OpIndia.com

How the USA used money, muscle and sometimes brazen land-grabs to expand its territory: Alaska, Louisiana, Hawaii, Pacific islands and more

Rukma Rathore

-

7 January, 2026

How the USA used money, muscle and sometimes brazen land-grabs to expand its territory: Alaska, Louisiana, Hawaii, Pacific islands and more

The United States of America, notorious for overthrowing governments, infringing upon the sovereignty of other nations and invading foreign lands to further national or strategic interests, commenced its journey by committing these very actions, as it eventually grew from 13 colonies to 50 states.

The Western power ruthlessly wielded its economic and military superiority in the name of “manifest destiny” to either push other countries into agreements or engage in warfare, while persistently expanding its landmass and global influence. Furthermore, this cold approach has been witnessed time and again, remarkably even to this day, from the Middle East to Venezuela and even Greenland.

The US buys Alaska for 2 cents per acre from Russia

Alaska, with a GDP of more than $55 billion, is presently the 49th state in the United States. However, it was once part of the Russian Empire, which was handed over in a deal known as the “Cessation of Alaska” or the “Alaska Purchase,” to the US. On 30th March 1867, the latter agreed to pay just $7.2 million or nearly two cents per acre for the 1,518,800 square kilometres of territory.

A map showing the area that Russia gave up to the United States. (Source: File Photo)

Russian Tsar Alexander II wanted to sell Alaska because he believed that it would be difficult to protect the land in the case of a war with his country’s main adversary, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Ottoman Empire’s setback served as the foundation for the decision. Russia chose to give up its area after losing over 12,000 soldiers and running out of resources.

The presentation to the House of Representatives. (Source: File Photo)

Interestingly, Russia and the US were on the same side at the time due to their shared dislike of the British Empire. Therefore, the move was made in spite of advice not to proceed further. US Secretary of State William Seward and Russian Minister Eduard de Stoeckl discussed the deal following the conclusion of the American Civil War. Afterwards, the US Senate approved the treaty on 9th April, 1867, and President Andrew Johnson signed the same in May.

Louisiana joins the U.S

In 1803, the United States made a similar land agreement known as the “Louisiana Purchase,” in which $15 million was paid to France for around 827,000 square miles of territory west of the Mississippi River. The sale not only added extensively to the size of the young country but also set it on a path of westward expansion across the continent. It also prevented further occupation of North Americbyof Spain and France.

Louisiana’s map by Aaron Arrowsmith (Source: monticello.org)

The region close to New Orleans was already desired by the United States. The main goal was to protect its ability to sail ships through Spanish territory down the Mississippi River and unload cargo at New Orleans for transportation to Europe and the Atlantic coast. Additionally, Louisiana’s strategic location at the mouth of the pivotal river and the presence of a large number of American immigrants and traders there made the US interested in owning the entire state.

After learning that Louisiana had been transferred from Spain to France, the United States dispatched its diplomat Robert Livingston to France in 1801 in an attempt to acquire New Orleans. Afterwards, President Thomas Jefferson sent James Monroe, one of the founding fathers, to negotiate a contract when Napoleon Bonaparte first rejected the proposal.

The Louisiana Purchase Treaty (Source: monticello.org)

However, he then offered not only New Orleans but all of Louisiana to the US in April 1803 in light of the financial problems and military setbacks. The change of heart happened a few days before Monroe was scheduled to arrive in Paris. The Marquis de Barbe-Marbois, minister of finance, mediated the conditions of the “Louisiana Purchase” with Livingston and Monroe. As a result, $11,250,000 was given by the US in exchnage Louisiana and $3,750,000 to settle claims of its own citizens against France.

Texas separates from Mexico and enters the US.

Texas was originally part of Mexico,o where a substantial population of Americans led by Stephen F. Austin moved close to the Brazos River. It was after Mexico invited foreigners to the barely inhabited area following its independence from Spain in the 1820s. However, the decision proved to be fatal, as it concluded in the separation of the entire region and its addition to the United States.

The Mexican government’s attempts to govern over these semi-autonomous American enclaves by the 1830s sparked insurrection since the outsiders soon outnumbered the locals. As a result, Texas proclaimed its independence from Mexico in March 1836 during an armed confrontation with the government.

Sam Houston was elected president by the people of the Republic of Texas, who supported his region’s admission to the US for the sake of political and economic benefits. Therefore, it became the 28th state in the US on 28th December 1845. The action sparked the Mexican-American War and widened the irreconcilable divisions in the US on the subject of slavery. Texas had legalised slavery and broke away 15 years later to become the Confederate States of America before rejoining the union after civil war.

The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo

The Mexican W, ar which was fought between April 1846 and February 1848, contributed to the already broadening expanse of the US territory. The Army of the West entered New Mexico territory at the start of the War in 1846, taking control of Las Vegas on 15th August and Santa Fe three days later. The first American military fort in New Mexico, Fort Marcy, was built northeast of Santa Fe on 23rd August. Charles Bent was named governor, and a civil government was formed on 22nd September.

Afterwards, New Mexico, which included modern-day Arizona and other territories, was given to the United States by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the conclusion of the Mexican War in 1848. It received more than 525,000 square miles or 1,360,000 square kilometres of land, including Arizona, California, western Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah from Mexico for a payment of $15,000,000. The U, S in retu, rn agreed to settle the more than $3,000,000 in claims made by American citizens against Mexico.

The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (Source: prologue.blogs.archives.gov)

The treaty also laid down the border between the Gila River and the Rio Grande. With this, the seizure of New Mexico and California, alongside the acknowledgement of the Rio Grande as the southern border of Texas, had been accomplished by the US. The Organic Act of the Territory of New Mexico, a part of the “Compromise of 1850,” defined New Mexico as a territory and assigned it a civil territorial administration. Over time, these annexed regions soon became part of the union in the coming years.

The annexation of Hawaii

On one hand, the United States persisted in expanding its territory by paying minimal amounts to exploit the vulnerability of some nations waging wars and shaping treaties, while on the other hand, it used its military strength to subjugate nations under its flag. A similar situation occurred in Hawaii, in the Pacific, where American and British missionaries arrived with the intention of converting the locals to Christianity in the 1820s.

Afterwards, the independent kingdom’s economy initially became reliant on the US, after which military action took place for its annexation. The region started to attract corporate investors who purchased vast areas of land and established a plantation economy centred on capitalism in place of traditional Hawaiian agricultural methods. In the meantime, discussions over Hawaii’s potential annexation to the US started in the 1850s as its sugar and whale industries grew more dependent on the country’s trade.

Queen (at the time of this photograph, Crown Princess) Liliuokalani of Hawaii was forced to surrender. (Source: billofrightsinstitute.org)

The wicked plan came to fruition when the executive monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom was pressured to make a conditional surrender after US troops invaded the country without reason on 16th January 1893. “Committee of Safety,” led by Sanford B. Dole, overthrew the queen with the implicit assistance of the United States. On 1st February, Minister John Stevens declared Hawaii a US protectorate and acknowledged Dole’s new administration.

Dole presented the US Senate with an annexation treaty and declared independence when he was pressured to resign. President William McKinley formally supported Hawaiian annexation in his presidential platform when he assumed office in 1896. He also made a treaty with the Republic of Hawaii in 1897. Nevertheless, the independence was fleeting since Hawaii was designated a US territory and achieved statehood as the 50th state on 21st August 1959.

The Guano Islands Act

The United States even smelled the potential in bird excrement to enhance its resources and extend its territory. These feces known as Guano is an extraordinary fertiliser for farmlands. However, guano deposits were uncommon and geographically dispersed, consisting of small and isolated islands covered in layers of this waste that had accumulated over centuries or perhaps millennia.

Hence, the Guano Islands Act of 1856, which permitted any American citizen to claim a deserted island rich in guano on behalf of their nation, was passed by the US Congress out of a hunger for productivity and military advantage.

Afterwards, Americans embarked on naval excursions to locate guano and declare it as their territory. The nation deployed a 22-gun warship to collect and assess guano in 1857 from the newly “owned” islands under this statute, as dozens of such places in the Pacific and Caribbean were grabbed.

Resources were taken from the islands as American flags were raised there. The United States claimed over a hundred islands under the act, but later vacated them after the guano ran out.

Expansionism and island hopping: US takes over Pacific islands

During the 19th century, the United States continued to press for a greater presence in and across the Pacific Ocean as part of its westward expansion, which extended beyond North America. Hence, it adopted a blend of 19th-century expansionism and the “island hopping” military tactic during World War II and gained control of Pacific islands.

US officials and individuals were initially encouraged to explore the Pacific region by the promise of gains from commerce with China. The United States swiftly broadened its footprint throughout the territory as a result of the China trade. They realised that travelling to the Asian land and developing a presence there entailed a network of ports spanning the Pacific Ocean.

Moreover, the United States was engaged in combat on two fronts: the Pacific and Europe. Thus, the “island hopping” strategy was designed by Admiral Chester Nimitz and General Douglas MacArthur to travel across the ocean and get closer to Japan by winning wars on Pacific islands to confiscate military bases.

It involved avoiding well-fortified islands in favour of capturing weakly defended areas that can aid the following advance. Defenders were forced to suffer from malnutrition and illness when Japanese strongholds were cut off. The United States was able to leapfrog across the Pacific owing to this new scheme. Over the course of three years, this plan would bring American soldiers nearly all the way around the Pacific.

Notably, the urge for an important centre of operations in the Pacific to aid American interests in China prompted the formation of the US base in Hawaii. The purchase of the Philippines from Spain in 1898 was the result of this maritime expansion as well, which transformed into a crucial goal for the US.

The country secured considerable commercial, political, and military interests as well as territorial possessions in the Pacific region by 1900, and turned into a prominent world power.

The foundation of US based on expansionism

The foundation of the United States is primarily based on brutal annexation and expansion, which has shaped its current shape and form, positioning it as the third-largest country worldwide. Each star on the “Old Glory” carries a distinct tale of how it came to be represented on the flag.

It is crucial to understand that the country has not only relied on this century-old strategy but has acted more aggressively and attacked different parts of the world for its interests, through direct invasions, regime changes and more.

The ouster of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh, the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the current targeting of exceptionally resource-rich Greenland by President Donald Trump illustrate the same.

According to the White House, Trump views Greenland as a top national security concern for the United States, given the increasing activities of China and Russia in the Arctic. “Acquiring Greenland is important to deter our adversaries in the Arctic,” the statement added.

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a partner of the United States. Clearly, even allies are not immune to the schemes of Washington, which continuously adheres to the principle of “might is right” irrespective of who is seated in the Oval Office.

More importantly, as history indicates, the US never deviates from its imperialist ambitions without regard for the repercussions for others. Hence, what might deter them from pursuing a similar course in Greenland? International laws, diplomatic restrictions, the sanctity of sovereignty, or such ideals are pertinent to the country only for the purpose of imposing them on others and never for its own implementation.

When Pakistan burned, Balochistan rose: Why 2025 marked a breakthrough year for Baloch freedom fighters

Dhruv Mishra

-

7 January, 2026

0

When Pakistan burned, Balochistan rose: Why 2025 marked a breakthrough year for Baloch freedom fighters

In 2025, Pakistan exposed a deep internal divide, including rising militant violence, overworked security forces, and a government battling several conflicts at once. However, the same year was a unique opportunity for Balochistan. The balance on the ground subtly changed as Islamabad struggled to contain Islamist militancy in the north-west and separatist unrest in the south-west.

The Pakistani government’s focus was divided, and its counterinsurgency stretched thin. As a result of this pressure, Balochistan gained operational, symbolic, and political space. The Pakistani government was compelled to go on the defensive as a result of the resistance network’s ability to reorganise, increase visibility, and impose costs. From Balochistan’s point of view, what Pakistan called a deepening security crisis was, in fact, a moment of leverage. This contrast defines 2025 as a year of Baloch resistance momentum and attrition for Pakistan.

What mattered in 2025 was not one big attack or one dramatic incident. It was the constant pressure. Small and large actions continued to occur in Balochistan.

Why 2025 was different from previous years

What set 2025 apart was not just violence, but pattern and persistence.

The scale and frequency changed

In previous years, attacks came in waves, with incidents here and pauses there. But in 2025, that rhythm disappeared. Incidents occurred more frequently and relentlessly, leaving little time for recovery. The volume itself signalled that this was no longer a sporadic insurgency but an active, sustained challenge.

The geographic spread widened inside Balochistan.

Violence was no longer limited to a few known hotspots. Attacks and disruptions were reported across multiple districts, including strategic highways, towns, and areas close to major infrastructure projects. This spread diluted the effectiveness of Pakistan’s security grid and exposed control gaps.

The strain on infrastructure and security forces increased.

Pakistani forces were forced into a reactive posture by protecting convoys, guarding installations, securing transport routes, and responding to repeated incidents. Infrastructure linked to governance, mobility, and economic activity came under persistent stress, raising both financial and political costs for the state.

The key difference:

This was not episodic violence, driven by isolated events or temporary flare-ups. It was sustained resistance, maintained over time, across locations, and under pressure.

The numbers behind the shift

The argument that 2025 marks a structural shift is not a perception; it is grounded in data. The figures released by the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) show that conflict-related deaths rose to 3413 in 2025. It was more than 74% compared to 2024. It was the deadliest year in over a decade.

Out of this, 667 were security personnel, a 26 per cent rise. It was the highest toll since 2011. Most importantly, there is a significant increase in the number of suicide bombings, 26 suicide attacks, marking a 53 per cent increase over the previous year, underscoring a return to high-impact, high-casualty tactics. Combined, these figures demonstrate that 2025 was not a one-off statistical spike driven by isolated incidents but a prolonged phase of escalation characterised by frequency, intensity, and sustained pressure on the Pakistani state.

Strategic gains on the ground

The significance of 2025 lies in outcomes, not tactics. Over the course of the year, Baloch resistance demonstrated an ability to operate across a broader operational landscape, moving beyond isolated pockets into multiple districts of Balochistan. This expansion complicated Pakistan’s security planning and reduced its ability to localise unrest. At the same time, persistent pressure on vital routes, convoys, and strategic assets resulted in ongoing costs for economic activity, transportation, and logistics, necessitating ongoing reinforcement and security measures. Pakistan’s security forces were forced into reactive deployment, reacting to events rather than setting the pace, as a result of the cumulative effect, which resulted in a distinct change in posture. Although no actual territory was transferred, something more significant took the initiative.

The symbolic shift: women enter the resistance

In 2025, one of the most significant shifts was social rather than military. The apparent involvement of Baloch women in resistance-related activities signals a shift in the perception of the conflict. For many years, the unrest in Balochistan was seen as an almost entirely male-led conflict. It was no longer the case. Women’s involvement demonstrated how deeply alienated Baloch society is. When women, who are frequently the most impacted by economic marginalisation, displacement, and disappearances, enter the conflict area, it indicates that grievances have moved beyond the margins and into the social core.

It also reflected a collapse of fear. It acts once restrained by social norms, and deterrence became possible, suggesting that coercion had lost much of its psychological hold. The generational hardening that this change exposed was as significant. A new generation with lower expectations from the state and less faith in redress through established institutions was inheriting and reshaping resentment. As seen by the entry of younger women into the resistance camp. This event altered the story of the conflict. It shifted the emphasis from “men with guns” to more profound concerns about permission, legitimacy, and the long-term viability of Pakistan’s control over Balochistan. In doing so, it created a conflict that no longer fits well within the security lens’s moral and social weight.

Attrition over time: Why momentum matters more than headlines

A big mistake in reading while understanding Balochistan is the search for a single defining event like a spectacular attack, a dramatic takeover or a declaration. None of these were offered in 2025. Instead, it delivered something far more consequential: attrition.

The resistance applied consistent pressure across the locations over time. Roads had to be guarded. Convoys had to be reinforced. The project slowed. Costs accumulated. The psychological impact compounded. Every incident, regardless of scale, forced Pakistan to respond, divert, secure and explain.

This form of conflict favours patience over spectacle. It exhausts institutions rather than shocking them. It erodes confidence rather than provoking panic. And most importantly, it reshapes expectations both within the government and among the population. By the end of 2025, the assumption that Pakistan could indefinitely suppress Balochistan at a manageable cost no longer held.

Conclusion: 2025 as the inflection point

From Islamabad’s perspective, 2025 was a year of crisis. From Balochistan’s perspective, it was a year of leverage.

The numbers matter. The spread matters. The persistence matters. But above all, the change in posture matters. Pakistan spent 2025 defending, reacting, and absorbing costs. Baloch resistance spent it reorganising, expanding presence, and normalising sustained pressure.

No territory changed hands. No formal victory was declared. And yet, the balance subtly moved.

As history shows, insurgencies rarely succeed in dramatic bursts. They succeed when the state loses confidence in its ability to control outcomes over time. In that sense, 2025 did not resolve the Baloch question, but it narrowed Pakistan’s options.

What burned Pakistan that year tells something entirely: that Balochistan did not disappear under pressure. It endured, adapted, and advanced.

That is why 2025 will be remembered. It should not be treated as the year of collapse but the year the momentum shifted.

From political assassinations to gang wars, narco terrorism to rise of Khalistani separatism – Is Punjab sinking into lawlessness under AAP rule?

Anurag

-

7 January, 2026

0

From political assassinations to gang wars, narco terrorism to rise of Khalistani separatism – Is Punjab sinking into lawlessness under AAP rule?

On 4th January, Marigold Marriage Palace in Amritsar became a crime scene when Aam Aadmi Party’s sarpanch Jarmal Singh was assassinated in broad daylight. A chilling CCTV footage of the incident showed two suited gunmen strolling into the wedding. They approached the 50-year-old village leader and fired a single point-blank shot to his head.

The scene turned into chaos as the guests dived for cover and the shooters conveniently slipped away unchallenged. Hours later, a social media post, allegedly by gangster Prabh, claimed responsibility for the murder. Punjab is not unfamiliar with violence. However, this execution-style murder of a ruling party local leader, that too in broad daylight, has sent shockwaves throughout Punjab.

In a statement on social media, Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) president Sukhbir Singh Badal condemned the incident and accused the Chief Minister of Punjab, Bhagwant Mann, of policing failure in the state. Notably, CM Mann also holds the state’s Home Ministry.

Strongly condemn the cold-blooded murder of Sarpanch Jarmal Singh of Valtoha village (Tarn Taran), who was shot dead at a wedding function in Amritsar today.

This follows an extremely worrisome pattern: yesterday, a young man was gunned down in Bhinder Kalan (Moga) and on Friday… pic.twitter.com/nt01hEeQAn
— Sukhbir Singh Badal (@officeofssbadal) January 4, 2026

In another post on X, Badal listed four murders that have happened in Punjab in the first six days of 2026. In the post, he mentioned that a woman was murdered in Kapurthala on 2nd January, a man was shot dead in Bhinder Kalan of Moga, and a Kabaddi player, Gagandeep, was killed at Manuke village in Jagraon, apart from the sarpanch’s murder.

In a post on X, Bharatiya Janata Party (Punjab) said there is no “law and order” in the state. “It is a reign of Gundaraj”, the party said.

👉 ਵਿਆਹ ਸਮਾਗਮ ‘ਚ ਦਿਨ ਦਿਹਾੜੇ ਵਲਟੋਹਾ ਸੰਧੂਆਂ ਤੋਂ AAP ਸਰਪੰਚ ਜਰਮਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੂੰ ਗੋਲੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਮਾਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ- ਕੀ ਇਹੀ ਹੈ AAP ਦੇ ਰਾਜ ‘ਚ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦੀ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ-ਵਿਵਸਥਾ !

👉AAP ਪਾਰਟੀ ਜੋ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਰੱਖਣ ਦੇ ਝੂਠੇ ਦਾਅਵੇ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ, ਅੱਜ ਹਾਲਾਤ ਇਹ ਹਨ ਕੀ ਉਸਦੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਗੂ ਹੀ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਅਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਨ

👉 ਇਹ “ਬਦਲਾਅ”… pic.twitter.com/cXRR1Q6TFW
— BJP PUNJAB (@BJP4Punjab) January 4, 2026

Political killings in broad daylight

The murder of the sarpanch was not an isolated incident. It is one of a series of political murders that have rocked Punjab in recent months. In fact, barely 48 hours before the murder of the sarpanch, Congress leader Umarsir Singh was riddled with bullets in Moga. The attackers were allegedly linked to a local rivalry involving an AAP functionary, which raised serious concerns.

These back-to-back political assassinations, one from the ruling party and one from the opposition, shed light on an uncomfortable reality – that no one, either from the ruling party or the opposition, is safe in the state.

Speaking on the matter, senior Congress MLA and former minister Pargat Singh pointed towards an “unchecked surge” in such cases of violence. He warned, “Punjab has never witnessed such lawlessness in recent years.” He and others in the opposition have demanded CM Mann’s resignation, calling the situation “completely out of the government’s hands”.

It has to be noted that these political murders were carried out in broad daylight, in public view. It was evident from the CCTV footage of the sarpanch’s murder that the murderers were scarcely concerned about police response. In the case of Umarsir as well, the gunmen escaped easily.

Congress MLA Gurjit Aujla slammed the AAP government for “failing to maintain law and order” and noted how even local disputes now routinely escalate into lethal violence.

This is not the first time Punjab has witnessed such high-profile bloodshed under AAP government. The assassination of internationally renowned yet controversial singer and Congress leader Sidhu Moose Wala in 2022 was an early warning of the state’s descent into gang-fuelled violence. Carried out in broad daylight with military-grade weapons, the murder was later linked to gang rivalries and exposed the dangerous nexus between organised crime and political circles. What followed was a series of violent episodes that only grew in frequency and boldness.

Extortion, gangs and sports turf wars

Beyond politics, organised crime networks have turned the state into their playground and battleground. Opposition leader Partap Singh Bajwa noted, “Getting extortion calls from gangsters has become the norm in the state.” He argued that the people of Punjab are not safe from this climate of fear.

He alleged that gang lords operate freely, and went on to claim that the administration has effectively ceded its authority in the hinterland. SAD chief Sukhbir Singh Badal likewise described a “prevailing jungle raj”, where “businessmen, doctors, artists, and athletes are facing grave threats from extortionists” and violent retribution is routine.

The collapse of law and order in the state is such that in July 2025, a prominent trader from Abohar in district Fazilka, Sanjay Verma, co-founder of famous Wear Well, was brutally gunned down outside his shop in broad daylight. Verma was fondly called the “Kurta Pyjama King”, as Wear Well is famous among politicians and celebrities alike. His murder prompted merchants’ strikes in protest.

The infamous gang wars of the state have also spilled into the sporting arena. Kabaddi, Punjab’s much-loved rural sport, has in recent years been stained with blood as criminal syndicates often try to influence its lucrative tournaments.

In December 2025, Kabaddi promoter Kanwar Digvijay alias Rana Balachauria was shot dead by imposters posing as fans in front of a packed stadium in Mohali. The murder epitomised the nexus of crime and sport. Kabaddi is a 100-crore industry which is now entangled with gambling, gang rivalries and score-settling.

In October 2025, 25-year-old player Tejpal Singh was shot during an on-field altercation in Jagraon. A month later, another player, Gurvinder Singh, was killed in Samrala. The Lawrence Bishnoi gang claimed responsibility for the murder on social media.

Even earlier, in 2022, international Kabaddi star Sandeep Nangal Ambian was gunned down at a tournament in Jalandhar. Later, the probe revealed the murder was the result of inter-gang rivalry among sport promoters. Each murder shifted the balance of underworld power in the profitable Kabaddi circuit, where syndicates attempt to control tournaments, run betting rackets and overshadow player contracts.

Speaking to Indian Express, an investigator claimed that the tentacles of gangs have reached so far into Kabaddi that players quietly talk about pressure to throw matches or face threats by bookies linked to gangs.

The gangsters in the state are pursuing their endeavours without much fear of the law. The Bhagwant Mann-led government is indeed working to curb gangland activities. The state government had set up an Anti-Gangster Task Force (AGTF) in 2022 and it has yielded some notable results on the ground. Media reports suggest that till November 2025, the task force arrested 2,209 gangsters, neutralised 21, dismantled 825 modules, and seized a large cache of weapons, vehicles, and drugs. While this is not a small number, there are allegations that gangs have flourished in the state in the past few years as a result of the government’s own lapses.

Pratap Bajwa has even accused the ruling AAP and some in the police of tacitly “using gangsters for furthering [their] political agenda” and claimed that victims who report extortion are advised to “settle the matter” with the criminals rather than see robust police action.

What Bajwa has claimed is damning, as it showcases public perception. It appears that the public now believes that the police are either unable or unwilling to take on the well-connected crime bosses. The term “gangland” was coined by Punjab Congress chief Amrinder Singh Raja Warring while lamenting that ordinary people now live in “fear and terror while the gangsters go scot-free” in the state.

Narco-terror state, drugs and terror attacks

On one hand, domestic crime is gripping the state and on the other hand, persistent drug menace has another tentacle that links to narco-terrorism. OpIndia has previously talked in detail about narco-terrorism in the context of Punjab which can be checked here.

According to the latest National Crime Records Bureau data, in 2023, Punjab saw 11,589 cases under the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDPC) Act. It is the third highest in India after Kerala and Maharashtra. Notably, out of the 11,589 cases, 7,785 were related to drug trafficking and not personal consumption.

The data makes it clear that Punjab is not just a market for drugs but a major transit corridor for organised smuggling. Punjab shares a wide border with Pakistan which has made it a preferred route for contraband flooding in. Sophisticated cross-border networks use drones, tunnels and couriers to move narcotics as well as weapons into Punjab.

In a statement, Sukhbir Badal had blamed the AAP government’s “apathy” for “allowing narco-terrorism to raise its head again”. He linked the rocket-propelled grenade blasts in Tarn Taran that happened in December 2022 directly to the booming drug trade and porous border security. In a post on social media, Congress’s Raja Warring had called the situation “quite serious” and urged united action by the state and the Centre against the drug trade in Punjab.

Not to forget, there have been several such attacks in Punjab. The RPG attack on a police building in May 2022 and a blast in Ludhiana district court in 2021 showed that from time to time such attacks have shaken the state irrespective of which government was in power. In September 2024 as well, there was a blast in Sector 10 Chandigarh, the Union Territory that is shared as the capital by both Punjab and Haryana.

These audacious attacks have sent shockwaves not only across states but also have worried the central agencies. For ordinary residents of Punjab, these attacks are an eerie reminder of the bombings and shootouts that once haunted their daily lives during the insurgency between the 1980s and the 1990s.

Amid all the criminal activities, Khalistani separatist propaganda has grown more visible in the state. The most striking example was the rise of self-styled preacher Amritpal Singh. His hardline Khalistani campaign erupted into violence in early 2023 when in February, his followers, armed with swords, guns and the Sikh holy book as a shield, stormed the Ajnala police station near Amritsar to demand the release of an arrested aide.

The scenes of the attack on the police station were broadcast nationwide. Hundreds of men breached the barricades and besieged the station. Several police personnel were injured and it was a major humiliation for the state. The fact that the mob succeeded in freeing the detained aide of Amritpal Singh sent a very dangerous message that the radical separatists can defy the police with impunity.

For weeks, Amritpal Singh went on the run from authorities and evaded capture until a nationwide manhunt finally nabbed him. The Ajnala incident and subsequent pro-Khalistan events in the state exposed how the counter-terrorism infrastructure was weakened.

When Amritpal Singh-linked locations were raided, investigation officers revealed he was raising a militia. There were weapons, bulletproof jackets and other incriminating material that the police found at those locations. Amritpal was eventually nabbed and shifted to a jail in Assam. Amritpal, chief of the Waris Punjab De organisation, was booked under the National Security Act (NSA).

Surprisingly, despite being booked under serious charges, he was allowed to contest the 2024 Lok Sabha elections which he comfortably won. However, he remained in prison despite becoming an MP. He has not attended a single day of Parliament proceedings for obvious reasons.

Each drone shipment of weapons from Pakistan, each propaganda video by overseas Khalistani leaders, and each unexplained blast on Punjab’s soil chips away at the hard-won peace, at least on paper, of the past two decades.

State government under AAP

When Bhagwant Mann took charge of Punjab in 2022, his government promised a fresh start. There have been some decisions made to control gang related activities and the drug menace in the state, but the outcome seems limited. There have been reports of houses of drug mafia getting bulldozed, recoveries being made by special units of the Punjab Police against drugs, and recoveries of drug-carrying drones at borders by the Punjab Police in collaboration with the Border Security Force (BSF). In a press release, AAP claimed 283 drones carrying heroin, weapons and ammunition were seized in 2024. By August 2025, 137 drones were recovered. However, it has not been able to curb the drug problem completely in the state.

Similarly, the rise in murders, thefts, and other criminal activities has put the state government under strict scrutiny. Even judges got hit by theft. In March 2023, official residence of Additional Sessions Judge Ravdeep Hundal was broken into, and the thieves fled after stealing taps and a geyser from the house. In October 2024, a CCTV footage surfaced in which a woman in Punjab’s Amritsar bravely stopped three theives from entering her house. The incident took place in broad daylight.

Partap Bajwa, the Congress Leader of the Opposition, called for CM Mann’s resignation as he “failed to manage the Home Department and Punjab Police effectively”. Bajwa argued that if he had “an iota of self-respect, he would tender his resignation”.

In July last year, after the daylight murder of the Abohar businessman, Bajwa thundered in the Assembly that “no Punjabi is safe today” and that gangsters act without fear because the administration is asleep at the wheel.

Indeed, Punjab’s police have recovered caches of rifles, RDX explosives and heroin in recent months, highlighting just how heavily armed and funded the criminal-terror nexus is. But such successes are overshadowed by the brazenness of continued attacks. As BJP leader Sunil Jakhar put it, each “deafening silence of the AAP government after such killing only emboldens the gangsters”, and every week of delay in asserting control makes it “already too late”.

SAD veteran Daljit Cheema has similarly accused Mann of “failing to maintain law and order” and demanded he quit if he cannot stem the tide.

The statistics echo their concern. According to NCRB 2023 data, Punjab saw a slight rise in overall cognisable crimes (IPC+SLL) in the AAP era’s initial year before a dip in 2023. The state registered 69,944 total cases in 2023, combining 44,872 IPC offences and 25,072 special or local law cases.

While the total crime rate per capita in Punjab, around 228 per lakh people, remains lower than many large states, it is the nature of the crimes that alarms the public. Violent crimes have spiked in visibility, Punjab recorded 681 murder cases in 2023, about 2.2 murders per 100,000 people, only a marginal decline from the previous year’s 718.

In other words, an average of two people are still being killed every day in the state, many in feud-like shootings. Meanwhile, property crimes like theft and burglary form the bulk of Punjab’s IPC cases each year, the state logged tens of thousands of thefts, contributing to its around 146 per lakh property crime rate. And underpinning many of these statistics is the drug factor, NDPS cases in Punjab rose to 11,589, 37.6 per lakh, in 2023 as noted, with the state leading in narcotics seizures.

These figures, drawn from the NCRB’s latest report, paint a picture of a state where crime is both high in volume and increasingly chilling in character.

In sum, Punjab stands at a perilous crossroads. A state that shed rivers of blood to emerge from the nightmare of insurgency now stares at new demons in familiar garb. The onus is on its government to prove that it is not as inept as critics claim, that is, to show, in deed rather than word, that it can slay the hydra of crime and terror. Failing that, the judgement of the people will be harsh, and rightly so.

Power vacuum filled, control still unclear: Read what is happening in Venezuela after Maduro’s capture and Trump’s announcement of taking their oil

Shriti Sagar

-

7 January, 2026

0

Power vacuum filled, control still unclear: Read what is happening in Venezuela after Maduro’s capture and Trump’s announcement of taking their oil

Following the dramatic capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces, Venezuela slid into an anxious and fearful phase. As sections of the diaspora abroad celebrated the operation, inside the country, the mood has been quite different.

Streets in Caracas remain heavily guarded, public expressions are muted, and a sense of uncertainty hangs over daily life. What was described by Washington as a decisive strike against a “narco-terrorist regime” has instead deepened anxiety within Venezuela, raising serious questions about sovereignty, freedom of expression, and what comes next for the crisis-hit nation.

Journalists detained as information flow tightened

One of the clearest signs of the growing crackdown came on Monday, 5th January, when at least 14 journalists were detained across Caracas while covering the aftermath of Maduro’s capture by US Delta Force. According to the Venezuelan journalists’ union, almost all of those detained worked for foreign media organisations. Though most were released later the same day, one reporter was deported, and the incident sent a chilling message to the press.

14 Journalists covering pro Maduro rallies and legislative events in Caracas were detained, then released, with one foreign reporter deported. https://t.co/0t7IQb2cii pic.twitter.com/B9ui4bIAyy
— ARISE NEWS (@ARISEtv) January 6, 2026

The detentions took place near key political locations, including the National Assembly, surrounding neighbourhoods, and the opposition-leaning area of Altamira. Some journalists were seized by agents linked to Venezuela’s military counterintelligence, while others were held by the country’s intelligence service. Reporters said their equipment was searched, phones checked, and even private messages and social media activity scrutinised.

Two foreign journalists, one Colombian and one Spanish, were also detained at the border near Cúcuta. They were held incommunicado for several hours before being sent back to Colombia. Media unions called the incidents “alarming” and demanded the release of 23 journalists who remain detained across the country.

Foreign media have long faced restrictions in Venezuela, with visas rarely granted. But the post-Maduro atmosphere appears even more hostile. Several residents told international media that armed, hooded men were patrolling neighbourhoods, checking phones and WhatsApp statuses. In Petare, one of Caracas’s largest districts, a community leader described masked gunmen openly intimidating residents.

A 60-year-old Caracas resident said people were afraid to speak freely, pointing to the heavy presence of police, soldiers, and pro-government armed groups known as colectivos. Another woman said military personnel were stationed on nearly every corner, alongside armed civilians loyal to the government, creating an environment of fear rather than calm.

Delcy Rodríguez sworn in as the interim President, but questions loom

Amid this tense backdrop, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was formally sworn in as Venezuela’s interim president on Monday, 5th January, just two days after US special forces captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a pre-dawn raid.

Rodríguez, 56, took the oath before the National Assembly in Caracas, with the ceremony presided over by her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, who heads the legislature.

Maduro’s VP SWORN IN as acting President

‘I swear by Bolivar, I swear by our liberatrors…in these terrible hours of threat’

Delcy Rodriguez says she’ll strive to provide ‘social happiness and political stability’ pic.twitter.com/nmy8ugZtJm
— RT (@RT_com) January 5, 2026

Lawmakers chanted slogans supporting Maduro during the ceremony, underlining that the transition was not the result of an internal political process but a response to extraordinary circumstances. In her address, Rodríguez said she assumed office “with pain,” referring to what she described as the “kidnapping” of Maduro and his wife, whom she called “heroes” now held hostage in the United States.

The Supreme Court ordered Rodríguez to take over in an acting capacity, a move that was later endorsed by the Venezuelan military. Initially, she strongly condemned the US operation as “barbaric” and a violation of national sovereignty. However, her tone shifted after warnings from the White House.

On Sunday, 4th January, Rodríguez signalled willingness to engage with Washington, inviting the US to cooperate on an agenda of shared development and peaceful coexistence.

US officials have reportedly described Rodríguez as a workable interim figure. A trained lawyer with experience in oil and finance, she is seen in Washington as someone who could manage a controlled transition. However, opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado has rejected Rodríguez’s appointment outright, calling instead for a full democratic transition led by elected representatives.

Maduro in a New York courtroom

While power shifted in Caracas, Nicolás Maduro appeared in a courtroom in New York on Monday, 5th January. Shackled and flanked by US marshals, Maduro pleaded not guilty to multiple charges, including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices.

.@AaronKatersky reports on the legal case against deposed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as he and his wife plead not guilty in a New York courtroom to drug charges that could land them in prison for life. pic.twitter.com/FNhdapjPX2
— Good Morning America (@GMA) January 6, 2026

“I am a decent man, the president of my country,” Maduro told the court, insisting he remained Venezuela’s legitimate leader. At one point, a member of the public shouted at him in Spanish, telling him he would “pay” for his actions. Maduro responded sharply, calling himself a “kidnapped president” and a “prisoner of war.”

Judge Alvin Hellerstein interrupted the exchange, reminding Maduro that there would be “a time and a place” to address his claims. The hearing lasted around 30 minutes, after which Maduro was escorted out through a back door with his wife. His next court appearance has been scheduled for 17th March.

At the United Nations, Venezuela’s ambassador, Samuel Moncada, denounced the operation as an “illegitimate armed attack” and a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. The US ambassador, Mike Waltz, defended the action, describing Maduro as an “illegitimate so-called president” and a fugitive from justice. He argued that the world’s largest energy reserves could not remain in the hands of such a leader.

The UN Security Council convened an emergency session to discuss the crisis, reflecting growing international unease over Washington’s actions.

“No Foreign agent is running Venezuela,” says Rodríguez

As speculation grew over US intentions, Delcy Rodríguez moved quickly to assert control. In a televised address on Tuesday, 6th January, she declared that Venezuela remained firmly in Venezuelan hands. “The government of Venezuela is in charge of our country, and no one else,” she said. “There is no foreign agent governing Venezuela.”

🚨Interim president of Venezuela fires back: Delcy Rodríguez dismisses Trump’s warning and says Venezuela governs itself.

"The government of Venezuela governs in our country, no one else… There is no external agent that governs Venezuela."pic.twitter.com/O3PU1YZNyY
— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) January 7, 2026

Her remarks came a day after Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty in New York. Venezuela’s prosecutor general demanded their immediate release, calling the US operation an illegal act of armed aggression. Rodríguez also announced a seven-day national mourning period after Venezuela released a list of 24 soldiers killed during the raid. Cuba, a close ally, said 32 of its military personnel had also died.

Despite Trump’s initial claim that the US would “run” Venezuela, American officials later walked back the statement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US would instead guide the “direction” of governance using sanctions and pressure, particularly to gain greater access to Venezuela’s oil sector.

However, lawmakers in Washington expressed frustration over the lack of clarity. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described the administration’s plan as vague and troubling, warning that such interventions often end badly for both the US and the targeted country.

Are Venezuelans abroad celebrating?

Outside Venezuela, reactions have been markedly different. Since 2014, nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled the country, creating one of the largest refugee crises in modern Latin American history. Many among the diaspora, particularly in the US and Europe, welcomed Maduro’s capture, seeing it as long-overdue accountability for alleged abuses.

Human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and UN agencies have accused Maduro’s government of crimes against humanity, including torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. For those who lost family members, livelihoods, or futures, the images from New York felt like justice finally catching up.

Yet voices from within Venezuela tell a more complex story. A Caracas-based observer, Diego Sequera, questioned the US narrative, saying it was difficult to believe the drug trafficking accusations given the timing and intensity of recent pressure. “No one inside Venezuela wants what the US wants in the sense of regime change,” the person said. “No one wants internal conflict. No one is celebrating.”

The only Venezuelans who are happy with US strikes are the diaspora who have a lot of time. The overwhelming majority in #Venezuela do not approve that the resolution to our problems should be by #UnitedStates:
Diego Sequera from #Caracas, tells me on #RaceToPower pic.twitter.com/bmdtFcFjeo
— Shreya Upadhyaya (@ShreyaOpines) January 7, 2026

According to this account, most of the visible celebration is coming from a relatively privileged section of the diaspora, with time and on their hands. Many others abroad are simply working to survive or are even returning to Venezuela as conditions slowly stabilise in some areas.

“There’s no party, no celebration here,” Diego said to WION. “And regardless of whether people support Maduro or not, the overwhelming majority do not approve of foreign action, especially by the United States, as the solution to our problems.”

Conclusion: Power vacuum may have been filled, but control is still questioned

For now, Venezuela appears to have filled the immediate power vacuum with the swearing-in of an interim president and the backing of key state institutions, including the military and the courts. On paper, governance continues, ministries function, and authority has a visible face. Yet beneath this surface stability, uncertainty remains deep and unresolved.

With former US President Donald Trump openly declaring that the United States will take Venezuela’s oil, serious doubts persist about how much real power Caracas actually holds over its own future. External pressure, economic leverage, and the shadow of foreign intervention continue to loom large. As a result, while the leadership gap may have been formally addressed, Venezuela’s sovereignty, decision-making authority, and control over its most critical resource remain in question.

Somnath Temple: Baan Stambh, an architectural spectacle, symbolises the amalgamation of science and spirituality in ancient Indian civilisation

OpIndia Staff

-

7 January, 2026

0

Somnath Temple: Baan Stambh, an architectural spectacle, symbolises the amalgamation of science and spirituality in ancient Indian civilisation

Adorning the Western coast of India, Somnath Temple stands as a testament to the resilience and grandeur of the ancient Hindu civilisation. One of the twelve Jyotirlingas dedicated to Lord Shiva, the temple accommodates a unique pillar known as the Baan Stambh. Located on the south side of the temple, facing the Arabian Sea, the pillar is decorated with intricate carvings. It remains a centre of curiosity for the visitors.

Baan Stambh is not just another ancient architectural spectacle; it symbolises a perfect amalgamation of spirituality and science, which existed in this ancient civilisation. The exact date of construction of the pillar is not known, but its history dates back to the 6th century CE. The pillar finds mention in some scriptures of that period.

Screengrab from the book “The Maritime Heritage of India”

Mystery and significance of Baan Stambh

At the top of the pillar is a globe through which an arrow is passing, which points southward. At the bottom of the pillar, a Sanskrit inscription is carved, which reads, “आसमुद्रान्त दक्षिण ध्रुव पर्यंत अबाधित ज्योतिर्मार्ग”. The Sanskrit inscription translates to ‘from this point of the sea to the South Pole (Antarctica), there is no mountain or landmass’. The inscription states a verified geographical fact. There is no intervening mountain or landmass from the point of the sea to Antarctica, around 10,000 km away.

The inscription is proof of the precise navigational skills of the ancient people, who lived at a time when no modern navigational tools existed. It highlights that the ancient people had a deep knowledge of the Earth’s geography and directions.

Somnath Swabhiman Parv

The Somnath Temple is located in Prabhas Patan of Veraval, in the Gujarati state of Saurashtra, along the coast. The temple is referred to in Chapter 14 of the Shiva Purana. It is known as Triveni Sangam because of the meeting of the Kapila, Hiran and Saraswati rivers. The temple is not only a revered ancient Hindu pilgrimage site but also a symbol of the indestructible spirit of the Sanatan civilisation. January 2026 marks the 1000 years since the first attack on the temple by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1026.

The temple subsequently endured multiple attacks and invasions by Islamic invaders and was reduced to ruins. But the temple kept rising from its ruins. The temple was restored to its present glory on May 11, 1951, with the efforts of visionary leaders like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad and KM Munshi.

Yesterday (5th January), Prime Minister Modi wrote an elaborate post, marking the Somnath Swabiman Parv, and highlighting the temple’s journey through these 1000 years.

When 33 British MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn whom Rahul Gandhi met in 2022, campaigned for the killers of an Indian diplomat: The forgotten “Free Riaz and Qayyum” row

News Reports

Jinit Jain

-

7 January, 2026

0

When 33 British MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn whom Rahul Gandhi met in 2022, campaigned for the killers of an Indian diplomat: The forgotten “Free Riaz and Qayyum” row

In an extraordinary and largely forgotten episode of British parliamentary history, official records reveal that as many as 33 Members of Parliament once rallied in support of two men convicted of kidnapping and murdering an Indian diplomat on British soil. The campaign, formalised through a parliamentary motion titled the “Free Riaz and Qayyum Campaign,” sought the early release of Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Quayyam Raja, both convicted for their role in the abduction and killing of Ravindra Mhatre, an Indian official posted in the United Kingdom.

The episode exposes a troubling intersection of domestic British politics, diaspora activism, and international terrorism linked to the Kashmir conflict, raising uncomfortable questions about political sympathy for convicted militants and the selective framing of justice.

The abduction that shook diplomacy

The chain of events began on the evening of 3 February 1984 in Birmingham. Ravindra Mhatre, aged 48, served as an Assistant Commissioner at the Indian High Commission and was posted to the Indian Consulate in Birmingham. That evening, he was walking home from work carrying a birthday cake for his daughter when he was forcibly abducted outside his residence.

Soon after, a militant outfit calling itself the “Kashmir Liberation Army” claimed responsibility. The group was later identified as a front for the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), a separatist organisation advocating armed struggle against India. The kidnappers issued stark demands to the Indian government: a ransom of £1 million and the immediate release of Maqbool Bhat, the founder of the JKLF, who had been sentenced to death in India for terrorism-related offences, along with other imprisoned militants.

For India, the situation represented an unprecedented diplomatic crisis. It was the first time an Indian diplomat had been kidnapped on foreign soil. The Indian government, however, refused to negotiate with terrorists.

Murder and aftermath

The standoff ended in tragedy. On 6 February 1984, three days after the abduction, Ravindra Mhatre’s body was discovered at a side street in a rural area southeast of Birmingham. He had been shot twice. The murder sent shockwaves through diplomatic and political circles in both India and the United Kingdom.

In India, the killing hardened resolve. Just days later, on 11 February 1984, Maqbool Bhat was executed at Tihar Jail in New Delhi. The Indian government made it clear that hostage-taking and political murder would not influence its judicial or security decisions.

British authorities, meanwhile, launched an intensive investigation. The probe led to the arrest of Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Quayyam Raja, both Pakistan nationals of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) origin. They were charged, tried, and convicted for their involvement in the kidnapping and murder. British courts sentenced both men to life imprisonment, recognising the gravity of the crime and its implications for diplomatic security.

A Parliamentary campaign for convicted killers

What followed a decade later remains startling even today. On 5 December 1994, Labour MP Max Madden tabled Early Day Motion (EDM) No. 12055 in the House of Commons. The motion was titled unequivocally: “FREE RIAZ AND QAYYUM CAMPAIGN.”

The EDM called for the early release of Riaz and Raja and framed their continued incarceration as a political injustice rather than the lawful punishment of convicted murderers. In total, 33 MPs signed the motion, overwhelmingly from the Labour Party. Among the signatories were prominent and controversial figures such as Jeremy Corbyn, George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, Dennis Skinner, and Tony Banks.

The language of the motion was striking. It argued that the two men were being “victimised for political reasons” and claimed that their treatment deviated from normal criminal justice standards. The signatories portrayed Riaz and Raja not as perpetrators of terrorism, but as casualties of geopolitical pressure and state overreach.

The Corbyn connection and Rahul Gandhi’s 2022 meeting in the UK

The controversy surrounding Jeremy Corbyn’s support for the “Free Riaz and Qayyum Campaign” acquires renewed significance in light of his meeting with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in 2022. During a visit to the United Kingdom, Rahul Gandhi attended events at Cambridge University purportedly to discuss India’s future after 75 years of independence. However, the trip drew sharp criticism after Gandhi was photographed meeting Corbyn, the former Labour Party leader widely regarded in India as openly hostile to Indian interests.

Rahul Gandhi was accompanied by Indian Overseas Congress president Sam Pitroda during the meeting. The optics were particularly troubling given Corbyn’s well-documented history of supporting Kashmiri separatist narratives, echoing Pakistan’s position on Jammu and Kashmir, and endorsing calls for international intervention in India’s internal affairs. During Corbyn’s tenure as Labour leader, the party passed resolutions calling for a UN-led referendum in Kashmir, an explicit challenge to India’s sovereignty. Corbyn himself had earlier held meetings with Congress-linked representatives to discuss Kashmir, an episode that triggered backlash in India and forced the Congress party into damage control.

Beyond India-related issues, Corbyn’s political career has been marred by repeated allegations of sympathy for extremist and terrorist organisations. He has previously referred to Hamas and Hezbollah as his “friends,” refused to unequivocally condemn IRA violence, and was associated with platforms that justified terrorist attacks in the UK itself. Under his leadership, the Labour Party was found by a UK human rights watchdog to have engaged in unlawful antisemitic harassment, ultimately leading to Corbyn’s suspension from the party he once led.

Against this backdrop, Rahul Gandhi’s engagement with Corbyn was seen by critics not as an innocuous overseas interaction, but as a tacit legitimisation of a figure whose political history includes defending convicted terrorists, endorsing separatism, and undermining India’s territorial integrity. For many in India, the meeting reinforced concerns about the Congress leadership’s willingness to associate with foreign politicians whose records are fundamentally at odds with India’s national and diplomatic interests.

Challenging the Judiciary and the Home Office

Central to the MPs’ argument was a dispute over sentencing tariffs, the minimum period a life-sentenced prisoner must serve before being considered for parole. According to the motion, the trial judge had originally recommended a minimum term of 10 years for Riaz and 15 years for Raja.

The EDM cited remarks attributed to the judge, including that Riaz was “unlucky to have been involved at all” and that there was “no hard, clear evidence against Raja.” These assertions formed the moral backbone of the campaign, suggesting that the convictions or sentences were excessive.

However, the MPs expressed particular outrage at the role of the Home Secretary. In 1988, the then-Home Secretary reportedly increased the tariffs to 20 years for Riaz and 25 years for Raja, effectively doubling the minimum time they would spend in prison. The motion condemned this move, alleging that the decision was made “secretly” and without transparency.

For the MPs involved, this was portrayed as an unacceptable politicisation of justice. They argued that politicians should not have the authority to override judicial recommendations and implied that diplomatic pressure, particularly India’s reaction to the murder, had influenced the harsher sentencing.

Street protests and political solidarity

The parliamentary motion did not exist in isolation. It openly endorsed activism on the streets. The EDM applauded supporters in Bradford and other cities who were organising protests and planning to picket outside the High Court on 8 December 1994, coinciding with a judicial review related to the case.

By publicly aligning themselves with these demonstrations, the MPs moved beyond abstract concern and into active political advocacy for the release of convicted terrorists. The motion explicitly called for the “early release of Riaz and Qayyum,” placing its signatories in direct opposition to the British judicial system’s verdict and the Indian government’s position.

For India, the campaign was deeply offensive. Ravindra Mhatre was a serving diplomat murdered in cold blood as part of a transnational terror plot. The attempt to recast his killers as victims of injustice highlighted a profound disconnect between British domestic politics and the lived reality of terrorism faced by Indian officials and civilians

A disturbing intersection of politics and terror

The “Free Riaz and Qayyum Campaign” remains a potent case study in how ideological activism, diaspora politics, and geopolitical conflicts can distort moral clarity. That elected MPs in a Western democracy publicly campaigned for the release of men convicted of murdering a foreign diplomat underscores the selective empathy often extended in cases involving Islamist or separatist violence.

The episode also foreshadowed broader debates that would later emerge around political responses to terrorism, especially when perpetrators are framed through lenses of “resistance” or “political struggle.”

More than four decades after Ravindra Mhatre’s murder, the parliamentary motion stands as a stark reminder: while victims of terrorism are often quickly forgotten, efforts to sanitise or excuse their killers can find enduring platforms, even within the halls of democratic power.

Ahead of the retrial of 2022 Leicester anti-Hindu violence instigator Majid Freeman, Islamist outfit CAGE International gives ‘mobilise for Freeman’ call

Shraddha Pandey

-

7 January, 2026

0

Ahead of the retrial of 2022 Leicester anti-Hindu violence instigator Majid Freeman, Islamist outfit CAGE International gives ‘mobilise for Freeman’ call

In September 2024, Majid Freeman, the Muslim ‘activist’ who had spread lies and misinformation about the role of Hindus in the 2022 anti-Hindu Leicester violence, was jailed for 22 weeks for attempts to spark violence during the same unrest. Freeman offered no plea back then, knowing that he had no defence for his actions. However, CAGE International, a UK-based NGO dedicated to the cause of ensuring the release of jailed Islamists, is running a campaign whitewashing his anti-Hindu and criminal activities.

CAGE International, previously known as CagePrisoners Project, is mobilising support for Majid Freeman ahead of his retrial in the Leicester case on 9^th January. In a flyer, CAGE International described Freeman as a ‘humanitarian’ and ‘anti-genocide activist’. It claimed that he was “convicted in a politicised trial for the crime of defending the Leicester community during Hindutva-inspired riots in 2022.”

“MOBILISE FOR MAJID FREEMAN. Humanitarian and Pro-Palestine activist Majid Freeman stood up for the Leicester community during the 2022 Hindutva-inspired riots after multiple failures from Leicestershire police. He was convicted last year in a politicised trial. Stand in solidarity with him at his retrial. Leicester Crown Court, 90 Wellington Street, LE1 6HG. Friday 9th Jan 2026. We stand with Majid!” CAGE International wrote on X.

INSIGHT UK, a Hindu rights advocacy group, has raised questions over CAGE International’s support for a convicted Islamist and accused the outfit of “victim-flipping” to downplay his anti-Hindu actions that fuelled the violence against Hindus in Leicester in 2022.

“Majid Freeman has been convicted for a racially aggravated public order offence linked to the Leicester riots, where a court found he used abusive words intending to provoke violence. Despite this, CAGE is ‘victim flipping’ and running a campaign that presents him as a persecuted community defender, downplaying his actions that fed anti‑Hindu sentiments in a city already on edge experiencing violence. Why is CAGE, a group with a long history of defending extremists now mobilising support for someone whose actions worsened hate and fear for Hindus in Leicester?” INSIGHT UK wrote.

Majid Freeman has been convicted for a racially aggravated public order offence linked to the Leicester riots, where a court found he used abusive words intending to provoke violence.

Despite this, CAGE is ‘victim flipping’ and running a campaign that presents him as a… pic.twitter.com/T1Bbyt1waB
— INSIGHT UK (@INSIGHTUK2) January 6, 2026

Majid Freeman’s conviction

On 9^th September 2024, Majid Freeman, who had spread lies and misinformation about the role of Hindus in the 2022 anti-Hindu Leicester riots, was jailed for 22 weeks for attempts to spark violence during the same unrest. He was sentenced by District Judge Amar Mehta at Northampton Magistrates’ Court after being convicted of a section 4 public order offence.

The court had noted back then that Freeman intended “immediate unlawful violence” and used “abusive words with the intention that violence would be provoked.”

Notably, in July 2023, Freeman was charged with inciting terrorism and lending support to the proscribed terrorist organisation, Hamas. The prosecution had stated that Majid Novsarka, also known as Majid Freeman, who was arrested on July 9th 2023, on suspicion of counter-terrorism offences, including encouraging acts of terrorism, stated views or beliefs that were in favour of Hamas, a banned terrorist organisation, on several occasions between December 26 of last year and June 20.

Birgitte Hagem, for the prosecution, had informed the court at that time that Majid Freeman was encouraging individuals to carry out, plan, or incite acts of terrorism on social media on March 11, 2015, in reference to the 2015 murderous attack on the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo.

Majid Freeman incited anti-Hindu violence in Leicester

On 28^th August 2022, unrest engulfed Leicester following a scuffle after India’s victory over Pakistan in a T20 match, during which the Indian flag was desecrated. Despite Hindus calming the situation and assisting the individual who desecrated the flag, Majid Freeman spread a false narrative against Hindus, further escalating the violence.

Amidst the peddling of disinformation by Muslim organisations, on 30^th August 2022, Majid Freeman falsely claimed that Hindus in Leicester chanted “death to Muslims,” an allegation later debunked by the police. That same day, Freeman also spread a false rumour on X (formerly, Twitter), alleging that the Quran had been desecrated in Leicester and insinuating that Hindus were responsible. These claims were found absolutely false, however, the damage was done.

Furthermore, Freeman had sparked tensions by falsely accusing a group of Hindu men of chasing and assaulting a Muslim teenager. On 4^th September 2022, while Muslim mobs were attacking Hindus in Leicester, Freeman further incited his local coreligionists against Hindus through social media.

Between 4^th to 7^th September, Hindus were attacked by Muslims. A local Ganesh Chaturthi celebration was disrupted by Muslim mobs, who threw eggs at Hindu sacred symbols. A Hindu man was attacked. In another incident, after Freeman falsely claimed that Hindu men had attempted to abduct a Muslim girl, a Hindu man was doxxed. The police later revealed that the whole story was fabricated.

On social media, Majid Freeman’s team, CAGE International and other Islamist outfits like the US-based Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) have long been highlighting a story that somehow Freeman ‘saved’ a Hindu man during the Leicester violence and thus should be seen as a protector of locals against violence and not an instigator of the same. However, this reminds of the disgraceful ‘Muslims form human-chain to protect Hindu temples in Bangladesh’ narrative peddled by Islamo-leftists during violence after Sheikh Hasina’s ouster. Who were they (Muslims) protecting Hindus from? Majid Freeman essentially incited his co-religionists to attack Hindus, so how does allegedly ‘saving’ one Hindu from the same mob he incited absolve him from his role in inciting riots?

CAGE International’s ‘Free Majid Freeman’ advocacy

Established in 2003 as CagePrisoners Project, the outfit became CAGE International in 2013. As per its website, CAGE International is a source of “information on the status and whereabouts of prisoners seized under the war on terror, for their families, lawyers, as well as press and academics.”

The NGO has a record of defending Islamic extremists and even terrorists in some cases, in the name of opposing ‘misuse’ of counter-terrorism laws. Back in September 2022, CAGE International advocated for the release of Muhammad Rahim Al-Afghani, a close associate of slain Islamic terrorist Osama Bin Laden.

In addition, CAGE International has also advocated for the release of ‘Lady Al-Qaeda’ Aafia Siddiqui, who is serving an 86-year jail sentence after conviction in the case involving an attack on US officials in Afghanistan. OpIndia reported earlier that in 2008, the US Department of Justice had found a number of items in her possession, including handwritten notes that mentioned a mass-casualty attack.

Unsurprisingly, CAGE International is a supporter of the Palestinian Islamic terror group Hamas.

Coming back to Majid Freeman, CAGE International had organised a solidarity event for Freeman in July 2025. The Islamist NGO claimed that Freeman is “facing terrorism charges for sharing words of solidarity with Palestine.”

Right after Freeman’s conviction in the Leicester anti-Hindu violence case, CAGE International had claimed that Freeman was jailed in a ‘politicised Hindutva riots trial’. The Islamist outfit labelled Leicester Hindus as ‘Hindutva agitators’ and called them the perpetrators of the 2022 Islamist violence, even as Hindus were the victims of the Islamist-orchestrated attack, fuelled by disinformation peddled by Freeman.

“Since the 2022 Hindutva-inspired riots in Leicester, ongoing revelations have highlighted the failures of Leicestershire Police, particularly Chief Constable Rob Nixon, in managing the situation. The force allowed paramilitary-style marches by Hindutva agitators in Muslim neighbourhoods in Leicester, directly causing the community tensions,” CAGE International claimed.

While Majid Freeman, Mohammad Hijab (another radical Islamist and key instigator of Leicester violence), their Islamist supporters, and outfits like CAGE International have been trying to blame ‘Hindutva’ and Hindus for the 2022 anti-Hindu violence, the UK court debunked this propaganda earlier.

Ahead of the reported retrial of Majid Freeman on 9th January, CAGE International, operated mostly by British Muslims of Pakistani origins, is giving calls to Islamists to mobilise outside the Leicester Crown Court to show ‘solidarity’. However, concerns have been raised that, more than solidarity, this is a call for a show of ‘strength’.

Ambedkar backed Somnath Temple reconstruction: Viral letter to KM Munshi reveals a forgotten chapter of history

शिव

-

7 January, 2026

0

Ambedkar backed Somnath Temple reconstruction: Viral letter to KM Munshi reveals a forgotten chapter of history

It has been 1000 years since Mahmud Ghaznavi attacked the Somnath Temple, India’s pride, standing proudly on the seashore in Gujarat. The state of Gujarat is set to celebrate the Somnath Swabhiman Parv on 8th January. Ahead of the big day, the history of the Somnath Temple has piqued the interest of many. A letter written by Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar to Kanhaiyalal Maniklal Munshi, or simply KM Munshi, regarding the temple is going viral on social media.

Back in November 1947, Sardar Patel had promised the public that he would rebuild the Somnath Temple. After his death in December 1950, Munshi, the then Food Minister, took on this responsibility and oversaw the Somnath temple’s reconstruction. Ambedkar wrote to Munshi in March 1951, before the consecration of the Jyotirlinga in the new temple by then-President Dr Rajendra Prasad in May 1951.

It is no secret that India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was disturbed by the temple’s reconstruction. Nehru even opposed the proposal to rebuild the Somnath Temple, calling it “Hindu revivalism .” Ambedkar’s letter, meanwhile, makes it clear that he not only supported the temple’s reconstruction but also offered his suggestions.

What Ambedkar wrote in the letter to KM Munshi?

A section of people today portrays Ambedkar as anti-Hindu, but this letter offers a new perspective. Anuj Dhar, author of popular books like “Conundrum ” and “Your Prime Minister is Dead, ” shared this letter on X.

“I find that the date for the installation of the Idol of Somnath is fixed on the 11th of May. I would very much like you to invite my friend Mr Anirudhachary to the ceremony. He is the Head of the Matha in Chandoda in Baroda District. I know personally and do not doubt that he is worthy of an invitation. I am /attaching herewith his name and full address,” Nehru wrote.

Dr B R Ambedkar's letter to KM Munshi concerning the Somnath Temple consecration ceremony. #SomnathTemple pic.twitter.com/PkFfct9qbI
— Anuj Dhar (@anujdhar) January 5, 2026

Grok said Ambedkar’s letter to KM Munshi is fake. Is Grok wrong?

After Anuj Dhar shared the post, many xAI users began claiming the letter was fake and created by AI. Several users tagged Musk’s company xAI’s chatbot, GROK, and asked questions about the letter, which the chatbot later confirmed as AI-created.

“The letter does not appear in Ambedkar’s official writings or historical archives. No prior mentions found in searches before 2026. The name “Antrudhachary” lacks matching historical records for 1951. It appears likely fabricated, possibly AI-generated,” the chatbot wrote in Post X.

Subsequently, there was a flood of people claiming that it was created by AI. We spoke to Anuj Dhar himself about this letter. He clearly stated, “The source of all these records is the National Archives. Anyone who thinks these are fake should consult KM Munshi’s papers in the archives.” He also shared other letters related to this letter.

This means that relying solely on AI chatbots for information could be problematic. Chatbots can’t read archives because a large portion of historical records don’t even exist in digital form. Archives around the world, not just in India, hold millions of documents on paper, including old government files, private letters, handwritten diaries, reports, and registers. These documents are often neither scanned nor available online. Chatbots can only access content that is already digitised and publicly available.

This also presents several challenges, as even the archives that have been digitised are mostly scanned images, not neat text files. They contain ink stains, torn pages, blurred letters, and old scripts. Reading such material requires not only linguistic knowledge but also experience in palaeography and reading historical documents, which is simply not possible for a chatbot.

Other letters exchanged between Ambedkar and Munshi about the Somnath idol installation ceremony

Anuj Dhar has also shared two other letters related to this letter from Ambedkar: one containing Munshi’s reply to Ambedkar and the other an invitation to Swami Aniruddhacharya. On March 30, 1951, Munshi wrote to Dr Ambedkar, “Thank you for your letter dated 27th March 1951. I shall be very pleased to invite Shri Anirudhachary for the ceremony. I would request you to make it convenient to attend the installation ceremony.”

Meanwhile, on 30^th March 1951, KM Munshi wrote to Swami Anirudhachary, inviting him to the Somnath idol installation ceremony. “You are perhaps aware that the installation of the Somnath Lingam has been scheduled to be held at Prabhas Patan on the 11th May 1951. At the same time All India Sanskrit Parishad will also be held. We are inviting the heads of all religious institutions and it will be a great pleasure if you will make it convenient to grace the occasion by your presence. You can come a couple of days in advance,” Munshi wrote.

After reading these two, in addition to Ambedkar’s letter, Anuj Dhar’s claim that this letter is not a single one created by AI, but rather a series of letters, is borne out. This also exposes those who seek to portray Ambedkar as anti-Hindu.

Delhi Riots verdict explained: Why the SC rejected bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, seeing it as a planned conspiracy and not spontaneous violence

Divyansh Tiwari

-

6 January, 2026

0

Delhi Riots verdict explained: Why the SC rejected bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, seeing it as a planned conspiracy and not spontaneous violence

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case on January 5, 2026, established a precedent that fundamentally alters how democratic courts weigh individual freedom versus state security. This historic ruling, authored by Justice Aravind Kumar, distinguishes between criminal conspiracy and superficial activism while revealing the government’s case and the court’s clever reasoning. There are several levels of argument that the average reader cannot see to comprehend what the court deemed most convincing.

The conspiracy that wasn’t spontaneous

The central claim of the prosecution’s case is that the February 2020 Delhi riots were a well-planned conspiracy that was developed right after the Citizenship Amendment Bill was approved on December 4, 2019, rather than an unplanned outburst of intercommunal violence. This distinction is significant because, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967, it changes the legal landscape from spontaneous public disorder to premeditated terrorist activity.

The timetable is devastating. The ‘Muslim Students of JNU’ WhatsApp group was established just hours after the Cabinet approved the CAB. In a matter of days, communally sensitive references to Kashmir and Babri Masjid were being printed in leaflets. In a matter of weeks, Sharjeel Imam gave talks at Jamia Millia Islamia advocating for Delhi to be ‘choked’ by traffic blockades, or chakka jams, which would interfere with supplies of milk and water. The court determined that this development was structural evidence of planning rather than accidental. Acid bottles, stones, and petrol bombs are not stored in homes weeks in advance of a spontaneous protest. Children from minority schools are not evacuated in advance during a spontaneous protest.

The Umar Khalid: Strategic Direction vs. Physical Absence

Umar Khalid’s absence from North-East Delhi during the actual rioting is one of the judgment’s most glaring features. His legal team took advantage of this that he cannot be held accountable if he wasn’t there when the riots took place. The court’s response is worth reading.

According to Justice Aravind Kumar, once the fundamental plan is put into action, conspiracy legislation does not require actual presence at the scene of violence. As the ideological architect, Umar Khalid was responsible for conceptualisation and direction. The court discovered evidence of managerial responsibility in speech material, contemporaneous strategic discussions, and digital communication trails.

More delicately, the decision emphasised that Khalid’s absence from riot areas actually strengthened the case against him, demonstrating that he worked as a coordinator rather than a street-level participant. A mastermind gives orders from a distance. What the court noted but never said clearly, Khalid’s status as a student activist at JNU gave him authority and a following that regular organisers do not have. This was viewed by the court as proof of command authority, the capacity to organise people both inside and outside of one’s immediate social circle. When an intellectual leader issues a call for disruption, followers carry it out. Conspiracy responsibility allows the leader to be held accountable for such execution.

Sharjeel Imam: The Incitement through Indirection

The case of Sharjeel Imam offered another perspective. He consistently denied wanting to use violence. However, the prosecution (as well as the court) found conspiracy in the structural inevitability of violence stemming from the objectives he outlined rather than in explicit appeals for violence. In words that few people understood, the court stated, ‘A conspirator may outwardly disavow violence while simultaneously engaging in acts designed to create conditions where violence becomes unavoidable.’

This is the legal equivalent of stating, Plan an event that you know will result in a confrontation with police, purposefully mobilise women and children to prevent police action, block arterial roads, and claim you didn’t intend violence.

The court deemed this to be unlawful. You cannot later claim ignorance of anticipated repercussions when you plan a chakka jam knowing it would cause communal strife, when you specifically mention Babri Masjid and Kashmir in brochures, or when you collaborate with members of radical student groups like ‘Students of Jamia.’ According to the ruling, where effects are anticipated and structurally foreseeable, carelessness regarding them qualifies as conspiracy.

Why delay arguments failed?

The appellants made a strong case for the delay because they had been detained for years, the trial had not yet started, and around 1,000 witnesses had been called. Long-term confinement must be against Article 21 of the Constitution. The court’s response was skilfully crafted to both firmly reject the mechanical premise that time alone determines outcomes and avoid coming out as unconcerned with liberty rights.

Judges genuinely concluded that delays caused by the accused themselves, such as requests for adjournments, different ways to submit documents, and disagreements over the order of witness examinations, cannot be used as leverage to get bail. The prosecution repeatedly said that it was prepared to move on while the defence cited procedural issues, according to the court’s review of trial order sheets.

More damningly, the judgment cited Tasleem Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), a co-accused case from the same trial in which the trial court expressed distress at being unable to proceed, and the Delhi High Court had detailed how the defence caused delays. The appellants’ footing was severed by this precedent. You cannot participate in a delay and then argue that you are entitled to bail as a result. Subversively, the ruling distinguished between speedy trial and automatic bail.

The court will uphold the constitutional guarantee of a prompt trial by giving orders to speed up the procedures. However, constitutional courts are not obligated to issue bail only because the trial is taking a long time. Rather, the court has the authority (and has done so) to order prompt witness hearings and penalise those who cause additional delays.

The Section 43D(5) Gatekeeping Mechanism

A crucial technical detail that was overlooked in the media reportage is that bail is not strictly prohibited by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The court must be convinced that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true. The court must then consider whether, in light of that prima facie case, liberty should be restrained. The government’s stance gets nuanced at this point.

Taken at face value, the prosecution’s evidence against Umar and Sharjeel reveals the following:

Creating and managing WhatsApp groups as a collaboration tool
Pamphlets that use poignant stories to inspire
Speeches outlining a disruption tactic before acts of violence
Participation in secret meetings when escalation was considered
Pre-planning digital evidence from December 2019
Statements from witnesses outlining their pivotal roles.
They were at the top of a vertical chain of command.

The court determined that all of this information exceeded the level of prima facie plausibility. Defences can be examined during a trial, hence it is not proof of guilt. However, the court is asking if the claims are facially believable at the pre-bail stage rather than evaluating the evidence for conviction. The court determined that they were.

The differentiation doctrine (The sleeper issue)

One of Justice Aravind Kumar’s most important doctrinal decisions occurs almost casually in the judgment. Distinguishing between principal conspirators and facilitators even within the same FIR. Although this law is not new, the court’s articulation of it with clarity and power is noteworthy.

Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a ‘qualitatively different footing’ from the other accused, according to the court. In contrast to Gulfisha Fatima, Saleem Khan, Meeran Haider, and others, who are depicted as local-level facilitators carrying out orders, the prosecution’s own narrative characterises them as ideological drivers with intellectual and command involvement.

The court stated that even if everyone is charged in the same conspiracy, this distinction cannot be disregarded. This is important for the bail stage (as opposed to the trial stage) since different roles require different levels of custody. Detaining a local protest organiser is not justified in the same way as detaining a key conspirator in order to stop networks from reactivating and interfering with witnesses. This principle, according to the court, is ‘intrinsic to criminal adjudication’ and not an exception to conspiracy law, but a constitutional discipline imposed upon bail jurisdiction.

This goes unnoticed because the court claims that proportionality analysis is not eliminated by the UAPA’s statutory ban on bail. Although the statute states that ‘prima facie case closes the inquiry,’ proportionality is required by Article 21 of the Constitution. The court threaded this needle by stating that, although the statutory bar usually applies when a prima facie case exists, the constitutional requirement of proportionality may allow bail for peripheral players even if the bar technically applies when the prima facie case involves varying degrees of culpability.

Because of this, five of the accused, Gulfisha, Meeran, Shifa, Saleem, and Shadab, were granted bail even though all seven were initially charged. Their roles fell short of the level of prominence that warranted ongoing moderation.

The 12 Conditions: Glided Chains

The accused who are granted bail must execute bonds worth Rs. 2 lakh, stay in Delhi NCT, appear in court twice a week, refrain from contacting any co-accused, particularly the major plotter, avoid contacting witnesses, give up their passports, and refrain from discussing the case in public. Any violation results in an instant cancellation.

What’s noteworthy is that the court placed limitations so rigorous that those who were granted bail continue to be closely monitored without being physically detained. They can travel around Delhi, see relatives, and build defences, but their freedom is restricted. This is a compromise, supervised conditional release rather than incarceration or freedom. It responds to the underlying complaint that the court was treating certain people with mercy while treating others harshly. No benefit from bail is guaranteed by the terms.

The clause that specifically forbids communication with principal conspirators Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam is instructive. It implies that the court sees bail as a means of dividing networks. Although those freed may have served as operational facilitators, they are not capable of rekindling the conspiracies on their own. The court eliminated the possibility of additional cooperation by keeping them apart from key conspirators.

The Reopener Clause (Buried in Paragraph 432)

According to the court, Umar and Sharjeel are ‘ at liberty to renew their prayer for grant of bail before the jurisdictional Court’ when the protected witnesses have finished being questioned or after a year has passed, whichever comes first. This is a constitutional protection against incarceration without charge or trial. It is not mercy. ‘We accept the statutory bar for now, but not forever,’ the court stated. These limitations are lifted if the trial doesn’t make significant progress.

This is important because it demonstrates the court’s true stance, which is to temporarily accept the stringent bail regime of the UAPA in exchange for the trial moving forward. Prosecutors are warned under the reopener clause that if they continue to postpone the trial, the court will step in. This is constitutionalism through the back door, upholding parliamentary legislation while making sure that prosecutorial inaction doesn’t undermine constitutional principles.

Conclusion

The verdict conveys the Supreme Court’s stance on coordinated attempts to unsettle the capital under the pretence of protest in a straightforward, although carefully worded, manner. The court has unequivocally held that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA must operate with full force, and bail cannot be granted simply because custody has been prolonged when the prosecution material, taken at face value, reveals a central, formative role in a conspiracy that allegedly threatens communal harmony and the security of the State.

Constitutional scrutiny of liberty will always be role-sensitive rather than rhetoric-driven, as the court has drawn a principled line between those who are said to have conceived and directed the design and those whose roles are described as derivative, logistical, or site specific. Importantly, the court has refused to let delay be used as a way to get around the UAPA framework, particularly in cases where the evidence indicates that procedural disputes and delays were not exclusively the fault of the prosecution or the court system.

The bench has taken a more stringent approach, preserving pre-trial detention for the accused prime conspirators while also requiring the trial court to proceed with due priority and reasonable expedition, especially about protected witnesses and crucial prosecution evidence. The message is clear: an expedited and closely monitored trial, rather than automatic discharge, is the solution for delays in severe national security prosecutions. This is where the judgment’s small but significant bias is found. On paper, it reiterates that Article 21 is still in effect and that the appellants may reapply for bail after protected witnesses have been questioned or after a year, whichever comes first.

However, in reality, it puts the actual burden on the accused and the trial court. Any further stalling will be seen through the prism of constitutional concern rather than tactical gain; the procedures must not be blocked, and adjournments must be extraordinary. In essence, the Supreme Court has maintained the State’s authority to detain individuals suspected of masterminding the conspiracy while tightening the trial schedule to ensure that questions of liberty, guilt, and national security are ultimately settled in court rather than through piecemeal bail litigation.

‘Imaginary law-and-order bogey manufactured for political convenience’: Madras HC slams DMK’s political agenda, upholds lighting lamp at Thiruparankundram Hill

Rukma Rathore

-

6 January, 2026

0

‘Imaginary law-and-order bogey manufactured for political convenience’: Madras HC slams DMK’s political agenda, upholds lighting lamp at Thiruparankundram Hill

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld Justice GR Swaminathan’s judgment, which directed the lamp to be lit atop the ancient stone pillar over the iconic Thiruparankundram hill, one of the six abodes of Lord Murugan. The order was pronounced on 6th January by a division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan.

The court expressed strong disapproval towards the “mighty” Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government for its refusal to permit the ritual to be conducted on a designated day annually, claiming it would cause a “disturbance to public peace.” The bench referred to the assertion as “ridiculous and hard to believe” and berated, “Of course, it may happen only if such a disturbance is sponsored by the state itself. We pray no state should stoop to that level to achieve their political agenda,” in a major embarrassment for the government.

Appellants fail to provide proof, Waqf Board lacks authority

The judges noted that the appellants, which comprised Hazarat Sultan Sikandar Badusha Avuliya Dargah and the state authorities, had not presented compelling evidence that the “Agama Shastra” belonging to the Saivites prohibited the lighting of the lamp at the location, “which is not straight on top of the deity in the sanctum sanctorum.” They added, “Nor it is the case of the Devasthanam or the government that lighting deepam is not a custom prevailing in Thirupankundram Hill.”

The court explained that the “stone pillar with a provision to light a lamp, in Tamil, is called Deepathoon.” It mentioned that the pillar is situated in the area of the hill that has been designated as Devasthanam property by a competent civil court, and the Waqf Board has no jurisdiction over this issue as of yet.

It then shed light on a devious plea and its role in fostering doubt about the proposal for court-monitored mediation. “For the first time in the course of argument in the intra-court appeals, on behalf of the Waqf, a mischievous submission was made that the lamp pillar belongs to dharga. This plea, we would say, had deterred and added yet another reason for the other side to be sceptical about the offer made by the Waqf Board for court monitoring mediation,” the bench conveyed.

It cited an older decision that allowed worshippers to choose another location for Deepam lighting on any other Devasthanam-owned hill, with a 15-meter buffer from the dharga property to protect the site.

“The spirit of the direction is to ensure safety. Therefore, we clarify that the distance restriction suggested by the learned judge is not a sine qua non (essential condition) to fix the place of lighting the Deepam. The safety of the dharga property alone is sine qua non while fixing the alternate or additional place of lighting the Deepam lamp,” the court stressed.

Significance of religious activities, relevance of lighting Deepam at the stone pillar

The bench stated that the best spot to ignite Deepam is the stone pillar, which is situated on a distinct rock summit and beneath the peak where the dharga is situated. The judges also pointed out the purpose of the religious activities and conveyed that it is customary to ignite deepams at vantage spots during Karthikaideepam and other festivals, to ensure that the devotees in the foothills and adjacent areas can witness and worship.

They then quoted Saint Thirumoolar, who noted that “the light is personification of Lord Shiva.” The court emphasised that there is no good reason for Devasthanam to disregard the wishes of its devotees when there is a tradition of burning lamps at elevated points that are accessible within the boundaries of its land. Moreover, such demands are not in conflict with public policy or morality.

It reiterated a prior verdict to showcase that any activity on the hill, which the statute designates as a protected place, must stay within the acceptable bounds.

The court reaffirmed that the hill is a protected area under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act and maintained that everyone must abide by the act, its regulations and the conclusion reached by Justice R. Vijakumar following a split judgment.

DMK government’s fake concern and communal conduct

The judges chastised the district administration for its alleged concern about the likelihood of an upset to public order and termed the same as nothing more than a fictitious ghost conjured up for their own convenience. They further stated that the administration incited suspicion and persistent enmity amongst two communities.

“By allowing a few persons from Devasthanam to the pillar for lighting the lamp and keeping the devotees stay at the foothill and worship is not an unmanageable task. Projecting as if such a congregation will cause disturbance to peace, stampede, disharmony among the community, etc., is either an exposure of their incapacity to maintain law and order or a hesitation to bring harmony among the communities,” the bench charged.

It noted that the state, via the district administration, should have seized this opportunity to address the divide between the communities assisted by peaceful and serious negotiation. The court expressed that the peace talks throughout the years have simply served to increase suspicion because of a dearth of conviction.

Afterwards, it hoped that the execution of its directives, which can be appropriately adjusted whenever the celebration in relation to a respective faith occurs, would result in “only light and not any fight.”

The court upholds lighting lamp at Thiruparankundram Hill

The judges announced that the lamp at the Deepathoon needs to be lit by the Devastham. Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) will apply suitable and important conditions alongside the limitations and prohibitions in the AMASR Act to protect the hill’s monuments.

They outlined, “The Devasthanam, through their team, has to light the lamp in the Deepathoon on the event of Karthigaideepam festival falling in the Tamil month, Karthigai. No public shall be allowed to accompany the Devasthanam team.” The number of team members is going to be selected after consulting with the police and ASI, while the event will be coordinated and overseen by the district collector.

“The writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs,” the court concluded.

The legal battle for Hindu rights

The Madras High Court decided that the old stone pillar on Thiruparankundram hill is suitable for lighting the Karthigai Deepam lamp. However, there was opposition due to the pillar’s proximity to the Sikandar Badusha Dargah, and the lamp was usually lit at a different location close to the Uchipillaiyar temple.

Justice GR Swaminathan, however, rejected these arguments and argued that there would be no adverse impact on the rights of the Muslim community or the dargah from burning the lamp at the Deepathoon. Afterwards, a fight broke out between police and Hindu activists after a lamp was lit at the traditional Uchipillaiyar temple mandapam on 3rd November in defiance of the injunction.

Furthermore, the DMK also chose to oppose the order in court, under the guise of law and order issues. On the other hand, petitioner Rama Ravikumar attempted to scale the hill with Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) forces.

However, the state police, under the command of Madurai Commissioner J Loganathan, intervened and stopped them when the Madurai district collector issued prohibitory orders invoking public safety and the law-and-order situation. Hindu Munnani members, together with others, gathered in front of the temple to demand that the lamp be allowed to be lit in the place mandated by the court.

A few individuals also attempted to cross police barricades. A police officer was injured as a result of the jostling and altercation. According to a top Hindu Munnani activist, the temple administration had made “no arrangements whatsoever” to abide by the court’s edict.

The management of the temple had even challenged the former ruling, contending that the action could threaten communal harmony. However, the court responded with a firm instruction that the lamp must be lit by 6 pm or contempt proceedings will begin at 6:05 pm.

“I specifically mandated the jurisdictional police to ensure that the right of devotees to celebrate the event and offer worship at the petition-mentioned site is upheld. The order of this court was not only not complied with but brazenly defied,” slamm ed Justice Swaminathan after a contempt plea was filed owing to the major transgression.

Nevertheless, the Tamil Nadu government and the Madurai authorities later approached the court to contest the judgement where devotees informed the division bench of Justices G Jayachandran and KK Ramakrishnan that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE Department) Commissioner of Tamil Nadu has “undisguised scorn and contempt” for Sanatan Dharma on 17th December.

Senior Advocate S Sriram, who was representing the Hindus, asserted that every time a peace meeting has been called, the temple has been forced to surrender or give up its rights, shutting down any chance of resolution with the help of mediation. He also discussed the illegal occupation of the Thiruparankundram hill, along with efforts to commit animal sacrifice there, rename it to Sikandar Hill and paint it green during an Islamic occasion. It was also mentioned that the state was unable to provide any documentation illustrating that the pillar is not a Deepathoon.

It is noteworthy that opposition leaders even walked out of the Parliament over the matter. Thol. Thirumavalavan, the founder-president of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, even labelled Hindu devotees attempting to light a lamp at the Thiruparankundram hill as “terrorists” and demanded that Justice Swaminathan be removed from office. Meanwhile, Members of Parliament (MPs) from the I.N.D.I. Alliance filed a notice of impeachment against the judge for implementing a centuries-old custom and demanding adherence to court decisions.

Madras HC’s landmark precedent to curb state’s penchant for suppressing Hindu rights

The Madras High Court has set a landmark precedent for future cases, despite the efforts of the state machinery to shamelessly suppress Hindu rights and infringe upon their religious rights. The judgment noted that it is the responsibility of the state to maintain law and order, rather than to hinder Hindu devotees from carrying out their beliefs and practices under the pretence of communal harmony.

It has also denounced the perverse interpretation of communal harmony, which is only achieved by attacking the religious freedom of Hindus. Most importantly, the court has called out the malicious intentions of the state government, which aimed to restrict the rights of the Hindu community for the sake of appeasing Muslims.

OpIndiabringing the \'right\' side of India

OpIndiabringing the \'right\' side of India

OpIndiabringing the \'right\' side of India

OpIndiabringing the \'right\' side of India

The US buys Alaska for 2 cents per acre from Russia

Louisiana joins the U.S

Texas separates from Mexico and enters the US.

The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo

The annexation of Hawaii

The Guano Islands Act

Expansionism and island hopping: US takes over Pacific islands

The foundation of US based on expansionism

Why 2025 was different from previous years

The scale and frequency changed

The geographic spread widened inside Balochistan.

The strain on infrastructure and security forces increased.

The key difference:

The numbers behind the shift

Strategic gains on the ground

The symbolic shift: women enter the resistance

Attrition over time: Why momentum matters more than headlines

Conclusion: 2025 as the inflection point

Political killings in broad daylight

Extortion, gangs and sports turf wars

Narco-terror state, drugs and terror attacks

State government under AAP

Journalists detained as information flow tightened

Delcy Rodríguez sworn in as the interim President, but questions loom

Maduro in a New York courtroom

“No Foreign agent is running Venezuela,” says Rodríguez

Are Venezuelans abroad celebrating?

Conclusion: Power vacuum may have been filled, but control is still questioned

Mystery and significance of Baan Stambh

Somnath Swabhiman Parv

The abduction that shook diplomacy

Murder and aftermath

A Parliamentary campaign for convicted killers

The Corbyn connection and Rahul Gandhi’s 2022 meeting in the UK

Challenging the Judiciary and the Home Office

Street protests and political solidarity

A disturbing intersection of politics and terror

Majid Freeman’s conviction

Majid Freeman incited anti-Hindu violence in Leicester

CAGE International’s ‘Free Majid Freeman’ advocacy

What Ambedkar wrote in the letter to KM Munshi?

Grok said Ambedkar’s letter to KM Munshi is fake. Is Grok wrong?

Other letters exchanged between Ambedkar and Munshi about the Somnath idol installation ceremony

The conspiracy that wasn’t spontaneous

The Umar Khalid: Strategic Direction vs. Physical Absence

Sharjeel Imam: The Incitement through Indirection

Why delay arguments failed?

The Section 43D(5) Gatekeeping Mechanism

The differentiation doctrine (The sleeper issue)

The 12 Conditions: Glided Chains

The Reopener Clause (Buried in Paragraph 432)

Conclusion

Appellants fail to provide proof, Waqf Board lacks authority

Significance of religious activities, relevance of lighting Deepam at the stone pillar

DMK government’s fake concern and communal conduct

The court upholds lighting lamp at Thiruparankundram Hill

The legal battle for Hindu rights

Madras HC’s landmark precedent to curb state’s penchant for suppressing Hindu rights

About us

Follow us