass Conversion case

The Gujarat High Court has turned down the petition filed by two clerics requesting discharge in the mass conversion case that arose in the Amod taluka of Bharuch in 2021. This order was issued by a single-judge bench of Justice Geeta Gopi on 30th March. While dismissing the petition, the court remarked that a prima facie analysis of the witness statements and the evidence on record showed indications of conversion-related activities. Therefore, there were no valid grounds to challenge the Trial Court’s ruling regarding the accused.

The incident originates from November 2021, when a First Information Report (FIR) concerning a conversion case was filed at the Amod Police Station. As per the complaint, over 100 people from around 37 Hindu families in Kankariya village of Amod taluka and nearby tribal regions were unlawfully converted to Islam through various enticements. The police have thus far submitted a third supplementary chargesheet against multiple perpetrators in relation to this matter.

Two individuals charged in this case, Sarfaraz also known as Javid Khuji or Javid Mufti Salim Hasan Yusuf Ibrahim Khilji and Ramiz Raja also referred to as Owaish Abdul Gani Abdul Rahim Khilji had earlier submitted discharge petitions to the Trial Court which rejected them. Afterwards, both parties approached the high court. Legal actions have been initiated against the duo under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act and the Indian Penal Code.

What arguments were presented in court

Advocate Umarfaruk M. Kharadi, representing the petitioners, argued that the trial court made an error in dismissing the discharge petition, claiming that there was inadequate evidence to establish charges. He contended that the Maulvis had been wrongfully implicated and additionally insisted that these two were named as defendants in a third supplementary chargesheet, well after the investigation had been completed.

The defense counsel added that they are Maulvis by profession, stressing that it is their religious duty to promote and spread their faith. Furthermore, it was argued that the promotion of religion is a fundamental right protected by the Indian Constitution and thus, no criminal proceedings should be initiated against them solely based on their participation in religious activities.

The government exposes the trickery

Public Prosecutor Bhargav Pandya, countering these claims on behalf of the state, emphasised that this case transcended mere religious propagation and represented a meticulously planned conspiracy aimed at facilitating religious conversions by deceiving and alluring impoverished individuals. He informed the court that the defendant, Javid Mufti, has a history of engaging in efforts to convert numerous unsuspecting villagers.

The investigation uncovered that the accused offered cash, new garments and medical supplies to those they converted. Additionally, tribal families were lured to Islam through the promise of material benefits, such as air coolers, water coolers, handcarts and items like mats or sheets intended for prayer.

The primary complainant, Pravinbhai Vasava, stated that in 2018, he and several other families were enticed into changing their religion, and modifications were made to their Aadhaar cards. Moreover, other witnesses have given compelling testimonies to the police concerning the promises of facilities made by the accused, Ramiz Raja, along with the activities related to the conversions.

In reference to incidents that took place in 2019, the Public Prosecutor indicated that the accused would often visit Kankariya village in luxury vehicles. Regular gatherings were conducted at the home of a particular individual in the village, where Namaz was performed and lectures were held under the guise of providing education about Islam. The court was also informed that the police have video recordings of these gatherings which act as evidence in the case.

The Public Prosecutor highlighted that, in accordance with Section 5 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003, along with Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the 2008 Rules, which require prior legal authorisation for religious conversion, there was a complete lack of compliance in this instance. This failure to follow the legal procedure is, by itself, adequate to classify the activity as illegal and criminal. Thus, a prima facie case has been established against the accused.

What did the high court say

The high court accepted the arguments submitted by the state government and decided not to intervene, at this stage, with the order made by the Trial Court. The court observed that, upon a preliminary assessment of the evidence on record and the statements from witnesses, a case seems to be established. Furthermore, it was noted that the clerics’ meetings were held with the specific intention of facilitating religious conversions. The court stated that the Trial Court had made an appropriate decision and it would not interfere in this matter.

As a result, the petition was dismissed. The high court has also turned down petitions submitted by other accused parties who sought to annul the FIRs filed against them. In October 2025, the court dismissed seven such petitions. During that period, it made an important remark: if an individual who has undergone a religious conversion subsequently encourages or provokes others to convert, they cannot be considered a “victim,” instead, they may also be classified as accused and legal proceedings may be initiated against them.

Background of the matter

This mass conversion aimed at members of the Hindu tribal community in the Amod Taluka of Bharuch was not an isolated event. It was a carefully planned conspiracy that extended from 2006 to 2021. According to police investigations, over 100 individuals from around 37 Hindu tribal families in Kankariya village were converted to Islam through various inducements. Investigations have uncovered that foreign funding, and a locally active group were instrumental in orchestrating this entire scheme, with the main goal being to exploit the vulnerabilities of impoverished tribal communities for the purpose of religious conversions.

The case was brought forth by the complainant, Pravinbhai Vasantbhai Vasava, who had himself yielded to inducements in 2018, converted to Islam, and assumed the name “Salman Patel.” He confessed to the police that the accused had taken advantage of the dire circumstances faced by the local Hindu residents in the area, exploiting their severe poverty. He recounted that, at first, he was directed to live his life according to Sharia law. However, he ultimately came to understand that the entire situation was merely a fraudulent plot motivated by deception and greed.

To enable religious conversions, the accused utilised a method that included communal pressure, inducement and intimidation. Through this approach, destitute tribal individuals were enticed with misleading assurances of cash, food supplies, employment, permanent housing and marriage. They were incessantly indoctrinated with the belief that Hinduism lacks significance and that Islam is the only superior religion. This procedure also encompassed legal deception. Villagers were misled and transported to Surat, where, while confined in vehicles, they were coerced into signing documents to alter their names and religious affiliations on their Aadhaar cards and other government-issued identification proofs.

The FIR filed at the Amod Police Station in November 2021 identifies multiple individuals, both local and foreign nationals, including Shabbir and Samad Bakerywala. Haji Abdullah Fefdawala, who resides in London, has been identified as the primary mastermind. He obtained significant financial support from abroad by exaggerating the figures of religious conversions. The accused perceived this entire operation as a “business,” through which they received funds from overseas for each conversion and these earnings were then used to further attract the tribal population.

After their conversion to a new faith, the children of the tribal community were dispatched to madrasas located in Jambusar and Hazira, where they underwent indoctrination. The Tablighi Jamaat would transport them to religious assemblies in locations such as Malegaon and Mumbai, aiming to distance them from their native culture. The Gujarat Police has classified this situation not just as a local offence, but as a conspiracy of national scale.

Read the original OpIndia Gujarati report here.

Ten-point explainer why this ceasefire is not a US victory as Trump desperately wants everyone to believe

Anurag
-
0
Ten-point explainer why this ceasefire is not a US victory as Trump desperately wants everyone to believe

On 8th April (local time), President of the United States, Donald Trump, claimed a “total and complete victory” after announcing a ceasefire with Iran. However, the terms that have been revealed in public so far, along with the strategic ground reality, suggest the situation in West Asia is far more complicated.

According to AFP, Trump, in a telephonic conversation with the news agency, stated that Iran’s enriched uranium would be “perfectly taken care of”. He claimed that China had helped push Tehran to the negotiating table. He referred to a multi framework under discussion but did not provide any clarity on enforcement, nuclear dismantlement, regime concessions, or military rollback. In a social media post, he claimed it was a “big day for World Peace” and added that “this could be the Golden Age of the Middle East”.

Source: Truth Social

Notably, the announcement of the ceasefire itself came barely an hour after Trump’s deadline to “obliterate” Iran expired. In a Truth Social post, he threatened to “wipe out” a whole civilisation. He wrote, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS?”

Source: Truth Social

Tehran, on the other hand, is projecting that the outcome is favourable to its own position. Both sides are claiming victory but no one is ready to provide clarity on several questions. From the look of it, the claim of a decisive American win is hard to justify, here is why.

Iran’s regime remains intact and in control

When a country claims decisive military victory, it involves regime collapse, forced political concessions, or leadership destabilisation. While it is a fact that US and Israel managed to neutralise several leaders of Iran, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the ruling structure of the Islamic country remains fully intact.

The Supreme Leader’s authority continues unchanged, and Tehran has retained control over both domestic governance and foreign policy decisions. Iran has not surrendered. There have been no external political conditions imposed on Iran and there has been no restructuring of power. A new Supreme Leader has already been elected and the US failed to make any major leadership shift.

This means the war ended without achieving the most consequential strategic objective which is often associated with total victory.

Strait of Hormuz still remains Iran’s leverage

One of the most crucial aspects of the West Asia conflict was the security of the Strait of Hormuz. Notably, a significant portion of global oil flows through the Iran controlled Strait. Even after the ceasefire, there is uncertainty over reopening arrangements and shipping safety. In a recent statement, Trump has already signalled a week ago that US does not care much about opening the Strait of Hormuz though he continued to claim that it is a matter of concern and threatened Iran of consequences of Strait was not opened. Mixed statements by Trump only complicate the situation.

Trump himself has referred to a framework rather than a settled mechanism. The geographic control that Iran has over the region will continue to stay as it is and it will continue to enjoy the ability to threaten or influence maritime traffic. The US cannot claim “complete success” without neutralising the leverage Iran holds.

Nuclear question remains unresolved

Trump, in his statement, claimed that Iran’s enriched uranium would be “perfectly taken care of”. However, he offered zero details about the plans he has. There is no confirmation that the material will be removed, dismantled, diluted, or monitored. The absence of specifics suggests the nuclear issue remains open, which was the main reason why the US and Israel attacked Iran.

Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear capability was the central justification for the West Asia conflict. Leaving the uranium stockpile intact is in direct contradiction with Trump’s claims of “total victory”.

Iran’s military capacity weakened but not dismantled

It is evident that Iran has taken losses after more than a month of strikes by the United States and Israel. However, the military structure of the country is still functional and poses a serious threat to West Asian countries that have ties with the United States. During the conflict, Iran attacked, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries that have US bases.

Command networks, missile units, and air defence systems of Iran continue to operate. The country retains the ability to defend itself and project power regionally. If the claims of “total victory” would have been true, the military structure would have been either destroyed or faced long term degradation of capability. That threshold has not been crossed.

Long range strike capability still operational

During the US Iran war, Tehran demonstrated that it has the capability of launching long range strikes across the Gulf region. The survival of this capability means Tehran can still target bases, infrastructure, and allied assets in case of a misadventure by the US. If the country that “lost” retains the ability to strike adversaries after the war, the outcome is closer to a balanced ceasefire than decisive victory of one side.

Iran showed patience during negotiations

The ceasefire has been announced by Trump. It came close to his deadline rather than following a visible Iranian capitulation. Tehran did not publicly signal desperation for a quick exit. Instead, it appeared willing to prolong the conflict while absorbing pressure. Tehran even rejected ceasefire proposal and called for permanent end of the conflict.

On the other hand, Trump continued to make statements and shift his stance towards the West Asia conflict. In a single day, he continued to give statements that contradict his previous stance, making it difficult to grasp if he was actually serious or just blabbering whatever came to his mind after a powernap.

The narrative that Iran was forced into negotiations by overwhelming US dominance fails to stand scrutiny.

Washington appeared eager for an off ramp

Trump’s statements emphasised proposals, frameworks, and partial agreements. He referred to a 10-point Iranian proposal as “workable” and mentioned a broader 15-point transaction under discussion.

His statements made it clear that Washington also sought a negotiated pause. When both sides pursue de escalation, the outcome resembles mutual accommodation rather than one sided victory.

Differences between US and Israeli objectives became visible

During the conflict, Washington and Tel Aviv showed different expectations regarding acceptable end terms. Even now, while Israel has supported the ceasefire, it has made it clear that Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire terms.

Such divergence weakens the perception of a unified strategic campaign. Iran appears to have benefited from these differences, which diluted pressure and allowed space for negotiation.

US defensive resources were heavily used

Iran extensively used missiles and drones to attack US bases and Israel across West Asia. The attacks forced US to use air defence systems in the Gulf for interception operations, consuming large numbers of interceptors and logistical resources. Even if damage done by Iranian strikes was minimal, the scale of defensive deployment suggests the US absorbed operational costs rather than imposing unilateral dominance.

Tangible costs imposed on US regional assets

Iran managed to strike or threaten high value infrastructure and sensors across Gulf states, including US’s AN/FPS 132 early warning radar at Al Udeid base in Qatar worth billions. These actions imposed measurable costs on the US regional posture. A conflict in which the adversary inflicts damage and retains capabilities cannot be seen as a “total victory”.

Taking all the aspects together, the ceasefire is more of an unresolved strategic balance rather than a decisive American triumph. Iran’s leadership is intact, nuclear ambiguity still persists, Hormuz leverage is still in Iran’s hands, and military capabilities remain a threat for US and its allies in the region. Therefore, Trump’s claim of “total and complete victory” is more of a political message than a reality.

‘Islamic law allows polygamy’: Madhya Pradesh HC rules in favour of a man’s second marriage. Read how courts have leaned on Sharia for verdicts related to the Muslim community

Rukma Rathore
-
0
‘Islamic law allows polygamy’: Madhya Pradesh HC rules in favour of a man’s second marriage. Read how courts have leaned on Sharia for verdicts related to the Muslim community

Justice BP Sharma of the Madhya Pradesh High Court determined that a Muslim man who weds a second time and takes another wife does not commit “bigamy,” as multiple marriages are permitted for his community and cannot be termed “void” under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Hence, a Muslim individual’s plea to have the accusation against him quashed was partially accepted, while the trial would go ahead for additional counts covered under sections 498-A, 342, 323 and 506 Part-II IPC.

His first spouse had submitted a police report, asserting that following their December 2002 union, he abused her for failing to have a child and later entered into a second marriage in May 2022. The woman further stated that she was under pressure to grant him a “divorce” by mutual consent, or “Khula.”

However, the petitioner’s attorney contended that Muslim Personal Law permits up to four spouses at once and hence section 494 cannot be invoked in the issue. Kerala High Court’s 2015 ruling was cited to support the prayer that the clause would only be effective in the event of a Muslim male’s fifth wedding.

The court declared that “the applicability of section 494 IPC depends upon whether the second marriage is void by reason of the subsistence of the first marriage. In the present case, the parties are admittedly governed by Muslim Personal Law, which recognises the permissibility of plurality of marriages. Therefore, the essential ingredient of section 494 IPC, namely that the second marriage must be void on account of the subsistence of the earlier marriage, is not satisfied.”

The complainant’s lawyer argued that the requirements of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937 do not apply unless a declaration is made, and as a result, the husband cannot maintain four wives simultaneously under the statute. However, the bench conveyed that the aforementioned section is subject to this law, which authorises polygamy.

It also relied upon 1995 and 2015 decisions from the Supreme Court. The court added that the man’s action would not meet the requisites of section 494, even if the allegations are taken at face value and concluded that pursuing the prosecution would be a misuse of the legal system.

“Therefore, a second marriage contracted by a Muslim male during the lifetime of his first wife is not treated as void merely on the ground that the first marriage is still subsisting. In view of this legal position, the essential ingredient of Section 494 of IPC, namely that the subsequent marriage must be void on account of the subsistence of the first marriage, is not fulfilled in the present case,” it ruled.

Afterwards, the bench acknowledged that the inquiry materials and claims prima facie revealed the commission of the other violations, such as criminal intimidation and cruelty. The trial court has been instructed to look into the remaining charges and deliver a judgment.

How Islamic law impacts judicial rulings

It is noteworthy that taking a second wife while the first is alive or without a divorce constitutes a punishable offence for other religious groups, including Hindus in India, as such regressive practices should not exist or be tolerated in any civilised society. However, it has been observed that the second largest community in the nation has been allowed to continue even the most repugnant and unlawful acts in the name of personal law, which is guided by the Sharia.

Moreover, this premise has been embraced by the courts and verdicts are often rendered that enable Muslims to persist in otherwise illicit conduct. Interestingly, this special privilege is accorded just for civil matters and does not apply to criminal proceedings, entirely governed by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which has replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Thus, similar orders have been given by the Indian judiciary with respect to the Muslim community in light of the Sharia. Last May, the Allahabad High Court admitted that special religious provisions are exploited by the Muslims, but stated that a Muslim man cannot be penalised for bigamy if the rituals are performed in accordance with the Islamic law.

According to Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, it would only be perceived as a crime if the second ceremony is carried out per this law after converting to Islam while the initial wedding took place under the Special Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act, Christian Marriage Act, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act or Hindu Marriage Act. He then urged the government to adopt a Uniform Civil Code.

Nonetheless, the statements from the court underscored how such infractions are seen as appropriate for a particular community under the guise of “freedom of religion.”

Supreme Court opts not to extend ban on child marriage to encompass all religions

On 18th October 2024, the Supreme Court refused to expand the restriction on child marriage to all religions, independent of personal laws. The central government had asked for an order that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) be applied to all Indians, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

However, the court declined and pointed out that a bill concerning it was pending before a standing committee. On 21st December 2021, the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill was introduced in Parliament and forwarded to the standing committee. The bill intended to amend the PCMA to explicitly stipulate that it shall take preference over multiple personal laws.

The bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra also announced, “The issue of the interface of personal laws with the prohibition of child marriage under the PCMA has been a subject of some confusion.”

The Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), lodged the petition, explaining that the disturbingly high number of child marriages in India endured even after the PCMA was passed 18 years ago.

It accused authorities of failing to curb child marriages and advocated for stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness campaigns, the appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPO), and comprehensive support systems for child brides, such as education, healthcare and compensation, to ensure the protection and well-being of vulnerable kids. It pressed the apex court to offer useful direction in this regard.

The centre also encouraged the latter to consider releasing directives stating that the PCMA would have precedence over the personal laws defining marriage in a note. It also mentioned contradictory findings by different high courts about the PCMA’s supremacy over the personal laws. However, the top court reported that it was not supplied with the specifics of the verdicts by the government.

Live-in relationships not permissible under Sharia

On 8th May of that year, the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench decided that Muslims who have a living spouse cannot assert their rights in a live-in relationship since Islamic law forbids it. The observations were made by a bench of Justices AR Masoodi and AK Srivastava during the hearing of a writ petition filed by Sneha Devi and Muhammad Shadab Khan, who sought protection from police action.

The woman was directed to be returned to her parents under protection after they filed a kidnapping complaint against Kha,n who married Farida Khatoon in 2020 and had a child.

“Islamic tenets do not permit live-in relationships during a subsisting marriage. The position may be different if the two persons are unmarried and the parties being major choose to lead their lives in a way of their own,” the court emphasised. The pair wanted protection under Article 21 (life and personal liberty).

However, it insisted, “The constitutional morality may come to the rescue of such a couple and the social morality settled through the customs and usages over ages may give way to the constitutional morality and protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may step in to protect the cause. The case before us is, however, different.”

The bench further mentioned, “The constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would not lend an un-canalised support to such a right, once the usages and customs prohibit such a relationship between the two individuals of different faiths.”

Minor girls from the Muslim community are permitted to marry

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a Muslim girl who reaches the age of 15 is free to marry whoever she chooses. “Such a marriage would not be void in terms of section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006,” declared Justice Vikas Bahl in October 2022. Notably, the age of puberty is 15 based on Sharia.

Additionally, the court guaranteed that Islamic personal regulations would remain in force for Muslim girls. A 16-year-old girl had demanded clearance from a childcare agency to make amends with her 26-year-old spouse. The remark was delivered at the hearing of a habeas corpus case initiated by the husband, Javed, in which he challenged her “imprisonment” at the facility.

The girl told the court that she had left her household to stay with and marry the person of her desire, but she had been pressured into engagement with her maternal uncle by her family. It concluded that Javed had legal custody of the detainee as their relationship was lawful under Islamic law on the basis of a prior case. The union was willingly consummated and deemed as valid since both parties were Muslims, despite the fact that the girl was underage.

A month prior, the Delhi High Court pronounced that a 15-year-old girl was of “Marriageable Age” under Islamic law. It stated that a Muslim girl who has reached puberty but is under the age of 18 has the right to wed anyone without the approval of her family and reside with her husband under the religious law.

The statement was made by Justice Jasmeet Singh’s single bench while granting protection to a Muslim couple who were married in March 2022 in compliance with Islamic customs. The duo petitioned the court for orders to prevent anyone from separating them. The girl’s parents had disapproved of the union and registered a First Information Report (FIR) under sections 363 and 376 of the IPC. He was also booked under section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered a similar judgment on 20th June of the same year when a Muslim couple from Pathankot, aged 16 and 21, approached it for protection from their family members. The couple informed that they married on 8th June in conformity with Islamic rituals, but their family members were opposed to this move and had threatened them.

“As per Article 195 from the book ‘Principles of Mohammedan Law’ by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, the girl being over 16 years of age is competent to enter into a contract of marriage with a person of her choice. The boy is stated to be more than 21 years of age. Thus, both the petitioners are of marriageable age as envisaged by Muslim Personal Law,” expressed Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi.

“Merely because the petitioners have got married against the wishes of their family members, they cannot possibly be deprived of their fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India,” he added while instructing the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Pathankot to set up appropriate security measures. 

Justice Alka Sarin of the Punjab and Haryana High Court handed an identical ruling in February 2021 after considering a motion from a 17-year-old girl and a 36-year-old man. The verdict was based on several court decisions and Article 195 of “Principles of Mohammedan Law.” The bench stated that a Muslim girl is believed to have experienced puberty when she crosses the age of 15 in the absence of proof, quoting Article 15 of this law.

Conclusion

Judicial rulings have, in one way or another, been shaped by personal law or Sharia concerning the Muslim community. The judges also capitulated to their demands, as was the case when a local court in the Muslim-dominated Kishanganj district had to revoke its ban on wearing lungis within the premises following protests in 2018.

Likewise, the courts made peculiar judgments that have attracted attention, including directing a young woman to hand out copies of the Quran while allowing her bail for a Facebook post about Tabrez Ansari’s death and granting protection to a Hindu woman who intended to pray at the Piran Kaliyar mosque in Roorkee. Notably, she filed the plea alongside her Muslim friend and roommate.

Meanwhile, Salaam Centre, an Islamic organisation dedicated to “Dawah” (converting non-Muslims),s) boasted about distributing the Quran at the Karnataka High Court, including to judges and advocates in 2019. On one side, there are verdicts being pronounced that prioritise personal law, and on the other side, such events are becoming apparent.

Hence, this situation raises concerns among ordinary Indians about whether everyone is indeed equal in the eyes of the law, or if some people are allowed to disregard the rules and regulations in the country due to specific religious privileges that are not afforded to others.

Women positioned at the front, provocative announcements from local mosque, switched off CCTV: What NIA’s preliminary inquiry report in Malda violence case reveals

Shraddha Pandey
-
0
Women positioned at the front, provocative announcements from local mosque, switched off CCTV: What NIA’s preliminary inquiry report in Malda violence case reveals

Days after the Chief Election Commissioner CEC) Gyanesh Kumar entrusted the National Investigation Agency (NIA) with the investigation of the Malda violence case, wherein 7 judicial officers on SIR duty were gheraoed and harassed by a Muslim mob on 1st April, the probe agency has filed its preliminary inquiry as ordered by the Supreme Court. The NIA stated that the Malda incident was not a spontaneous agitation but a planned and coordinated mobilisation.

NIA’s preliminary findings in the case indicate a simultaneous emergence of demonstration and road blockades across multiple locations, pointing to prior planning and strategic execution by an organised network rather than a ‘protest’ driven by organic anger over SIR.

Local mosque gave calls to Muslims to gather outside the BDO office, where seven judicial officers were present: a 1500-strong mob assembled within minutes

The NIA found that announcements were made in the Kaliachowk (also spelt, Kaliachak) area through e-rickshaws to gather a mob. Announcements were also made from a local mosque calling on Muslims to hit the streets and gherao the judicial officers, including women, at the Kaliachak-II BDO office.

In no time, a Muslim mob as strong as 1500 gathered outside the BDO office. The mob surrounded the seven judicial officers on SIR duty and held them under siege for around 13 hours.

It has also emerged that a female judicial officer was detained for nearly eight hours, indicating that the mob’s anarchic and violent actions were not confined to a single location, but that systematic obstructions were erected at various locations.

Mob obstructed the police operation to rescue stuck judicial officers, and women were deliberately deployed at the forefront

As if all those hours under siege were not horrible enough for the judicial officers, when the West Bengal Police finally woke up from its deliberate slumber and decided to rescue the stranded officers, the mob attacked the convoy of the rescued judicial officers. As they were being evacuated by the police and CAPF, their convoy was pelted with stones at several locations. One driver was seriously injured in the attack, causing the vehicle to overturn. This indicates that the attackers not only surrounded the area but also targeted the rescue operation.

Muslim mobs have a tried-and-tested strategy of deploying women and children at the forefront as a shield. In the present case, the NIA further revealed that women were positioned at the forefront of the mob, while men caused a ruckus from behind.

Notably, deploying women at the front serves three main purposes. First, the authorities would hesitate in taking strict measures to disperse them. Second, if the authorities go ahead with hard action like lathi-charge or forced dispersal, the Muslim mob would use it as an excuse to turn on their full-fledged Jihadi mode. Third, visuals of police forces cracking down on women ‘protestors’ flashed by media outlets would invoke sympathy, helping in shaping a favourable narrative. This playbook was seen during the anti-Hindu 2020 Delhi Riots, the Haldwani violence and many other such cases.

CCTV cameras installed at the Kaliachak BDO office were found switched off

The 72-hour long on-ground investigation by the NIA officials also revealed a startling fact, almost confirming that the mob attack on judicial officers in Malda was planned conspiracy to disrupt the judicial adjudication of the SIR process.

The NIA inquiry states that 9 of the 16 CCTV cameras installed at the BDO office were found to be switched off, including those at the main entrance.

Notably, of the 105 individuals named in the three primary FIRs, 24 have been arrested so far.

Now, the NIA has sought the Supreme Court’s nod to investigate a full conspiracy angle.

Supreme Court reprimanded Bengal administration, finds merit in conspiracy allegations

On the 6th of April, the Supreme Court bench led by CJI Suryakant heard the petitions challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of West Bengal’s electoral rolls.

The top court blasted the Director General of Police (DGP) and Chief Secretary of West Bengal for not answering the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court’s calls during the shocking event. Justice Kant slammed, “You are so busy that you cannot take the call of the Chief Justice of the High Court,” after which the Chief Secretary defended, “There was no call from any chief justice to me. I had come to Delhi for a meeting. From 2 pm to 4:30 pm, I was on a flight.”

Justice Joymala Bagchi added, “It would have been very helpful if your number had been shared with the high court chief justice,” and the senior officer replied, “It was given, but the number is a secure one.” However, the CJI retorted, “Please lower your security a bit so that ordinary minions like the Chief Justice of Calcutta HC can reach you. It is because of your and the police’s failure that the task was given to judicial officers. What kind of credibility is the West Bengal bureaucracy suffering? Please help in improving the image. You compel us.”

Justice Bagchi expressed, “That is why the Election Commission of India also could not be given any information.” Justice Kant remarked, “Even the Home Secretary was not reachable. The way these officials are being pampered. Please apologise before the Chief Justice and redeem what was done.” He then charged, “It was motivated, pre-planned and deeply instigating in nature. We also want to see this to the logical end.”

The apex court granted the NIA the liberty to register more FIRs “if the offence illustratively referred to in our order has involvement of other persons for different consideration.”

During the earlier hearing on 1st April, the Supreme Court noted that the incident was not routine but a “calculated and motivated move” to demoralise the judicial officers and to stop the ongoing process of adjudicating objections in the left-out cases. The court described the incident as a challenge to its authority since the on-duty judicial officers were an “extension of this Court”.

The court said that the attack was a “brazen attempt not only to browbeat judicial officers, but also amounts to a challenge to the authority of the Apex Court. This incident certainly cannot be construed to be a routine occurrence and, ex facie, appears to be a calculated, well-planned and deliberate act intended to demoralise judicial officers and obstruct the ongoing process of adjudication of objections in the remaining cases.”

Describing the Malda incident as an act of “criminal contempt”, the court had said that it “reflects a complete failure on the part of the civil and police administration, in so far as the law-and-order situation in Maldah District is concerned. The Bench also took note of the information provided that the judicial officers were deliberately deprived of even essentials like food and water.

The Supreme Court had also highlighted the failure on the part of the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Director General of Police, the Collector and the Superintendent of Police in taking effective measures to safely evacuate the gheraoed judicial officers despite receiving information.

Mob attack on judicial officers in Malda: The hours-long

A large mob held seven judicial officers hostage at the Block Development Officer (BDO) office in Kaliachak-II, a Muslim-dominated area. The officers, including three women, were deployed to verify documents of voters whose names were marked “under adjudication” during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India.

The frenzied mob held the judicial officers, along with a five-year-old child of one of the officers, hostage for about nine hours. The judicial officers were left stranded in the BDO office without access to food and water. The attack was linked to the deletion of the names of several infiltrators living in the area from supplementary voter lists released recently.

Following the collective efforts of the central forces and the police, the judicial officers were rescued past midnight, however, the mob did not calm down. As the judicial officers were being escorted, the mob tried to stop their vehicles by placing bamboo poles on the road and pelted stones and bricks at them. The so-called protestors also blocked the National Highway 12 (Kolkata-Siliguri National Highway) in Malda, disrupting connectivity between North and South Bengal. The seven judicial officers had even written to the Malda District Magistrate expressing concerns about their security.

OpIndia reported earlier how a local advocate, a former TMC leader, and presently a All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader, Mofakkerul Islam was allegedly behind orchestrating violence in Malda. He delivered provocative speeches a night before the attack on 1st April. He raised Islamic war cry, ‘Nara-e-Takbeer, Allahu Akbar’ and the mob responded in an equally aggressive manner.

India unlocks major milestone in nuclear power as Kalpakkam PFBR attains criticality: Read how it will help the nation to tap its vast Thorium reserves for long-term energy security

Anurag
-
0
India unlocks major milestone in nuclear power as Kalpakkam PFBR attains criticality: Read how it will help the nation to tap its vast Thorium reserves for long-term energy security

On 6th April, India took a major step in its 3-stage nuclear power programme after the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam attained criticality. It marked the start of a sustained nuclear chain reaction. With this milestone, India has entered stage II of the nuclear programme that Dr Homi Bhabha had envisioned. It is being seen as a crucial step before the country moves towards thorium-based reactors in stage III.

Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited (BHAVINI) has designed, built and developed the reactor indigenously under the Department of Atomic Energy at Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu. The reactor is capable of producing more fuel than it consumes, which is the key feature required for India’s long term nuclear strategy.

PM Modi calls it a defining moment

In a post on X, Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the achievement as a defining step in India’s civil nuclear journey. He said the indigenously designed and built PFBR at Kalpakkam has attained criticality, advancing the second stage of India’s nuclear programme.

In his statement, PM Modi said that the advanced reactor can produce more fuel than it consumes. It shows the depth of the scientific and engineering capabilities of the country. He added that India is now moving towards harnessing vast thorium reserves in the third stage of the programme.

He added that this is a proud moment for the country and congratulated engineers and scientists involved in the project.

What criticality means and why it matters

In terms of nuclear energy, criticality means that the reactor has reached the point where it can sustain a nuclear fission reaction. At this point, the number of neutrons produced in the reactor is enough to keep the chain reaction going without external intervention.

Though it does not mean the reactor has started generating electricity at full power, it is one of the most crucial milestones in commissioning any nuclear reactor. Once this stage is achieved, the reactor gradually moves towards higher power levels and eventual commercial operation.

What makes the PFBR different

Fast breeder reactors are fundamentally different from conventional nuclear reactors. In traditional reactors, uranium is the main fuel. On the other hand, fast breeder reactors use plutonium. They are designed to produce more fissile material than they consume.

Flow Diagram of PFBR. Source:Modelling and simulation of inclined fuel transfer machine in prototype fast breeder reactor operator training simulator/reasearchgate/Image Enhanced using AI.

The PFBR converts uranium-238 into plutonium-239 while generating energy. This unique capability allows the reactor to create additional fuel during operation. This is why fast breeder reactors are considered essential for countries like India that have limited uranium but large thorium reserves.

Initially, the reactor will use uranium plutonium mixed oxide fuel surrounded by a blanket of uranium. This configuration allows breeding of additional fissile material. In future, thorium will be used in the blanket to generate uranium-233, which will be used in advanced heavy water reactors.

Why stage II is necessary before stage III

The nuclear power programme of India is structured into three stages. Each stage is dependent on the previous one. The first stage uses pressurised heavy water reactors running primarily on uranium. This stage produces plutonium as part of spent fuel.

The second stage includes fast breeder reactors like the PFBR. It uses this plutonium to generate more fissile material. These reactors not only produce electricity but also create additional fuel, which is required in the next stage.

The third stage focuses on thorium-based reactors. India has some of the world’s largest thorium reserves. However, thorium cannot be used directly to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. It has to first be converted into fissile uranium-233.

This conversion is possible only using materials produced in stage II. In simple terms, stage II creates the fuel that is required to unlock India’s thorium reserves. Without fast breeder reactors producing this fissile material, the thorium-based stage III cannot be implemented at scale.

Government earlier flagged first of a kind challenges

It has been over two decades since the PFBR project started. It involved complex engineering challenges. Earlier, while replying in Parliament, Atomic Energy Minister Jitendra Singh stated that delays in completion of the PFBR project were mainly due to first-of-a-kind technological issues that were faced during the integrated commissioning phase.

In a written reply to the Lok Sabha, he said these issues were being solved systematically in close coordination with designers. He also clarified that India is implementing the 3-stage nuclear programme envisioned by Dr Homi Bhabha.

According to the government’s response, the first stage comprising pressurised heavy water reactors has attained maturity. For realisation of the second stage, facilities such as the Fast Breeder Test Reactor were established. The 500 MWe Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam was described as being at an advanced stage of commissioning.

The third stage aimed at utilising India’s vast thorium reserves is currently under development.

A long-awaited milestone

PFBR construction began in 2004. The project involved some of the most complex engineering challenges undertaken by India’s atomic energy establishment. In August 2024, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board granted permission for the reactor to move to the first approach to criticality stage, which included fuel loading and low power experiments. In March 2024, PM Modi had visited the site to witness “core loading” at the site.

As the reactor has now attained criticality, India has formally entered stage II of its 3-stage nuclear power programme. This stage is expected to demonstrate fast breeder technology and pave the way for thorium-based reactors in stage III.

The milestone is also seen as a strategic step towards long term energy security and expansion of nuclear power capacity. Fast breeder reactors like the PFBR are expected to reduce dependence on imported uranium and enable India to utilise its vast thorium reserves in the future.

1...717273...7,637Page 72 of 7,637