After a concerted effort to project the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as the original inheritor of the Indus Valley Civilisation, another similar and equally calculated attempt is underway to portray it as reconnecting with its historical roots. The broader objective of this campaign is to recast it as a civilisational state.
Ironically, these efforts are directed at a country that was founded in rejection of that very civilisational identity and rooted instead in the idea of religious superiority and distinct identity from the other people of the region, particularly Hindus and Sikhs. Nevertheless, the propaganda machinery on both sides of the border appears to be working to gloss over this reality and downplay the Islamic character inherent to Pakistan.
They want to paint it as a secular and tolerant nation that celebrates and embraces its heritage, rather than one that brutally erased it in its pursuit of becoming a hardline ethnoreligious entity, which in many respects is the original Islamic State which predates the terrorist group that came into existence in Iraq and Syria.
From gurdwara to films: A conspiracy in motion
Islamo-leftist propaganda portal “The Wire” carried a story first published by “The Tribune” about “Gurdwara Patshahi Chhevin“, which is associated with Guru Hargobind. He is the 6th guru of Sikhism. It is situated in the Amar Sidhu hamlet on the Lahore-Kasur route and was reopened to devotees after restoration nearly 79 years following the partition.
The site is one of Guru Hargobind’s three ancient gurdwaras in Lahore, which also featured lodging alongside langar facilities and was looked after by the local Sikh community under the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) before 1947. It was initially made up of about 17 kanals of land. Davinder Singh Dhillon, editor of the Gurdwara Pedia portal, outlined that the site started off as a simple memorial.
With the help of the Sikh community in Lahore, Bhai Mohan Singh Akali (Nihang) erected a magnificent gurdwara in 1923. The construction was greatly aided by renowned civil engineer Sir Ganga Ram, who created a variety of famous structures in undivided Punjab during the British Raj.
According to historical accounts, the ancient tharra, which marked the location of Guru Hargobind’s resting place, was eventually encircled by a permanent building constructed in the middle of a garden in 1923. The shrine included a massive dome, verandahs and marble floors with inscriptions in Shahmukhi and Gurmukhi memorialising the Sikh devotees who had helped build it.
Nevertheless, this also encountered communal hostility from extremists similar to the fate of other non-Muslim places.
Image via The Tribune
The Sikhs fled to India as the shrine was abandoned and left to the mercy of radicals. It sustained significant damage during the 1947 violence and its condition continued to deteriorate as time progressed. The building decayed while a large portion of the surrounding area was occupied and the adjacent pond was filled in. According to reports, a private family took over the property for a number of years and even built a local pir’s grave inside its premises. It is clear that the intention was to proclaim the structure as a Muslim site.
Nevertheless, the headings conveniently concealed the unpleasant reality of Islamic fundamentalism, creating the impression that Pakistan is trying to revive its heritage. Furthermore, the conspiracy is not limited to gurdwaras but also extends to cinema, which is similarly being utilised to strengthen the anti-India agenda.
Pakistan, which officially banned Adita Dhar’s blockbuster Dhurandar series for exposing its ugly face, wants to showcase Honey Trehan-directed Satluj, due to the film’s biased narrative against India, which completely fails to address the Khalistan movement and its numerous victims, particularly Hindus. The rogue nation has been a major contributor to this problem of separatism, which is also absent from the story.
The barbaric reality of Pakistan
Notably, these superficial gestures to appeal to the Sikh community have been occurring as the border state of Punjab approaches assembly elections in the coming months. Thus, there appears to be a sinister motive behind these actions. It can easily be understood by the relentless persecution of Sikhs and their sacred spaces in the Islamic Republic, which recently tore down the 125-year-old Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Sahib in Punjab province, exemplifying the attachment it holds for its historical legacy.
The gurdwara traced its origins to the late 19th or early 20th century and was linked with one of the most significant reform initiatives in Sikh history, the Singh Sabha movement. The Indian government protested against the decision.
Image via India Today
The complex, which had been mostly deserted since the partition, was handed over to Indian migrant refugees for residential use by the Pakistani government in 1960 with firm restrictions on any structural changes or demolition of the original construction. Despite many complaints over the past four years, Sikh organisations charged that land mafias destroyed the main dome to seize the plot.
This is just one instance among many, as multiple gurdwaras, both well-known and small, much like temples, have been removed both physically and from the memories of the populace after 1947 in Pakistan. A nation that is devoted to its heritage certainly does not operate in this manner.
Moreover, even the Kartarpur Corridor had encountered furious objections from within the country. Late Maulana Khadim Hussain Rizvi, the founder of radical Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, expressed that the Islamic nation was not founded to create Sikh universities or to provide a corridor for them, and those who love this minority community should move to Amritsar.
A mission to explore the fading roots of faith
“After partition, these smaller historical shrines associated with the Sikh Gurus were collectively lost from the Sikh community’s memory,” author Tarunjit Singh Butalia wrote for The Tribune. He is based in the United States and had to set out on a journey to find these places of worship.
“The documentation of pre-1947 Gurmukhi books identified about 250 Sikh historical shrines across Pakistan associated with the Sikh Gurus. The vast majority of them are in small villages, forgotten by the Sikh community worldwide. Having travelled extensively to these villages, only a few gurdwaras remain. Some have been converted into schools or tombs. A vast majority of them are either in ruins or completely demolished,” he highlighted.
Gurdwara Ker Sahib Patshahi Pehli at Farooqabad. (Source: The Tribune)
“Interestingly, the ones that have now disappeared seem to live on in the memory of the Babas (elders) of the village because most of them slowly disappeared after the Indo-Pak war of 1965, the year of my birth,” Butalia remarked as he was confronted with the shocking facts.
According to the data, there are only 5 working gurdwaras out of 38 Sikh landmarks in the Lahore area. “One site is well-maintained but not functional as a gurdwara. 10 buildings are in average condition but occupied by refugees, 8 sites are in ruins, and 14 sites have completely disappeared and typically been replaced by newer buildings,” he added.
Many gurdwaras have succumbed to neglect, endured encroachments and changes in land use or have been completely destroyed, irrespective of their historical or religious value. Of course, when non-Muslims have no place in Pakistan, how can their places of worship be permitted to exist? Unsurprisingly, the sculptures dedicated to prominent Sikh figures have also been targeted.
Samadh Bhai Ghaniya at Kawa Serai, Attock. (Source: The Tribune)
A 9-foot bronze statue of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the founder of the Sikh Empire whose reign stretched from Afghanistan to the outskirts of Delhi, had been defaced on three occasions. It is located in Lahore Fort and was first attacked in 2019 shortly after the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. A man named Zaheer then broke the statue’s arm in 2020 as he was influenced by Khadim Hussain Rizvi’s sermons, while the artwork was completely vandalised in 2021, sparing only the horse.
Pakistani extremists are celebrated the Taliban's victory by destroying the statue of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh in Lahore. Maharaja Ranjit Singh was the first Maharaja of the Sikh Empire, which ruled the northwest Indian subcontinent in the early half of the 19th century. pic.twitter.com/Eh1HNMZs4u
Pakistan has not only utterly failed to safeguard Sikh heritage from external threats and gradual degradation but also consistently neglected it for decades. Therefore, it is natural for suspicions to arise when the country suddenly seeks to prioritise these sites and intends to restore them.
Pakistan even aims to transform Guru Nanak Dev’s birthplace, Nankana Sahib, into a major global religious tourism destination. However, the underlying aim is not a newfound appreciation for Sikhs but rather a ploy to exploit the community to target India and potentially incite unrest in Punjab.
Pakistan’s history of provoking violence and armed conflict in India, specifically in Kashmir and Punjab, as an effective foreign policy tool is well recorded. Therefore, this could be yet another move to exacerbate tensions and interfere in India’s internal affairs by posing as a benefactor of Sikhs while casting the latter in a negative light.
What other rationale could there be for a nation known for its oppression of minorities and driving them to the brink of extinction to engage in such antics? If Pakistan were truly sincere, this would be reflected in its academia, entertainment, literature and other facets which seldom acknowledge Sikhs and their historical relevance and are instead filled with contempt for non-Muslims and glorification of jihad.
The breeding ground for groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed cannot celebrate Maharaja Ranjit Singh unless it is for some nefarious purpose. Freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, who hailed from Banga village in the Lyallpur district (now Faisalabad), have been denied their rightful recognition in Pakistan, which has never acknowledged anyone or anything that is not connected with savage Islamic marauders or jihadis.
Conclusion
The alarming plight of Sikhs, akin to that of Hindus, is self-evident as the community regularly encounters severe injustices. Women, including minors, are especially vulnerable, facing abductions, forced conversions and marriages at the hands of Islamists while the legal system either remains a passive observer or supports the offenders.
The daughter of a priest at Gurudwara Nankana Sahib had to suffer a similar situation after she was kidnapped at gunpoint in 2019, after which her family had to repeatedly beg for assistance. However, the authorities did not help them, pushing them to threaten self-immolation in front of the Punjab Governor’s residence if she was not released.
How is it that the Islamic Republic, known for its horrendous treatment of the Sikh population, has unexpectedly decided to honour its past, which is tied to the minority community that is regarded as second-class citizens in a nation dominated by Islamists? A campaign to restore the pre-partition names of historical monuments and sites in Lahore was launched, which was later abandoned after resistance from extremists.
While there is no change of heart, a different strategy with multiple extensions has apparently been adopted to advance the anti-India agenda. Pakistan desires to be perceived as a secular and civilisational force to cleanse its extremist image globally as it simultaneously tries to harm India’s reputation and stoke domestic tensions with these latest tactics.
A historic gurdwara affiliated with Guru Hargobind has reopened to worshippers in Lahore after being closed for over 79 years following partition in 1947. Gurdwara Patshahi Chhevin is located in the historic village of Amar Sidhu on the Lahore-Kasur road. The location is one of the three historic gurdwaras in Lahore founded by Guru Hargobind. Prior to 1947, it was maintained by the local Sikh community under SGPC and included lodging in addition to langar services. Over time, the building deteriorated as much of the surrounding land was inhabited and the pond next to it was filled in..
In its detailed judgment upholding the trial court’s verdict in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts case, the Gujarat High Court observed that the fact that all those killed in the attacks were Hindus “cannot be treated as a mere coincidence” and concluded that the conspiracy itself was designed to target Hindus.
In February 2022, a special trial court convicted 49 accused in the case, sentencing 38 to death and 11 to life imprisonment. The Gujarat government approached the High Court for confirmation of the death sentences, while the convicts challenged their convictions. After hearing the matter for four years, the High Court, on July 7, 2026, upheld the trial court’s verdict in its entirety. The 2,223-page judgment has now been made public.
A premeditated conspiracy aimed at Hindus
The High Court held that the serial blasts that rocked Ahmedabad on the evening of July 26, 2008, were not isolated or spontaneous incidents but the result of a meticulously planned terrorist conspiracy. It noted that similar serial blasts had taken place in several Indian cities during that period, indicating that the Ahmedabad attacks formed part of a broader terror campaign intended to spread fear and destabilise the country.
The court referred to the prosecution’s case that the accused, associated with the banned terrorist organisation SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India), carried out the blasts to avenge the 2002 post-Godhra riots and the demolition of the Babri structure. According to the evidence, SIMI members assembled in December 2007 and established two terror training camps, one in Kerala and another in the forests near Pavagadh in Gujarat, where they allegedly received training in bomb-making, weapons handling and terrorist operations.
The judgment records that speeches delivered at these camps revolved around “jihad” and the establishment of “Islamic rule” in India. The conspirators allegedly resolved to target large numbers of Hindus through coordinated bomb blasts in Ahmedabad, Surat and Vadodara.
The court noted that the attacks killed 56 innocent people, seriously injured over 240 others, caused extensive damage to public and private property, and disrupted normal life for weeks.
Significantly, the High Court observed:
“With utmost restraint, but this Court considers it necessary to record that the fact that the deceased were Hindus was not a mere coincidence.”
Bombs deliberately planted in Hindu-majority localities
The High Court held that the coordinated nature of the explosions itself demonstrated the existence of a criminal conspiracy. It observed that the bicycles carrying the bombs were not placed randomly but at carefully selected locations in Ahmedabad and Surat.
According to the judgment, the conspirators had adopted a clear criterion while selecting targets—they chose Hindu or non-Muslim localities and deliberately avoided Muslim-majority areas.
During the trial, defence lawyers argued that one of the explosions took place in an AMTS bus passing through Juhapura, a Muslim-majority locality. However, relying on the prosecution’s evidence, the High Court accepted the finding that the bomb had originally been intended to explode near the bus’s point of origin, which was located in a Hindu-majority area. It detonated later in Juhapura only because of a timing malfunction.
The court also noted that the word “jihad” repeatedly surfaced during meetings among the accused and in witness testimonies. In the context in which the conspirators used the term, the court said it referred to carrying out terrorist acts intended to spread fear and inflict large-scale casualties upon a particular section of society—namely Hindus.
The judgment further records that intercepted conversations and witness testimonies consistently indicated that the accused intended to carry out explosions in Hindu localities with the objective of causing maximum harm to Hindus.
Summarising its findings, the High Court observed:
“All the facts and evidence available on record clearly establish that the target of the terrorist attacks was the Hindu community. The prosecution has successfully proved through eyewitnesses and witnesses connected with the conspiracy that the attacks were primarily directed at Hindus and non-Muslim localities. Such attacks not only amount to terrorism but also strike at the very foundation of the constitutional vision of a peaceful and orderly society.”
Death penalty upheld as a ‘rarest of rare’ case
The High Court also upheld the death sentences awarded to 38 convicts, holding that the case squarely falls within the “rarest of rare” category, the constitutional standard governing the award of capital punishment in India.
It observed that the trial court had thoroughly examined whether the convicts had any possibility of reformation before awarding the death penalty and had rightly concluded that no such possibility existed. The High Court found no evidence or legal ground to interfere with that conclusion.
Accordingly, it dismissed the appeals filed by the convicts and confirmed the death sentences of 38 accused while also upholding life imprisonment for the remaining 11.
However, on the request of the defence, the High Court stayed the execution of the sentences for three months to enable the convicts to approach the Supreme Court.
The court also directed the Gujarat government to pay compensation of ₹10 lakh to the families of each deceased victim, ₹5 lakh to those who suffered grievous injuries, and ₹1 lakh to victims with simple injuries, fixing March 31, 2027, as the deadline for disbursing the compensation.
OpIndia was the first to call the mob violence in early 2020 during anti-CAA protests as “Anti-Hindu Delhi Riots”. For six years, OpIndia, through its ground reports, analysis and investigations into the chain of events and Islamist orchestrators, proved that what the mainstream media called ‘anti-CAA violence’, and leftist propagandists called ‘anti-Muslim riots’ and ‘state-sponsored conspiracy’, was in reality, a pre-planned Islamist pogrom against Hindus. With the conviction of former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain in the Ankit Sharma murder case, OpIndia stands vindicated.
From brutal murder of IB official Ankit Sharma to conviction of Tahir Hussain: Faith in justice reinstated after six years
On the 13th of July 2026, the Karkardooma court in New Delhi convicted former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau (IB) official Ankit Sharma. Hussain, who earlier admitted that he wanted to “teach Hindus a lesson”, has been convicted for the offences under Section 188 (disobedience to public order), 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 147, 148, 149 (rioting and unlawful assembly), 365 (kidnapping/abduction), and 302 (murder) of IPC. Alongside Tahir Hussain, five other jihadis have also been convicted.
Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh acquitted Hussain for offences under Section 120B and 129 of IPC (criminal conspiracy) due to insufficient evidence.
On 25th February 2020, 26-year-old Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma was brutally killed during the North-East Delhi anti-Hindu riots. Sharma went missing amid the communal violence that erupted in the area following protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. His body was recovered the next day from a drain in the Chand Bagh area, bearing at least around 51 to 52 stab wounds.
A day after, deceased Ankit Sharma’s father Ravinder Kumar filed a complaint with the police, alleging that incidents of stone pelting, brick batting, arson, firing and sabotage had taken place during the anti-CAA protests at Chand Bagh Pulia, Main Karawal Nagar Road. He had alleged that then AAP leader Tahir Hussain’s office was located in that area and was housing several goons.
The Muslim mob had pelted stones, petrol bombs and gunshots were fired from the rooftop of the office of Tahir Hussain, and he had created an atmosphere of fear among the public. On 25 February, Ankit Sharma went out to buy some household items after coming back from office, and didn’t return.
Ravinder Kumar filed a missing person report the next day. Then he came to know that a man was thrown into the Khajuri Khas Nala from the Masjid of Chand Bagh Pulia after he was killed. After this, the body of Ankit Sharma was recovered from Khajuri Khas Nala. His clothes were missing, except the underwear.
Ankit Sharma had sustained sharp injuries on his head, face, chest, back and waist. His face and other parts of his body had been burned by acid to conceal his identity.
In its chargesheet, the Delhi Police had alleged a deeper conspiracy and stated that Ankit Sharma was specifically targeted by the mob that was led by Tahir Hussain.
Finally, the Delhi court has convicted Tahir Hussain and his jihadi accomplices for the horrific murder of Ankit Sharma. The sentencing of the convicts is due.
Islamo-leftists made Tahir Hussain a victim solely because of his Muslim identity: The monopoly of victimhood
The conviction of Tahir Hussain is not only about ensuring justice for Ankit Sharma but also confirms what OpIndia has been saying for years: that the 2020 Delhi riots were not spontaneous but the eventuality of a pre-planned conspiracy hatched by Islamo-leftists.
From Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam to now-convicted Tahir Hussain, the Indian and foreign Islamo-leftist media painted anti-Hindu Delhi Riots accused Muslims as victims, and continue making heroes out of them to date, despite contrasting evidence.
Days after Ankit Sharma’s murder, leftist propaganda site AltNews, co-founded by notorious Hinduphobes Pratik Sinha and Mohammed Zubair, gave a clean chit to Tahir Hussain. This came even as stones, petrol bombs, acid packs, improvised slingshots to hurl petrol bombs, etc were recovered from Tahir’s building after the riots, and videos had emerged showing hundreds of people throwing stones and petrol bombs from the roof of the building with Tahir supervising the attacks.
The now-banned Islamic terror group Popular Front of India (PFI) had extended support to Tahir Hussain, and even claimed that he had been a victim of “vicious politics”. The PFI, which wanted to make India an Islamic nation by 2047, had squarely blamed the Modi government for the Delhi riots.
Online rabid Islamists had defended Tahir Hussain and claimed that the petrol bombs and stones discovered on Tahir Hussain’s rooftop were for self-defence.
Bollywood lyricist Javed Akhtar, director Anurag Kashyap, entertainer Swara Bhasker, singer Vishal Dadlani, and several Islamo-leftist journalists like Rana Ayyub, Sakshi Joshi, among others, backed Tahir Hussain and portrayed him as a victim who was essentially being targeted by the ‘Hindu nationalist’ Modi government due to his Muslim religious identity.
The Wall Street Journal went as far as to falsely attribute a claim to Ankit Sharma’s brother that a Jai Shri Ram-shouting mob had killed him. Calling out their attempt to paint the Hindu-hate-driven murder of Ankit Sharma by a Tahir Hussain-led Muslim mob, Ankit’s brother had to issue a statement and say that the WSJ was lying.
Jamaat-e-Islami declared Hussain “innocent”, claimed that he was being framed and described his actions as self-defence. They presented Hussain’s surrender as ‘proof’ that he could not be guilty.
Similarly, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan claimed Hussain was imprisoned only because he was Muslim. Khan suggested that the government would somehow fabricate proof that Hussain had orchestrated the Delhi violence.
In November 2020, The Wire included Hussain among “activists, scholars and scribes” supposedly left at the judiciary’s mercy. The Islamo-leftist rag portrayed the riot and murder accused Tahir Hussain as a victim of a political blame game. OpIndia had highlighted back then how The Wire used the fabricated story of the Wall Street Journal, where they quoted Ankit Sharma’s brother being killed by ‘Hindu rioters’.
Ground reports, evidence analysis, chargesheet dissection and more: How OpIndia Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots coverage told stories that nobody else did or attempted to suppress
It must be recalled that on 24th and 25th February 2020, the anti-Hindu Delhi riots took place in Northeast Delhi. The violence erupted amid anti-CAA protests. It soon spread across several areas. 53 people lost their lives, and hundreds were injured.
The dead included Head Constable Ratan Lal, Intelligence Bureau official Ankit Sharma, Dilbar Negi, Rahul Solanki, Vinod Kumar and many others. Over 1,500 public and private properties were damaged during the violence. Homes, shops, vehicles, religious places and public infrastructure were attacked.
The riots left large parts of Northeast Delhi under fear for days before normalcy returned. The Crime Branch of Delhi Police registered FIR No 52/2020 to probe the larger conspiracy behind the violence. According to the prosecution, the riots were not spontaneous, but part of a deep-rooted conspiracy carried out under the cover of protests against CAA and NRC.
Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Gulfisha Fatima, Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar, and others were named in the FIR.
While Islamo-leftists were churning out their victimhood propaganda whitewashing the anti-Hindu crimes of Tahir Hussain through their usual tactic of invoking ‘Islamophobia’, disputing video evidence, communalise police action and downplay what witnesses and investigators found, OpIndia manoeuvred to bring out the jihadist truth behind Ankit Sharma’s killing and the larger Islamist conspiracy, which in Tahir Hussain’s words, was to “teach Hindus a lesson”.
OpIndia interviewed Ankit Sharma’s brother
On 27th February 2020, OpIndia published an exclusive interview with Ankit Sharma’s brother Ankur Sharma. In this conversation with OpIndia’s Editor-in-Chief Nupur J Sharma, Ankur detailed how Ankit left his home to pacify violence in Chand Bagh, Moonga Nagar area. Ankit told his family that both Hindus and Muslims knew him and would listen. Ankit emphasised his IB official identity, believing that then people would be able to trust him better.
“Usne kaha main in logo ko jaanta hu, ye meri baat sun lenge” (He said I know these people personally, they will listen to me), said Ankur told OpIndia.
While Hindus heeded him and retreated, the Muslim mob grew enraged upon learning that Sharma was an IB officer; they soon caught hold of him and dragged him towards Tahir Hussain’s 4-storey house. All this while, stones, petrol bombs, and gunshots rained.
“It was Tahir Hussain who killed him [Ankit Sharma], didi. He is the head of the riots here. He is conducting the riots. He was directing the Musalmans who dragged him inside the house. Arvind Kejriwal will paint my brother as a rioter, didi. He was not a rioter. He was a government official who had gone there to convince people to stop fighting. He knew people from both sides,” Ankur said and also requested that a campaign should be done to secure martyr status for Ankit Sharma.
At a time when foreign and Indian leftist media was working overtime to paint Hindus as the primary orchestrators of Delhi riots and portray Tahir Hussain as holier-than-thou, an OpIndia interview with Ankit Sharma’s brother exposed the then AAP councillor’s true jihadist face.
OpIndia spoke to the boy who saw the Muslim mob dragging Ankit Sharma inside Tahir Hussain’s building
On 28th February 2020, an OpIndia reporter spoke with a minor Hindu boy who managed to make a miraculous escape and dodged an excruciating death at the hands of a ferocious Muslim mob.
The minor boy, who was successful in rescuing himself, laid bare his experience in chilling details about the carnage unleashed by the Muslim mob sheltered inside now expelled AAP leader Tahir Hussain’s building. “They were dragging us inside the building. I somehow evaded their grip and extricated myself. But when I looked back, all three were missing,” the boy said in a trembling voice while referring to the three people, including Ankit Sharma, who were dragged inside the building owned by Tahir Hussain, by the murderous mob.
The boy also revealed that the Muslim mob had attacked a Shiv Mandir in Chand Bagh.
Investigating Islamo-leftist narrative intervention on the Wikipedia page of Delhi Riots
In early March 2020, OpIndia published an investigative report highlighting how a Wikipedia article titled or 2020 Delhi Riots or North East Delhi riots was created on 25th February by a senior Wikipedia editor who goes by the username DBigXray. This page peddled a one-sided Muslim victimhood bogey. While the page has now undergone many changes over the years, it initially featured the photo of BJP leader Kapil Mishra, not an image of the riots. Kapil Mishra gets a separate section titled ‘incitement’ in the article, where he has been blamed for starting the riots. The page either downplayed the role of Islamist rioters or withheld key information.
The article mentioned the attack on a mosque in Ashok Nagar and shouting of “Jai Shri Ram” and “Hinduon ka Hindustan” slogans by the mobs, but gave no reference to any attack by Muslims and anti-CAA mobs. On the other hand, while there are videos showing mobs shouting “Nara e Taqbeer” and “Allahu Akbar”, they find no place on the page.
OpIndia investigation confirmed that the editor behind the biased edits on the Delhi Riots page, DBigXray, was one Deepesh Raj. The article mentioned the attack on a mosque in Ashok Nagar and shouting of “Jai Shri Ram” and “Hinduon ka Hindustan” slogans by the mobs, but has absolutely no reference to any attack by Muslims and anti-CAA mobs. On the other hand, while there are videos showing mobs shouting “Nara e Taqbeer” and “Allahu Akbar”, they find no place on the page.
Meeting devastated family of 20-year-old Dilbar Singh Negi
On the evening of 24 February, when violence erupted in Delhi, 20-year-old Dilbar Singh Negi was burnt by Islamist rioters after they brutally chopped off his limbs with a sword. The rest of his body was tossed into the fire like a piece of meat by the blood-thirsty mob. OpIndia had met his family in July 2020, right after the Delhi anti-Hindu riots where he was murdered by a Muslim mob.
Dilbar’s younger brother, Devendra, stated that he has made compromises over time, but his parents are still unwilling to accept that Dilbar would never return home. When the sons return home before every festival, their eyes begin to glitter with the expectation that Dilbar will also return. They were hoping to see their son again during the Thaulu-Tyaar festival, but their hopes were dashed when his mortal remains came home.
Hindu shops deliberately targeted by Muslim mobs
OpIndia visited Delhi’s Chand Bagh area on the 27th of February 2020, in the aftermath of the riots, which, like many other areas in the National Capital, was burning as Islamists ran amok, resorting to stone-pelting, arson, and vandalism, destroying public properties worth crores and hurting police personnel and civilians in the ensuing mayhem. The Muslim rioters read the signboards of the shops with the name of the shops before deciding which shop to burn and which to spare. While Hindu shops were ruined, ransacked, and burned, the Muslim shops were left untouched, recounted the locals. This essentially meant that these Muslim rioters had, in advance, gathered detailed information about the Hindus residing in Chand Bagh.
Tahir Hussain’s building housed around 3,000 jihadi rioters, petrol bombs and other weapons to target Hindus
A crowd of Muslims, mostly youths, approached from Mustafabad in Delhi. They all gathered on the bridge of Chand Bagh. From there, they reached Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain’s building. They went to the terrace, from where they started throwing stones and petrol bombs. In our ground reportage on February 26-27th 2020, we were told that there were more than 3000 Muslim rioters in Tahir Hussain’s building.
It becomes imperative to note here that Tahir Hussain is the AAP leader from whose terrace, not just petrol bombs, but sacks full of brick pieces, stones, acid packs and even catapults to hurl the stones and petrol bombs were discovered.
Moreover, it has emerged that slain IB officer Ankit Sharma was dragged into Tahir Hussain’s house before his murder, and his body was found in a ditch behind Hussain’s house. Back then, locals had revealed to OpIndia how IB officer Ankit Sharma was dragged into Tahir Hussain’s building by Islamists.
When Islamo-leftist media and politicians were busy painting Hindus as the villains of the Delhi Riots, OpIndia highlighted how an Islamist mob forcibly occupied a Shiv Mandir
While the Islamo-leftist cabal relied on half-truths and their fertile imagination to portray Hindus as the orchestrators and villains of the 2020 Delhi Riots, and Muslims as victims, OpIndia brought forth the horrific accounts of how Hindu houses, shops and places of worship are being attacked, torched, and vandalised by the frenzied Islamist fundamentalists who had converted the anti-CAA protest to anti-Hindu riots in the national capital.
Apart from claiming the lives of several Hindus, Islamist rioters also vandalised and burned Hindu-owned shops and many temples. One such Shiv Mandir in Delhi’s Chand Bagh area, which OpIndia visited, was also a witness to these riots.
Muslims were prepared for riots; women and children were armed to attack Hindus: Eyewitness tells Op.India
Mostly all the eyewitnesses OpIndia got in touch with hours after the Delhi anti-Hindu riots in 2020 revealed that the Islamists had been preparing for these anti-Hindu riots for a long time under the pretext of anti-CAA protest.
On condition of anonymity, the Hindu woman, living in a rented house in Sonia Vihar, told OpIndia, “All the Islamist rioters had hoarded bricks and stones inside their respective houses in advance. They were constantly bringing out the bricks and stones from there. Seeing all this, I was so scared that I could not even sleep the whole night. The area we live in predominantly belongs to the Muslims and our locality is the only locality which houses Hindus.”
Shiv Vihar ground report: OpIndia highlighted how Muslim-owned Rajdhani School became fortress of jihadi rioters
While riots raged on in Delhi, OpIndia published several ground reports that showed Islamist aggression against Hindus. One such report was from Shiv Vihar, located in Karavar Nagar in North East Delhi, which saw widespread riots by Muslims against Hindus.
There are two schools in Shiv Vihar. One is Rajdhani Public School and the other is called DRP Public School. While the Rajdhani school belongs to a Muslim, DRP is owned by one Mr Sharma. During the anti-Hindu Delhi riots, one of these schools was gutted, and the other was made a den to perpetrate violence. It does not really take a lot to guess which school met what fate.
Rajdhani School, which is owned by a Muslim, was turned into a fortress from where the Islamists launched attacks in the area. Rioters were given protection and shelter in that school. It is from this school that stones were pelted, guns were fired, and petrol bombs were hurled. On the rooftop of this school, our reporter found several slingshots that were used to hurl heavy stones and petrol bombs.
When OpIndia reporters reached the rooftop of the Rajdhani school, it was evident that the preparation for riots that were stockpiled could not have been collected in a day or two.
The media focused on the breakage at Rajdhani school extensively, probably because the school is owned by a Muslim, but they did not reveal that the breakage was actually just a drama by the Islamists. The fact is that Rajdhani school had mild vandalism while DRT school was completely gutted.
Muslim rioters attacked Hindus on one hand out of hatred for Hindus, and self-vandalised their own shops to claim victimhood.imhood
A week after the violence in Delhi, we met the riot victims in Brijpuri. During this, we got a piece of startling information. This information came from the person who runs the shop near the Hero showroom and also stays at the shop for 12 hours a day and keeps an eye on every activity nearby. According to eyewitnesses, “Muslim women started protesting on Sunday in the name of the CAA protest. After this, everyone started preparing. On Monday, violence erupted from Chand Bagh. Muslims were first looting Hindu shops and then setting them on fire.”
Eyewitnesses living in Brijpuri further state, “Not only this, these people (Muslims) all knew what was going to happen next. The only Muslim bike showroom in the area, which used to have hundreds of bikes for sale, had taken all the bikes out of the showroom to a safe place at 5 am on February 26, just before violence broke out in the area. After this, the rioters themselves first vandalised the showroom to show themselves as victims and then took the counter out of the showroom and set it on fire.”
OpIndia spoke to the brother of a Dalit Hindu murdered in Delhi anti-Hindu riots
Dinesh Kumar Khatik was one of the individuals killed in anti-Hindu riots in Delhi. OpIndia had a conversation with Dinesh Kumar Khatik’s brother Suresh, and he clearly said that his brother’s life was taken by jihad – the jihad of Islamic fundamentalists. He said that the whole of Mustafabad killed his brother. By Mustafabad, he meant a Muslim-dominated area. This is how the gruesome murder unfolded.
Women from Chand Bagh told OpIndia that ‘rioters took off our girls’ clothes, sent them back naked’
Back in 2020, OpIndia interacted with many Hindu victims, few of whom had narrated to us how the Islamists who had unleashed mayhem in various parts of Delhi misbehaved with Hindu women and girls. A woman told OpIndia on condition of anonymity, “We have come out of our houses for the first time in three days. Whatever these people (Muslims of the area) did with us is being reported, but they didn’t even leave our daughters returning from tuition. They took off their clothes and sent them to us naked. In front of our daughters, the rioters took off their own clothes and gestured indecently. We can never dream of ever wanting to kill our neighbours, but it is evident from their preparation that they wanted to finish us all off that day”.
OpIndia ground report detailed how Hindus were being forced to abandon their homes after the Delhi riots
OpIndia in its extensive reportage on the Delhi riots has laid bare the horrors of the atrocity meted out on Hindus from December 2019, which finally culminated in the gruesome riots in Delhi in February 2020.
In August 2020, OpIndia ground report 2020 revealed how almost 150-200 Hindu families concentrated in three lanes of Delhi’s three Muslim dominated areas- Subhash Mohalla, Madhuban Mohalla and Mohanpuri area in Maujpur had put up posters of ‘The house is on sale due to fear of members of a particular community’ outside their houses as they are being terrorised by the Muslim residents of the locality.
The Hindu victims took our correspondent through the lane and bylane of Mohanpuri area in Maujpur, which were amongst the worst affected by the Muslim transgression. Almost all the Hindu shops and houses which were attacked, looted or burnt down months ago had posters on their walls that read “the house was on sale”.
OpIndia was unarguably the first to report extensively on connections involving Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Tahir Hussain, Sharjeel Imam, Yogendra Yadav, and the early meetings hosted by disgraced lawyer Prashant Bhushan about chakka jam and other conspiratorial details.
OpIndia consistently countered attempts, be it by Indian and foreign media using brown sepoys, to portray the jihadist rioters and conspirators of the anti-Hindu riots as ‘champions of dissent’, ‘crusaders for democracy’, ‘defenders of secularism’, etc. From The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, to The Wire, Scroll, and other Indian leftist rags, they intermittently publish articles humanising the accused rioters, especially Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. OpIndia has been at the forefront of countering this Hindu-hating global Islamo-leftist propaganda factory.
Tahir Hussain was the key instigator of the anti-Hindu Delhi Riots, confessed to his Islamist fanaticism-driven role, and yet got rewarded by his co-religionists
As per the Delhi Police chargesheet, Tahir Hussain had planned the riots with Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi back on 8th January during a meeting at Shaheen Bagh. Several transactions from shell companies were suspicious. The chargesheet detailed several such transactions from Tahir Hussain’s account that indicate that he had started receiving money to organise the riots. Some of the money was even routed through shell companies. The police also alleged that Umar Khalid had assured Tahir Hussain that, financially, Islamist outfit PFI (Popular Front of India) was ready to help in organising the riots.
Hussain had his licenced pistol with 100 rounds deposited with the police released, just a few days before the Delhi Riots broke out. He failed to give a satisfactory answer about the remaining 14 live cartridges and 22 empty/fired cartridges after arrest.
Tahir Hussain made several PCR calls as a decoy to ensure that his involvement in the riots was not revealed. He ensured that the CCTV cameras were turned off so the evidence was not recorded.
In Chargesheet Number 114/20, for example, his role in burning the shops of Hindus and instigating the Muslim mob to attack Hindus is clearly made out.
In one of the disclosure statements signed by Tahir Hussain on the 5th of May 2020, he reveals how he planned the riots to ‘teach kafirs a lesson’.
Tahir Hussain confessed that during the nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, he received information that there were some rallies planned in support of CAA. After receiving this information, he met with others and hatched a conspiracy to “teach them a lesson”. Further, Tahir Hussain confessed in the Disclosure Statement that, per this conspiracy that he had hatched, he chose his own house as a launchpad for the riots since it was a high-rise in the area.
Hussain also admitted that he, along with his brothers Shah Alam, Arshad, Abid, Shahid, Irshad and several others, were present at his residence during the riots. He also admitted that on the afternoon of 24th February 2020, his mobs started chanting ‘Allah Hu Akbar’ and ‘Maaro Maaro Kaafiro Ko Maaro’ and he supervised them for targeting Hindu houses specifically.
Despite the naked truth of Tahir Hussain’s Hindu hate and unambiguous role in inciting violence against Hindus, and killing of IB officer Ankit Sharma, Tahir Hussain received support from his coreligionists, and the ideologically subservient media.
Earning his top reward for spearheading a conspiracy to kill Hindus, Tahir Hussain was given a ticket from the Mustafabad Assembly constituency last year by the AIMIM – the Muslim party of Asaduddin Owaisi. Hussain was seen gloating about Muslims turning up in huge numbers just to have a glimpse of him, with some even saying that Allah has given ‘great success’ to Tahir Hussain.
Rest assured, for his coreligionists, Tahir Hussain remains an innocent ‘framed’ by the Hindutva government due to his Muslim identity despite his conviction in the Ankit Sharma murder case. This is because Muslims have a monopoly over victimhood. OpIndia, however, played its humble role in ensuring that Muslim victimhood propaganda does not erase truth and hopes that Hindus shall not be deprived of justice in their own motherland.
On the 26th of February 2020, a lifeless, battered body was recovered from the Chand Bagh drain. The body bore testimony to the brutality inflicted upon it by a large mob – stab wounds, lacerations, potential acid to the face and broken bones. That body, with injuries on the head, face, chest, back and waist, was of 26-year-old Ankit Sharma – an IB officer who had been mercilessly murdered by a mob of Muslims led by Tahir Hussain during the anti-Hindu Delhi riots. 6 years after India witnessed that brutality, on the 13th of July 2026, Tahir Hussain and 5 others were convicted for the murder of Ankit Sharma under sections 188, 153A, 147, 148, 149, 365 and 302 of the IPC.
This case was registered on February 26, 2020, on the complaint given by Ravinder Kumar, the father of the deceased Ankit Sharma. In the complaint, Kumar revealed that incidents of stone pelting, brick batting, arson, firing and sabotage had taken place during the anti-CAA protests at Chand Bagh Pulia, Main Karawal Nagar Road. He had also revealed that AAP leader Tahir Hussain’s office was located in that area, and he had a lot of goons in his office.
The Muslim mob had pelted stones, petrol bombs and shots were fired from the rooftop of the office of Tahir Hussain, and he had created an atmosphere of fear among the public. On 25 February, Ankit Sharma didn’t return home. Ravinder Kumar filed a missing person report the next day. Then he came to know that a man was thrown into the Khajuri Khas Nala from the Masjid of Chand Bagh Pulia after he was killed. Following this information, the body of Ankit Sharma was recovered from Khajuri Khas Nala. His clothes were missing, except for the underwear.
What the court said about Tahir Hussain’s animus towards Hindus
In the judgement convicting Tahir Hussain, the court said the following: “The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against accused Tahir Hussain for commission of offences punishable u/s 188 IPC, u/s 153A r/w section 149 IPC, section 147 r/w section 149 IPC, section 148 r/w section 149 IPC, section 365 r/w section 149 IPC and section 302 r/w section 149 IPC”.
Some of the operative parts of the judgment reinforce what OpIndia has been reporting for 6 long years, proving that what happened in 2020 was indeed anti-Hindu violence.
Excerpt of Tahir Hussain jugement
The court declared that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Tahir Hussain was indeed a part of the mob at Chand Bagh, with animus against Hindus. The court further said that Tahir Hussain and other Muslims “had assembled at Chand Bagh Pulia with a common object to commit rioting, loot, arson and to cause damage to the property and person of the members of the Hindu community; and that the members of this assembly knew that it was likely that in prosecution of the objects of this assembly, death could result and someone could be killed”.
The court further said that there was no doubt that the Muslim mob, which was armed and committing unspeakable violence, had dragged Ankit Sharma, abducted him, committed brutal violence against him and then murdered him. The court found Tahir Hussain was a part of the mob and therefore, liable for the murder committed.
The “PCR calls” defence by Tahir Hussain – propaganda spread by The Wire, AltNews and others
Apart from noting the animus of the mob and of Tahir Hussain against Hindus, there was another interesting aspect of the judgement which has been the subject of several op-eds by those who spent years trying to whitewash the role of Tahir Hussain and others in the Delhi anti-Hindu riots.
Right after the body of Ankit Sharma was recovered from the Chand Bagh drain and revelations about Tahir Hussain’s involvement started trickling in, the entire Left-liberal ecosystem was busy trying to find an out. To that end, the ecosystem, in a coordinated manner, started peddling a fabricated video. In the video, Tahir Hussain was seen pleading, claiming that he was the real victim of the violence. To substantiate the claim of victimhood, Tahir Hussain claimed that he had made several calls to the PCR (Police Control Room) seeking help, because the rioters were trying to harm him.
The video was shared “exclusively” by The Wire, the publication that Arfa Khanum Sherwani calls her home.
EXCLUSIVE | “I am innocent and a victim of communal violence myself.
I have full faith in the justice system of my country. I want to surrender before the court.”
Suspended AAP councillor and an accused in recent violence in delhi, Tahir Hussain. pic.twitter.com/RoxZhGyXq3
This video was then peddled by many others within the ecosystem, and based on this video, the role of Tahir was sought to be whitewashed.
A glimpse of those who defended Tahir Hussain
The narrative that Tahir Hussain was merely an innocent victim was also furthered by those like Rajdeep Sardesai, who furthered a video where Tahir Hussain and his cohorts were trying to keep the door to his building closed. Rajdeep claimed that Tahir and his mob were trying to keep the presumably Hindu mob out.
So Tahir Hussain tells @IndiaToday he wasn’t in house when his terrace was used to target people with petrol bombs: claims a mob was trying to enter his house and he escaped with police help! Shows us a video of a mob allegedly trying to force its way into house. pic.twitter.com/VjqdKGngXz
As evident from Rajdeep Sardesai’s tweet, it was Tahir Hussain who had directly seeded this narrative to the media – to MSM like India Today and digital platforms like The Wire and AltNews.
None of these publications bothered to verify facts and chose to look away from the mountain of videographic evidence against Tahir Hussain. 6 years on, the court has finally addressed this narrative and, despite Tahir Hussain’s legal gymnastics, thrown it out of the window.
How the court caught on to the legal gymnastics by Tahir Hussain and discarded the “PCR call” narrative
In the judgment, the court has addressed this specific argument by Tahir Hussain that he was actually the victim of the violence and not the perpetrator, by citing the number of times he called the PCR for help.
The court notes that the chargesheet itself notes that Tahir Hussain had called the PCR several times. The judgment notes, “It is even reflected from the chargesheet that on 25/02/2020 from 3:55 PM to 4:31 PM, Tahir Hussain had made around six calls to the PCR. Before that, on 24/02/2020 around 3:53 PM, Tahir Hussain made a call to the PCR stating, ‘caller ke ghar ki chhat par log chadh gaye hain aur pathrav kar rahe hain.’ The same information was again given by him to the PCR at 5:57 PM. It is also contended that the prosecution has relied upon the CDR of the mobile phone belonging to Tahir Hussain. This record shows that on 25/02/2020 from 2:36 PM to 5:30 PM Tahir Hussain was continuously making calls to KP Singh of Delhi Police, several leaders of Aam Aadmi Party, correspondents of Indian Express, Nigam Parshad of Karawal Nagar and other persons”.
So if the chargesheet by the police and the court acknowledge that Tahir Hussain had indeed called the PCR, why was this argument discarded by the court?
The lies in the following paragraph of the judgment.
The court notes that the names of those whom Tahir Hussain tried to contact were all mentioned in the CDR; however, none of them was called to the stand by the Defence for examination. None of the people called by Tahir Hussain was examined in court.
The court, therefore, asks a pertinent question. Were these calls by Tahir Hussain made in earnest to seek help? Or were these calls made to set up an alibi for the future, given that news of rioters on Tahir Hussain’s rooftop had already started circulating?
The court ruled that, in the absence of the defence examining any of them, or even calling them to the stand as witnesses, it is not in a position to presume that the PCR calls were made in earnest.
Further, the court also makes a shocking revelation. Tahir Hussain himself did not take the stand to explain his PCR calls. It was noted that the intent of those calls could have been explained by Tahir Hussain on record had he taken the stand, but he chose not to and in the absence of such testimony, there cannot be a presumption that the calls were indeed made by Tahir to seek help and not as a ruse.
Excerpt of Tahir Hussain jugement
What was revealed in Tahir Hussain’s own disclosure statement about the PCR calls and his role
In the Disclosure Statement signed by Tahir Hussain, the AAP councillor confesses that during the nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, he got the information that there were going to be some rallies in support of CAA as well. After receiving this information, he met with others and hatched a conspiracy to “teach them a lesson”.
Further, Tahir Hussain confesses in the Disclosure Statement that per this conspiracy that he had hatched, he chose his own house as a launchpad for the riots since it was a high-rise in the area. Tahir Hussain says that he also chose his own house as a launchpad because, in his house, construction was already being done and hence, him collecting stones and bricks for the riots would not raise suspicion.
He confesses that he and his co-conspirators had started collecting stones, bricks and other ammunition well in advance so that they could teach those who were in support of the CAA a lesson when the time was right. To that end, 2-3 days before the riots broke out, he had also got his licensed pistol released from the police station. While gearing up for the riots and collecting ammunition to teach Hindus a lesson, Tahir Hussain says that he had instructed his supporters to be “ready for anything and in every manner” and also ensure that all the CCTV cameras, private and government installed, in the area, were broken so the evidence of the riots could not be captured. It is to be kept in mind that all of this was done well before the anti-Hindu riots broke out in Delhi.
Tahir Hussain admits that he, along with his brother Shah Alam, Arshad, Abid, Shahid, Irshad and several others, were present at his residence. His office space is also in the same building from where the riots were launched. Tahir Hussain then discloses that on the 24th afternoon, his mobs started chanting ‘Allah Hu Akbar’ and ‘Maaro Maaro Kaafiro Ko Maaro’.
Tahir then says that on his instruction, his supporters reached the terrace of his house and started specifically targeting Hindus and their properties by hurling stones, shooting and throwing petrol bombs. Hussain had told his supporters that since his building is a high-rise in the area, they will not be hurt or put in harm’s way by any retaliation by the Hindus either. He further said that his brother, Shah Alam, Gulfam and others were also firing a pistol at Hindus.
Then comes the most clinching part that has been used by several Left portals like The Wire in an attempt to shield Tahir Hussain. NDTV and The Wire, along with several other foot-soldiers, were at the forefront of defending Tahir Hussain. Both portals had claimed that there are serious questions regarding the charges against Tahir Hussain since he himself had made several calls to the PCR and thus, was a victim of violence himself. The Wire had aired an “exclusive” interview with Hussain where he had claimed that he is a victim and is being targeted because he is a Muslim. Further, NDTV, accessing his calls to the PCR, had confidently claimed that these calls put a question mark on the charges against Hussain.
While the entire cabal peddled the lies by Tahir Hussain to exonerate him of the murder of IB staffer Ankit Sharma and the riots that he had unleashed, Tahir Hussain in his statement has revealed the reason behind his calls to the PCR.
He says in his signed Disclosure Statement that, according to his plan, he had made several calls to PCR and the Police officers from his own mobile phone to protect himself from taking the blame for the riots that he had engineered and to give himself an alibi. He says he knew that no matter how large the police force was, they would not be able to cross the Pulia because thousands of Muslims had congregated there. Moreover, the Muslim mob was pelting the police force with stones and bricks to ensure that they were chased away. He also said that the mob was burning Hindu homes on both sides of the bridge.
When Tahir Hussain had admitted in his disclosure statement that his PCR calls were a sham, why did he not take the stand?
It is evident from the court judgment that Tahir Hussain only mentioned the PCR calls to claim his innocence; however, he did not examine those whom he had called and did not take the stand to testify. The court rightly noted that there was no evidence to assume that the calls were made in earnest.
Now, why did Tahir Hussain refuse to take the stand to testify? It’s simple. Had he taken the stand, the prosecution would have questioned him about his disclosure statement and all the other evidence, which clearly points towards the PCR calls made by him simply being a ruse to later claim he was the victim and not the perpetrator. To avoid cross-examination, Tahir simply did not take the stand and hoped that the judge would buy into his legal gymnastics even in the absence of his direct court testimony or the testimony of those he supposedly spoke to.
The judge rightly saw through the shenanigans and refused to take the PCR calls at face value, tossing that defence argument out of the window.
While Tahir Hussain has been convicted, one has to keep in mind that the current conviction is by a lower court. The appeal process promises to be long and arduous, with Tahir Hussain likely set to approach the High Court and then, likely, the Supreme Court to challenge the conviction. It is also pertinent to note that Tahir Hussain is one of the conspirators, accused of orchestrating the Delhi anti-Hindu riots. The conspiracy chargesheet 59/2020 names him as one of the accused along with Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and others. That proceeding is still ongoing.
At the United Nations this summer, two clocks are running at once, and India has a hand in both. On Monday, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar stood in a hall at UN Headquarters with the East River just outside and launched India’s campaign for a non-permanent Security Council seat for 2028-29.
If it succeeds, it will be the country’s ninth time on the Council. A few floors away, in quieter rooms where decisions are usually kept close, the Security Council has already begun the discreet process of finding someone to replace António Guterres when his term ends in December. The two exercises rarely share the same news cycle, yet together they show how influence actually moves inside the UN system these days.
India formally launches its campaign for United Nations Security Council 2028-2029. pic.twitter.com/RUnu1akAYe
1). India’s campaign for the UN Security Council 2028-29
How a non permanent seat is won?
Ten of the fifteen seats on the Security Council rotate. They’re filled by the General Assembly’s 193 members through a secret ballot that requires a two-thirds majority. By long-standing regional understanding, the seats are divided roughly this way: three for Africa, two for Asia-Pacific, one for Eastern Europe, two for Latin America and the Caribbean, and two for the Western Europe and Others group. The winners serve two-year terms alongside the five permanent members, China, France, Russia, Britain and the United States, who hold the veto.
Regional groups usually try to line up behind a single candidate well before the vote reaches the Assembly floor. That’s why many of these elections look cleaner on paper than they actually are. Even so, consensus doesn’t always mean everyone is on board. When India ran for the 2021-22 term, the one it remembers most clearly, it had the full endorsement of the 53 member Asia-Pacific group and no rival in sight, yet still collected eight anonymous ‘no’ votes among the 184 cast in its favour. Secret ballots have a way of keeping their own counsel. Some countries think even further ahead. Malaysia has already started lobbying for a seat in 2035, with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s backing since 2023.
SHANTI: The vision behind the vote
Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar built his pitch around one word, SHANTI. He explained it as ‘Securing Holistic Advancement through Norms, Trust and Integrity.’ The choice was deliberate. Shanti means peace in Sanskrit and Hindi, and he used it as the thread running through six priorities India wants the Security Council to focus on, giving the Global South a stronger voice on peace and security, making the multilateral system more democratic and effective, bringing modern technology into peacekeeping, taking a human centred approach to artificial intelligence, protecting a free and rules based maritime order, and stepping up cooperation against terrorism and its financing while keeping the Women, Peace and Security agenda alive.
It’s a wide-ranging agenda, but it holds together. India has sent close to 300,000 peacekeepers to roughly fifty UN missions since the Organisation was founded, a record Jaishankar returned to several times during his remarks. The focus on counter-terrorism also carried a clear echo from India’s last term on the Council. During its October 2021 presidency, India arranged for the Council to meet in Mumbai so members could hear directly from survivors of the 2008 attacks before discussing how extremists are now exploiting new technology. Jaishankar closed by saying that a Council serious about delivering results needs a voice from the Global South at its table.
One continuous ministerat the helm
India has already sat on the Council as an elected member eight times, 1950-51, 1967-68, 1972-73, 1977-78, 1984-85, 1991-92, 2011-12, and most recently 2021-22, and is now reaching for a ninth. What stands out isn’t the total so much as the gaps between some of those terms. Nineteen years passed between the 1991-92 and 2011-12 stints, and this campaign has been deliberately launched early to avoid another long drought.
There’s also a quieter thread of continuity. Jaishankar has been External Affairs Minister since May 2019, longer than anyone else has held the post on its own in recent decades. That means the same person who oversaw India’s successful, unopposed campaign for the 2021-22 seat six years ago is the one who, this week, personally opened the bid for 2028-29. It’s hard to say whether any other foreign minister across the globe has quite so directly bookended two Council campaigns. What’s clear is that India’s institutional memory of how to win these arguments hasn’t had to change hands.
The Tajikistan contest
India isn’t running unopposed this time. Tajikistan has already declared its candidacy for the same Asia-Pacific seat that Bahrain will vacate at the end of 2027, with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s support since 2023 on the principle of Islamic solidarity. The OIC is no small player; it has 56 members in the General Assembly, and India will still need two-thirds of all 193 votes when the Assembly votes in June 2027, not just a simple majority.
Even so, India enters the race with some real structural advantages. Its diplomatic and economic footprint is far larger than Tajikistan’s, it has eight previous terms on the Council while Dushanbe has none, and it already has early declared support from countries as different as Fiji, the United States, Austria and Sri Lanka. None of that makes the two-thirds threshold automatic, and New Delhi isn’t treating the contest as a formality. Jaishankar’s recent swing through Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman just before arriving in New York was, in part, an early investment in the kind of vote-gathering such margins require. But the underlying arithmetic still leans comfortably in India’s favour.
The Modi-Jaishankar doctrine behind the diplomacy
None of this sits apart from the larger shift in Indian foreign policy since 2019, what analysts have come to call the Modi-Jaishankar doctrine, or simply multi-alignment. It means dealing with Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Brussels and the Gulf at the same time, and on India’s own terms, instead of anchoring itself to any one bloc. You could see the approach in the very fortnight around the SHANTI launch.
S. Jaishankar arrived in New York from the Gulf and left for Brussels and the EU-India Trade and Technology Council. The UNSC bid itself carries the same signature: India positions itself both as a power the West actively courts and as the self-described voice of the Global South.
The strategy carries real costs, which is part of what makes it a doctrine rather than simple convenience. Washington has slapped tariffs over India’s continued purchase of discounted Russian oil, and India has stayed outside arrangements like AUKUS. Western commentators sometimes frame these choices as evasive rather than principled. New Delhi’s quiet counter, visible in a campaign like this one, is that the results themselves make the case. A country willing to talk to everyone turns out to be a country most of the General Assembly is prepared to vote for.
2). The election of the next United Nations Secretary General
The UN Charter is deliberately brief on this. Article 97 simply says the Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. Almost everything else- the length of the term, how the selection actually happens, and the political choreography around it- has been worked out through custom and precedent rather than formal rules. The Assembly fixed the term at five years, renewable once, way back in 1946. António Guterres is now finishing his second term and will leave office on 31 December 2026. His successor will take over on 1 January 2027 as the UN’s tenth Secretary-General.
How the world chooses its top diplomat
Since a 2015 reform, the process has become far more open than the old closed door bargaining of the Cold War era, when the Council would simply meet in private until a name eventually surfaced. The old way could produce strange results. In 1981, a deadlock between China and the United States over a third term for Kurt Waldheim dragged on through sixteen inconclusive rounds before the Council finally settled on Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, a relatively unknown candidate who had barely campaigned at all.
These days, countries put forward nominees who must submit a vision statement, a CV and campaign financing disclosures. The candidates then appear in public ‘interactive dialogues’ with the General Assembly, this year’s were held in April in the Trusteeship Council chamber, the same room once used for decolonisation debates. The real decision, though, still happens behind closed doors. The Security Council runs a series of private straw polls in which members rate each candidate as ‘encourage,’ ‘discourage’ or ‘no opinion.’ In the later rounds the five permanent members vote on red paper, so a ‘discourage’ from Beijing, Moscow, Paris, London or Washington, an early hint of a veto, shows up clearly without anyone having to call a formal vote. A candidate needs nine encouraging votes and no red “discourage” marks to be recommended. The Assembly then makes the appointment, traditionally by acclamation.
Why this choice matters now?
Little of this makes headlines outside UN circles, but the office still carries real weight. The Secretary-General sets budget priorities, appoints senior officials in peacekeeping and humanitarian affairs, and increasingly helps shape rules on issues the Charter’s drafters never imagined, from climate finance to the governance of autonomous weapons.
The selection is unfolding at a particularly awkward moment. The Security Council has been gridlocked over Gaza, Ukraine and Iran, UN finances are stretched, and confidence in multilateral institutions has eroded. There is also a sharper debate this time around about representation. In eighty years and nine Secretaries-General, the post has never gone to a woman. General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock has noted that the outcome will show whether the United Nations actually reflects the diversity of the people it claims to serve.
For India the stakes are practical. The next Secretary General will have a say on peacekeeping reform, development financing and technology governance, areas where New Delhi has been quietly urging stronger and more consistent engagement with the Global South, something the outgoing Secretariat has struggled to maintain amid the crises in Kyiv, Gaza and Tehran.
The contenders
Six candidates were formally nominated this cycle, though the field has already narrowed by one. Virginia Gamba, put forward by the Maldives as the Asia-Pacific group’s candidate, withdrew before the interactive dialogues began, leaving that region without a nominee even as India campaigns for its own non-permanent Council seat. Of the five who remain, four come from Latin America and the Caribbean, which has fed an informal sense that the job is ‘due’ to the region after decades without one, alongside a stronger argument that it is long overdue for a woman.
Rafael Grossi of Argentina, who has led the International Atomic Energy Agency since 2019, was the first to enter, in November 2025, with backing from Argentina, Italy and Paraguay. His record is the most contentious in the field. As the IAEA’s chief inspector during the Iran nuclear crisis, including the June 2025 flare up between Israel, the United States and Iran, he has been accused by Tehran of political bias, cooperation with his agency was suspended, even as France, Germany and Britain defended his independence. His handling of Ukraine’s occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has drawn quieter versions of the same criticism.
Michelle Bachelet of Chile, who served twice as her country’s president and as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2018 to 2022, entered in February with the unusual support of three governments, Brazil, Mexico and Chile, though Chile later withdrew its sponsorship under a new administration, leaving Brazil and Mexico to carry her bid. Her record carries a specific complication for India. During three successive Human Rights Council sessions as Commissioner, she pressed New Delhi on Kashmir, from the 2019 communications lockdown to preventive detention laws, and each time Indian diplomats formally objected, once describing her remarks as simply ‘unwarranted.’ Whether this reflects a rights mandate applied evenly to a large democracy or a blind spot on Indian sovereignty remains genuinely disputed, but the friction, unlike almost anywhere else in this field, is real and repeated.
Rebeca Grynspan of Costa Rica, the first woman and first Central American to head the UN Conference on Trade and Development, has campaigned on developing world debt relief and helped broker the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Of the five, her priorities sit closest to India’s own Global South advocacy, and no comparable controversy attaches to her name.
María Fernanda Espinosa of Ecuador, nominated not by her own country but by Antigua and Barbuda, already made history in 2018 as only the fourth woman, after India’s own Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit in 1953, to preside over the General Assembly; nothing serious in her record touches India either.
Macky Sall of Senegal, nominated by Burundi rather than his own country, is the field’s most politically damaged figure. As president, he postponed Senegal’s February 2024 election weeks before voting, triggering accusations of a ‘constitutional coup’ and the forcible removal of opposition lawmakers from parliament, before courts forced him to relent. Senegal eventually held a competitive election, and Sall left office on schedule, but the episode remains the defining fact of his candidacy.
Conclusion
New Delhi has not declared any preference among the five candidates and has said little in public beyond general support for a transparent, merit based process. The studied neutrality is useful for a country that is simultaneously trying to gather votes from all of them for its own Council bid. India’s deeper interest lies less in personalities than in how the system itself is structured. It has long argued that expanding only the non-permanent category would achieve very little if the real centres of decision-making power remain exactly where they have sat since 1945.
Whoever becomes the tenth Secretary General this autumn will inherit that argument still unresolved, and will have to decide fairly early how seriously to engage the countries, India foremost among them, that regard it as the United Nations’ oldest unfinished business.
The release and subsequent removal of the Diljit Dosanjh-starrer ‘Satluj’ from the OTT platform Zee5 has once again brought the darkest years of Punjab’s insurgency into public discussion. As usual, the narratives are being discussed from two different points of view. One, where all victims are being discussed, including Sikhs and Hindus who suffered losses during the insurgency, and second, where pro-Khalistanis are using it to push their own separatist agenda. The former, unfortunately, is lacking.
Originally titled ‘Ghallughara’ (which means holocaust, massacre, or genocide), the movie was first renamed ‘Punjab ’95’ and subsequently released as ‘Satluj’. The film is based on Jaswant Singh Khalra and his investigation into alleged extrajudicial killings, disappearances and secret cremations carried out during the counterterrorism campaign in Punjab.
After the film disappeared from the streaming platform in India, Sikh organisations and local activists began holding community screenings in villages and gurdwara compounds. The film has been projected as a suppressed account of police brutality and the suffering endured by families during the insurgency. According to the Associated Press, these screenings have moved elderly viewers to tears and introduced younger Punjabis to a period they know only through fragmented stories told by their elders.
The story of illegal killings, if established through evidence, deserves to be told. Khalra’s abduction and murder were crimes, and police personnel were convicted in the case. No account of Punjab’s history can demand that such crimes be ignored. However, ‘Satluj’ also demonstrates how a historical narrative can be factually significant and yet incomplete.
The film projects the Punjab insurgency as the “main story” of that period. A story of police officers killing suspected terrorists and civilians. Khalistani terrorism, without saying “Khalistani terrorism”, has been shown as if it was resistance, not militancy. On the contrary, it was a period when Khalistani terrorists stopped buses and trains, identified Hindu passengers and shot them. Sikh leaders seeking peace were assassinated. Editors and broadcasters were murdered for refusing to accept militant diktats. Police personnel were bombed inside secured offices, ambushed on roads and killed outside places of worship.
These victims do not get their stories told through films or any other possible medium. There are no “screenings” or prolonged discussions about their lost futures. They generally survive as numbers in old newspaper archives, and even if they are talked about by media houses in current times, they get space somewhere inside the newspaper, in an easy-to-forget or easy-to-miss corner.
That gap is what OpIndia is trying to fill.
The victims left outside the frame
Popular narratives surrounding the Punjab insurgency increasingly begin with Operation Blue Star, move to the anti-Sikh violence following the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and then concentrate on the counterterrorism campaign that followed.
All three subjects require scrutiny. The anti-Sikh violence that stemmed from Gandhi’s assassination was a national disgrace. Allegations of unlawful police killings cannot be dismissed merely because Punjab was facing terrorism.
However, the insurgency did not begin with the police crackdown, and it cannot be understood by beginning the story after Khalistani terrorism had already torn through Punjab.
There was another Punjab in which terrorists checked the identities of passengers on buses and trains before deciding who would live. There were markets where gunmen fired at Hindu shopkeepers. There were Sikh politicians who were labelled traitors for negotiating peace. There were newspaper offices operating under armed protection because editors, reporters, agents, distributors and even hawkers had been marked for death. There were also policemen whose families did not know whether they would return from work.
The victims of the insurgency were Hindus and Sikhs. They included civilians, political leaders, journalists, police officers, government employees and villagers suspected of helping the state. What united them was that they had either been selected for their identity or had become obstacles to the Khalistani terrorist project.
The initial years of the insurgency were marred by mass murders
There are so many stories of massacres that happened during the insurgency period that everyone should know about. A lot of people think that Khalistani terrorism and the period of insurgency stemmed from Operation Blue Star, the Indian Army operation at the Golden Temple in Amritsar launched to wipe out terrorists hiding inside the complex. However, targeted killings had begun much earlier. Lala Jagat Narain was assassinated in 1981 for opposing separatism.
In October 1983, militants hijacked a bus near Dhilwan, separated six Hindu passengers and shot them dead. Four more Hindus were killed in a similar bus attack in Kapurthala the next month. DIG Avtar Singh Atwal was murdered outside the Golden Temple in April 1983, while police personnel and journalists continued to be targeted through 1984. These killings show that terrorism was already entrenched before Operation Blue Star.
This is only an overview of what had happened before Operation Blue Star and cannot describe the horrifying spread of terrorism in the state.
Hindus identified and massacred
On 30 November 1986, armed Khalistani terrorists stopped a bus near Khuda in Hoshiarpur district. The Hindu passengers were ordered to get off. As they descended, the terrorists opened fire. Twenty-four Hindus were killed and seven were wounded.
According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, the passengers had been deliberately separated before being shot. It also recalled a similar bus attack near Muktsar earlier that year, where Sikh passengers were allowed to leave before the remaining passengers were brutally murdered.
These were not deaths caused by an exchange of fire between terrorists and security forces. They were not accidental casualties of a conflict. The victims were identified, separated and executed.
In June 1989, terrorists attacked an RSS gathering at Nehru Park in Moga. Gunmen fired at participants attending the morning shakha. Bombs left at the location caused further casualties when police and rescuers reached the park. It was the modus operandi of Khalistani terrorists at that time. There have been several recorded cases where terrorists would initially open fire and then a series of bomb blasts would take place during rescue operations.
At least 24 people were reported killed in the initial contemporary account. The Union Home Minister described the massacre as a serious attempt to whip up communal tension.
That was the objective behind several such attacks. By killing Hindus in buses, trains, markets and public gatherings, Khalistani groups sought to spread fear among Punjab’s Hindu population. They also hoped to trigger retaliatory violence against Sikhs outside Punjab, deepening the communal divide that separatists needed for their political project.
The killings were therefore not simply acts of rage. They were instruments of demographic and political intimidation.
Even the most conservative list of major attacks contains repeated instances of Hindu passengers being selected before being killed. Dhilwan, Muktsar, Hoshiarpur, Lalru, Fatehabad, Abohar, Moga and the Punjab train massacres were not isolated aberrations. They formed a clear pattern.
Yet when the insurgency is revisited today, the Hindu passenger ordered to step out of a bus or train is often absent. The terrorist is given political context. The policeman is placed on trial. The passenger becomes a statistic.
Sikhs killed for opposing Khalistan
Khalistani terrorism was not a war between Sikhs and Hindus. To describe it in those terms would erase the large number of Sikhs murdered by Khalistani groups. Sikh politicians, police officers, journalists, religious figures and villagers were killed for opposing separatism, cooperating with the government or refusing to follow militant instructions.
Sant Harchand Singh Longowal remains one of the most prominent examples. Longowal, then president of the Shiromani Akali Dal, signed the Punjab Accord with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on 24th July 1985. The agreement was an effort to resolve political disputes and bring Punjab back towards normal democratic functioning.
Less than a month later, on 20th August 1985, Longowal was shot while addressing a gathering at a gurdwara in Sherpur. His assassination came amid militant opposition to the accord and his peace initiative. Four decades later, Punjab’s political parties continue to remember him as a leader who prioritised peace and communal unity.
Longowal’s murder exposed the intolerance at the heart of the armed separatist campaign. A Sikh leader could support Sikh political demands and still be killed if he rejected terrorism or attempted a settlement within India.
The same threat extended to ordinary Sikhs. Villagers were punished for providing information to the police. Families were targeted because a relative had joined the force. Political workers were killed for participating in elections. Journalists were assassinated because their criticism weakened the claim that Khalistan represented all Sikhs.
This distinction is essential. Criticism of Khalistani terrorism is not criticism of Sikhs. In fact, any narrative that treats Khalistanis and Sikhs as interchangeable ends up erasing the Sikh victims of Khalistani violence. Even today, when pro-Khalistanis are raising their voices again, demanding a separate nation, a large proportion of Sikhs do not identify themselves as one of them.
Journalists marked for death
The campaign against the press began early, and the list of casualties is remarkably long. One of the most prominent personalities in the press at that time, Lala Jagat Narain, founder of the Hind Samachar group and editor of Punjab Kesari, was assassinated in September 1981. He was vocal against Khalistani terrorism and wrote extensively against the movement. He had consistently criticised separatist politics and militant violence. His son and successor, Romesh Chandra, was killed in May 1984.
The attack on the group did not end with its owners. Editors, reporters, news agents, hawkers and others associated with newspaper distribution were threatened and killed. The objective was not difficult to understand. If a newspaper could not be silenced by killing its editor, its entire network would be terrorised.
The murder of journalists was not limited to one publication or one religious community. Sikh writers and left-wing activists who opposed Khalistani extremism were also killed. The case of All India Radio station director ML Manchanda showed how far terrorist organisations were prepared to go to control the media.
Manchanda was abducted in May 1992. The Khalistani terrorist group Babbar Khalsa demanded that All India Radio change the language and terminology used in its broadcasts. When the demands were not accepted, Manchanda was beheaded. His body was recovered in separate parts. The Committee to Protect Journalists records that the killing followed the Khalistani terrorists’ attempt to impose a so-called code of conduct on broadcasters.
This was not merely an attack on an individual. It was an attempt to establish that terrorists possessed the authority to decide what language could be spoken, how news could be presented and which political vocabulary was permissible.
The killing of journalists also exposes the false claim that Khalistani groups were engaged only in armed confrontation with the state. They were equally willing to murder unarmed civilians who challenged their propaganda. A journalist did not need to carry a weapon to become an enemy. A newspaper column was enough.
Nearly 1,800 police personnel killed
The strictness of Punjab Police during the later years of the insurgency is frequently discussed. The policemen killed before and during that transformation receive far less attention.
A widely cited Punjab Police figure records 1,784 police officers and personnel killed during the terrorism period. In 2016, Punjab Police began preparing individual citations documenting their service because, according to a senior officer quoted by the Hindustan Times, there was no adequate written record telling their stories.
The number is staggering, but even that figure conceals the nature of the attacks. On 25 April 1983, Deputy Inspector General (DIG) Avtar Singh Atwal visited the Golden Temple and offered prayers. As he emerged from the complex, he was shot dead.
His body reportedly remained near the entrance while fear paralysed those present. Reports from that time described the assassination as a moment that exposed the government’s inability to confront growing militant violence. Later accounts noted the severe effect the killing had on police morale. Atwal was not killed in a raid. He was not leading an armed operation at the time. He had just emerged after offering prayers.
In January 1990, a bomb exploded inside the office of Punjab Armed Police Commandant Gobind Ram at the PAP headquarters in Jalandhar. Gobind Ram and three other police personnel were killed.
Other officers were assassinated outside their homes, attacked while travelling and ambushed during patrols. Police stations and posts were targeted. Guards and drivers died alongside senior officers. Special Police Officers recruited locally were killed for assisting regular forces.
Militants also threatened police families. The intended message was that joining the force could bring death not only to an officer but also to those around him. It is impossible to explain the later conduct of Punjab Police while treating this sustained assault as a footnote.
Why the police response hardened
None of this provides a blanket defence for illegal police action. A policeman does not acquire the right to kill an innocent person because another policeman was murdered. Allegations of fake encounters, unlawful detention, torture and secret cremations must be examined on the strength of evidence. The conviction of police personnel in Khalra’s murder itself demonstrates that state authority cannot place an officer above the law.
But there is a difference between examining police crimes and pretending that the police response developed without a cause.
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, Punjab Police was not dealing with occasional political violence. Its officers were being killed systematically. Informers and witnesses faced execution. Terrorists had access to automatic weapons, explosives, safe houses and cross-border support. Public officials could be attacked inside secured compounds.
The force was also fighting militants who understood the psychological value of spectacular assassinations. Killing a DIG outside the Golden Temple did more than eliminate one officer. It told every constable that terrorists could strike at a location where the state was hesitant to respond.
Killing a journalist did more than silence one voice. It warned the entire press.
Separating Hindu passengers before shooting them did more than produce casualties. It generated communal fear far beyond the scene of the attack.
Punjab Police eventually adopted a counterterrorism strategy built around aggressive operations, intelligence networks and the relentless pursuit of militant groups. That campaign broke the operational capacity of Khalistani organisations, but it also produced allegations of serious excesses.
Both facts can exist together. The police response became severe because the violence it confronted was severe. Explaining that progression is not equivalent to approving every action taken in the name of counterterrorism. Removing the first fact while repeating only the second is not history. It is advocacy.
How selective memory changes history
The most effective propaganda does not always invent events. It selects them. A terrorist is shown as a son, a brother, a believer or a product of injustice. His grievance is explained. His speeches are repeated. His photograph is preserved. The victim is described as one of 15, 24 or 38 people killed.
This method is not exclusive to Khalistani propaganda. The same formula appears in narratives constructed around Islamist terrorism. The terrorist’s radicalisation is examined at length. His ideological commitment is reframed as anger, alienation or resistance. The security response becomes the centre of the story. Those killed in bombings, shootings or communal massacres are reduced to an introductory paragraph before the narrative returns to the perpetrator.
Over time, the perpetrator acquires a biography. The victim retains only a death toll. Selective storytelling also relies on presenting every state action as proof of collective persecution while treating terrorist crimes as reactions that require context. This reverses the moral order of events. Terror becomes understandable. Counterterrorism alone becomes unforgivable. Punjab’s history deserves better than this binary.
The anti-Sikh violence of 1984 cannot be justified by Khalistani terrorism. Khalistani massacres cannot be erased by citing police excesses. Khalra’s murder cannot be defended because terrorists killed policemen. The killing of policemen cannot be ignored because some officers committed crimes. A complete account must have room for all these truths.
A selective film cannot become the complete history
‘Satluj’ has the artistic freedom to tell the story its makers chose. It may focus on Khalra, police abuses and families searching for men who disappeared. Those subjects are legitimate. But artistic freedom does not make a selective account complete.
The Hindu passenger ordered off a bus before being shot also belongs to Punjab’s history. So does the Sikh leader killed for making peace. So does the editor murdered for criticising terrorists. So does the constable whose name survives only on a police memorial page.
While the film can choose its frame, calling it “freedom of expression” and “freedom of storytelling”, journalism must show what remains outside it. In the coming days, OpIndia will discuss the stories of the forgotten ones from the dark decades of the Punjab insurgency.
On 13th July (Monday), US President Donald Trump announced that the “Strait of Hormuz” is going to remain open and appointed the United States as its “guardian.” He also conveyed that countries will be required to pay “20 per cent on all cargo shipped” to traverse the critical maritime route.
He also stated that American forces will reinstate their blockade of Iranian ports near the waterway. Both sides are contending for authority over the strait, leading to a resurgence of tensions in the region, even after multiple initiatives to work out a peace settlement.
“The Hormuz Strait is open and will remain open with or without Iran. We are reinstating the Iranian blockade, so named because it is only stopping Iran’s ships or customers from entering or leaving,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, declaring the US as “the guardian of the Hormuz Strait.” He mentioned that all other nations would have the right to utilise the passage freely and justly, but only after Washington is “reimbursed at a rate of 20% on all cargo shipped for any and all expenses incurred in ensuring safety and security in this highly unstable region of the world.”
Trump referred to this as a “matter of fairness” due to the self-proclaimed designation of his country. “The process and formation will begin immediately,” he added. The US Central Command informed that the blockade would resume on Tuesday at 4 pm Eastern Time (ET). It is a turnaround of Washington’s policy which held that the strait should remain open as it was before the eruption of the fighting.
Iran responds after Trump’s statement
Notably, the Trump administration previously underscored that such monetary conditions cannot be enforced on international corridors in directly contradictory statements. Moreover, Iran faced severe backlash for allegedly imposing the same on the strait, as it reported to be charging up to $2 million per tanker.
However, the latest development offered a prime opportunity for the Islamic Republic to justify its demands under the guise of “compensation” and also project itself as the real guardian of the strait which deserved the payment. It is important to remember that containers were able to move through the area without encountering any of these issues prior to the dispute. They were not forced to cough up specific amounts to access the passageway. However, both parties are presently attempting to make other nations bear the cost of their enmity.
“POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service. Iran has always been the guardian of the strait and will remain so forever,” retaliated Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran, mocking that 20% is “too much” and the regime will be “fair” while slapping a similar tax on the vessels.
POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service.
Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER.
The U-turn by Washington and the insistence from Tehran
“No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That’s existing international law. That’s the way it is in international waterways all over the world, and that’s the way we expect it’ll be here.” United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated during a visit to the Middle East.
The US signed a joint statement affirming that the countries “rejected any tolls, fees or attempts to assert control over the strait” following his speech at a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, a coalition of oil-exporting Gulf Arab states. “We believe international waterways should be free of tolls,” emphasised Vice President JD Vance while discussions were underway last month regarding a ceasefire agreement with Iran that aimed to reopen the crucial maritime route.
However, the Iranian government which has been unwavering in its demand for payments following the conflict’s outbreak, consistently leveraged its strategic position. According to Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the situation cannot revert to what it was before the war, and “service fees” would be collected for navigation support, environmental protection, insurance coordination and maritime safety operations during the cessation of hostilities. It was also included in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that formally established the truce to allow for talks on a comprehensive peace arrangement.
On the other hand, six days after Trump signed the accord he stressed, “There will be no toll in the Hormuz Strait for 60 days during the cease fire period, and there will be no tolls after the 60 day period has expired, unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, should the deal not be completed, for services rendered as the Guardian Angel to the countries of the Middle East for purposes of both past, present and future reimbursement of costs.”
The transit avenue, which was originally functional, relatively secure and freely accessible was first converted into a toll plaza by Iran which began to target ships for not adhering to its mandates after US attacked the country and a similar intention has been articulated by Trump after criticising the Islamic regime for the very same action. However, Trump’s statement is unsurprising in light of his history of inconsistencies.
How the objective of the war went from ‘defeating Iran’ to ‘keeping the Strait open’
Meanwhile, the objectives set by the USA and Israel that sparked the confrontation and revolved around dismantling Tehran’s nuclear capabilities, eliminating its ballistic missile and naval arsenals, curbing regional proxy influence and ousting its hardline government have receded into the background as the entire focus has shifted to controlling the strait and seeking funds from countries who want to use it.
The US has been unsuccessful in achieving any of the above-stated goals while the face-off persists and Iran continues to hold its ground, much to Trump’s chagrin.
More importantly, commercial shipping has been jeopardised in one of the most prominent trade corridors in the world, and the global energy supply chain is severely disrupted with fuel prices remaining erratically high. It is apparent that these events would not have occurred without the existing tensions in West Asia.
Furthermore, the US is set to reintroduce a blockade on Iranian ports as a countermeasure to Iran’s alleged blockade of the strait, with both nations likely to again engage in attacks on ships that fail to follow their directives, thereby putting lives and trade at greater risk. Indian seafarers have particularly borne the brunt of these strikes.
An Indian crew member lost his life and 8 others, including 6 Indians and 2 Ukrainians sustained injuries after two UAE-flagged tankers were recently hit by Iranian cruise missiles in the strait, on Omani waters. The impact of this violent struggle clearly extends far beyond its scope, affecting the innocent persons who find themselves caught in the crossfire.
The blockade enacted by both the US and Iran is evidently a two-edged sword for ships and their occupants. Additionally, it would not be inaccurate to assert that Trump who failed to fulfill its aims in Iran has given the Islamic regime a basis to defend the obligatory charges imposed on its “unfriendly” countries for using the strait with the recent remarks as the route has taken the spotlight in the intensifying altercations with no relief in sight for energy-dependent economies.
Ironically, the global community will be compelled to confront these challenges stemming from the pivotal waterway that was once easily available without any diplomatic, financial or other complications before the US military offensive against Iran. In simpler terms, it is extortion masked as safety and service amount, regardless of the country making the demand.
Among India’s four sacred Char Dham pilgrimage sites, Dwarka in Gujarat represents the western direction while Puri in Odisha stands in the east. One is known as the Karma Bhoomi of Lord Krishna, while the other is the home of Lord Jagannath. Though nearly 2,000 kilometres apart, these two pilgrimages have remained connected through faith for centuries.
Long before railways, highways or modern communication existed, devotees from Gujarat walked all the way to Puri to seek the blessings of Lord Jagannath. In the same way, pilgrims from Odisha travelled to Dwarka to worship Lord Krishna. These long journeys did much more than connect two temples. They brought together the traditions, customs and devotional practices of two distant regions.
Even today, when the chant of “Jai Jagannath” echoes through cities such as Ahmedabad, Bhavnagar, Rajkot, Jamnagar and Surat, it does not feel like a tradition borrowed from another state. It has become an important part of Gujarat’s own religious and cultural life.
But this also raises an interesting question. Lord Jagannath’s main temple is in Puri. His biggest festival is celebrated in Odisha. Then how did Gujarat develop such deep devotion towards him? Why are grand Rath Yatras organised across the state? Why were Jagannath temples built in so many cities? And why do many Vaishnav families in Gujarat worship Jagannath with the same devotion as Dwarkadhish?
The answer lies in centuries of mythology, pilgrimage, trade, the Bhakti movement, saint traditions and cultural exchanges that slowly connected the two regions.
From Dwarka to Puri: Where the first connection begins
The earliest link between Gujarat and Lord Jagannath is found in the religious tradition connected with Lord Krishna.
According to the Jagannath tradition, after the Mahabharata war, Lord Krishna left his earthly form at Prabhas Kshetra in present-day Gujarat. During his final rites, one sacred wooden relic associated with him, known in the Jagannath tradition as the Brahma Padartha (also called Brahma Tattva in many traditions), did not burn completely. It is believed that this divine wooden relic floated through the sea from the western coast of India to the eastern coast and finally reached Odisha.
Traditional accounts say that this sacred relic later became part of the wooden idols of Lord Jagannath, Lord Balabhadra and Devi Subhadra at Puri. Whether seen as history or faith, this belief has remained one of the strongest symbols connecting Dwarka and Puri.
Because of this, Lord Jagannath has never been seen only as the deity of Odisha. For millions of devotees, he is another form of Lord Krishna. In Dwarka, Krishna is worshipped as Dwarkadhish, the king of Dwarka. In Puri, the same Krishna is worshipped as Jagannath, the Lord of the Universe.
This belief naturally created a spiritual relationship between the two pilgrimage centres. For many pilgrims, visiting both Dwarka and Puri became an important part of completing the Char Dham Yatra. Though separated by a long distance, the two shrines came to be seen as spiritually linked.
This became the first strong reason why Lord Jagannath found a place in the hearts of the people of Gujarat. For them, Jagannath was never a new or unfamiliar deity. He was another beloved form of Lord Krishna.
When Krishna devotion spread across Gujarat
If this connection had remained limited to ancient stories, Lord Jagannath’s tradition might never have become so popular in Gujarat. What made the difference was the strong wave of Krishna devotion that spread across the state during the medieval period.
Between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, Gujarat witnessed a major rise in the Vaishnava Bhakti movement. Devotion to Lord Krishna became part of everyday life. Villages, towns and trading centres were filled with bhajans, kirtans, Krishna Leelas, temple festivals and devotional gatherings.
When the tradition of Lord Jagannath reached Gujarat during this period, people accepted him naturally because they already saw him as Lord Krishna himself.
Several saints played an important role in this transformation. Mahaprabhu Shri Vallabhacharya established the Pushtimarg tradition and placed Shri Krishna at the centre of spiritual life. His son, Goswami Shri Vitthalnathji, expanded this movement across Gujarat by setting up havelis and promoting traditions of seva, bhog, shringar and festivals dedicated to Krishna.
At the same time, saint-poets like Narsinh Mehta and Mirabai made Krishna devotion popular among ordinary people through simple songs and bhajans that are still sung today.
The Ramanandi saints, travelling sadhus and leaders of different Vaishnav traditions also helped strengthen religious ties between western and eastern India. Since Puri was one of the most important pilgrimage centres for these saints, they carried the stories and traditions of Lord Jagannath wherever they travelled.
One interesting fact is that Gujarat never saw Jagannath as a replacement for Dwarkadhish. There was no competition between the two traditions. Devotees believed both were different forms of the same Lord Krishna.
Whenever saints returned from Puri, they not only brought sacred prasad and memories of the temple but also shared stories of Lord Jagannath’s worship, the Rath Yatra and the traditions of Odisha. Slowly, these stories became part of Gujarat’s own religious life.
Even today, many Vaishnav families in Gujarat offer equal respect to both Dwarkadhish and Jagannath. This is the result of a cultural journey that continued for hundreds of years.
Char Dham Yatra further strengthened the relationship
The Char Dham pilgrimage played one of the biggest roles in connecting Gujarat and Odisha.
For centuries, pilgrims have believed that the Char Dham Yatra remains incomplete without visiting all four sacred shrines, including Dwarka in the west and Puri in the east.
As a result, thousands of pilgrims travelled between these two temples every year. Their journeys were not easy. In those days there were no trains, buses or flights. Pilgrims often walked for months, stayed in ashrams, met saints, learned local traditions and carried those experiences back to their own regions.
Through this constant movement, the traditions of Lord Jagannath reached Gujarat, while the stories of Dwarkadhish became familiar in Odisha.
Many Vaishnav saints also became an important bridge between these regions. Shri Vallabhacharya himself travelled widely across India, and Puri was one of the major stops during his pilgrimages. Ramanandi saints and followers of other Vaishnav traditions also regularly visited both Dwarka and Puri.
They introduced devotees to different pilgrimage centres, shared local customs and encouraged people to visit these sacred places. Because of their efforts, Lord Jagannath was accepted not as a new deity but as another divine form of Shri Krishna.
What makes this story unique is that no king or ruler forced this tradition upon society. There was no political campaign to spread Jagannath worship in Gujarat.
Instead, it grew naturally through the footsteps of pilgrims, the teachings of saints and the faith of ordinary devotees. A pilgrim returning from Puri would distribute Mahaprasad. A saint would narrate the glory of Lord Jagannath. A traveller would describe the grand Rath Yatra. Over generations, these small exchanges created a lasting spiritual bond.
The sea also became a bridge between Gujarat and Odisha
Religion was not the only reason behind this connection. Trade also helped bring Gujarat and Odisha closer.
Centuries ago, the sea served as India’s biggest trade route. Merchant ships regularly travelled from Gujarat’s ports such as Khambhat, Bharuch, Ghogha, Porbandar and other ports of Saurashtra to the eastern coast of India.
These ships carried much more than goods. Along with trade came ideas, customs, beliefs and stories about famous temples. Gujarati traders often visited Puri during their business trips. Likewise, saints and travellers from eastern India visited Dwarka while travelling to western India.
As trade and pilgrimage continued together, an invisible bridge developed between the two regions. This connection did not happen suddenly. It slowly grew over centuries through regular travel, religious exchanges and cultural interactions. These long-standing ties later made it easier for Jagannath temples to be established across Gujarat.
Gujarat welcomed the Jagannath tradition as its own
As the relationship between Gujarat and Puri became stronger, temples dedicated to Lord Jagannath gradually began appearing across Gujarat.
Initially, these temples were mainly associated with Vaishnav saints and religious centres. Over time, they became important places of worship for local communities as well. The most well-known example is the Shri Jagannath Temple in Ahmedabad.
During the eighteenth century, Mahant Hanumandasji of the Ramanandi tradition established an ashram in Ahmedabad. At first, Lord Hanuman was the main deity worshipped there. Later, inspired by the growing connection with Puri and the Vaishnav tradition, idols of Lord Jagannath, Lord Balabhadra and Devi Subhadra were installed.
Over the years, this temple became one of Gujarat’s most important religious centres. Today, the Ahmedabad Rath Yatra is considered the second-largest and one of the oldest Rath Yatras in India after Puri.
But Ahmedabad is not the only place where Jagannath devotion flourished. The tradition spread across Saurashtra and other parts of Gujarat. The Rath Yatra in Bhavnagar is today regarded as the third-largest Rath Yatra in the country. Every year, lakhs of devotees take part in the celebrations.
Jagannath temples were also established in cities including Jamnagar, Rajkot, Junagadh, Vadodara, Surat, Bharuch, Nadiad, Palanpur and many other towns.
This expansion was not driven by any ruler or political decision. It happened because people themselves accepted Lord Jagannath as their own deity.
Wherever Krishna devotion existed, Jagannath also found a place. Gujarat respected the traditions of Puri while adding its own local identity. Akhadas, bhajan mandalis, saints, folk musicians, cow protection groups and social organisations became an important part of Jagannath festivals across the state.
As the Rath Yatra moved through the streets, it became more than a temple procession. It turned into a celebration involving the entire community.
Why the Rath Yatra became the biggest identity of Jagannath worship in Gujarat
Although Gujarat has many Jagannath temples, the Rath Yatra remains the strongest symbol of Jagannath devotion in the state.
The tradition follows the spirit of the famous Rath Yatra of Puri, where Lord Jagannath comes out of the temple to give darshan to everyone. This idea deeply touched the people of Gujarat.
The belief that God himself comes to meet his devotees made the festival special for every section of society. The Rath Yatras of Gujarat are known not only for their size but also for the participation of ordinary people.
Thousands of devotees pull the chariots with ropes. Roads are decorated with flowers. People shower petals on the Lord’s chariot. Akhadas perform traditional martial arts. Saints bless the devotees. Bhajan groups fill the streets with devotional songs. Social organisations arrange food, drinking water and other services for visitors.
Because of this collective participation, the Rath Yatra became much more than a religious ritual. It turned into a festival celebrated by the entire society.
Today, Ahmedabad’s Rath Yatra is recognised across India and abroad. Bhavnagar’s Rath Yatra is also among the country’s largest. Apart from these cities, several towns and villages across Gujarat organise Rath Yatras every year during the month of Ashadh.
The size of the celebrations may differ from place to place, but one belief remains the same everywhere: Lord Jagannath comes out to bless his devotees.
Another unique feature is that Gujarat adopted the spirit of Puri’s Rath Yatra without copying it completely.
The celebrations here include Gujarat’s own folk traditions, akhadas, Gau Seva, local music, saints and widespread public participation. This blend gave Gujarat’s Jagannath tradition its own distinct identity while keeping its spiritual connection with Puri alive.
God of the East, beloved in the West
The story of Lord Jagannath’s presence in Gujarat is not the result of one event or one period in history.
It is the outcome of many centuries of faith, mythology, pilgrimage, trade, saint traditions and the widespread devotion to Lord Krishna that has always been an important part of Gujarat’s culture.
The ancient belief connecting Lord Krishna’s final journey at Prabhas Kshetra with Puri, the Char Dham pilgrimage, maritime trade routes, the efforts of Vaishnav saints and the Bhakti movement all came together to build a strong relationship between Gujarat and Lord Jagannath.
Today, every Ashadh month, when Rath Yatras are organised across Gujarat, they stand as living symbols of this centuries-old connection between western and eastern India. While lakhs of devotees pull the chariots of Lord Jagannath on the Bada Danda in Puri, the same devotion is seen in Ahmedabad, Bhavnagar and many other cities of Gujarat.
The language may be different. Local traditions may vary. The style of celebration may also change from place to place. But the faith remains the same.
For devotees, there has never been a difference between Dwarkadhish of Gujarat and Jagannath of Puri. Both are worshipped as Lord Krishna. That is why Gujarat never considered Lord Jagannath an outsider. The state welcomed him with the same affection and devotion that it has always shown to Dwarkadhish.
The sound of “Jai Jagannath” heard across Gujarat today is not only a religious slogan. It reflects the cultural unity of India, the timeless strength of Sanatan tradition and a spiritual journey that has connected two distant regions for centuries.
Complaints have been raised over the renaming of a decades-old locality in Harij, Patan district. The area, located in Ward No. 4, was traditionally known as Jhapatpara, but residents allege that it has now been renamed ‘Islampura’. They claim that even official government documents now mention the locality as Islampura. Amid concerns over changing demographics, Hindu organisations recently submitted a memorandum to the Mamlatdar seeking action.
When OpIndia visited the locality to investigate, more details emerged. Residents claimed that as the Muslim population in the area gradually increased and the demographic composition changed, the new name started gaining currency and eventually found its way into government records. Local Hindus are now demanding corrective action, while Hindu organisations have called for an inquiry.
Families that have lived in Jhapatpara for 50 to 80 years told OpIndia that the locality has always been known by that name, and older government records also reflect Jhapatpara.
One resident said, “Since the time of our forefathers, this area has been called Jhapatpara. But now the name has changed in official documents. If someone applies for a new Aadhaar card or gets documents updated, the address now mentions ‘Islampura’. We do not know how this happened.”
Residents maintain that the locality has only one historical name, Jhapatpara. They say the name Islampura did not exist earlier and began to be used only over the last 10–12 years, coinciding with the increase in the Muslim population.
Mosque constructed as demographics changed; locals question funding
According to residents, in 2011, there were only 20–25 Muslim households in the locality, most of whom worked as daily wage labourers. However, a mosque was later constructed in the area, followed by the establishment of a madrasa.
'બહારથી આવેલા ફંડિંગથી આ મસ્જિદ બનાવી, અને મુસ્લિમ પરિવારો થઈ ગયા 25 થી 300.'
'આખા વિસ્તારમાં કોઈનું ઘર ના હોય એના કરતા અનેકગણી મોટી છે આ મસ્જિદ.'
'સ્થાનિક મુસ્લિમો 300 રૂપિયા માટે આખો દિવસ મજૂરી કરતા હતા, તો લાખો રૂપિયાની આ મસ્જિદ બની કઈ રીતે?'
Local Hindus have questioned the source of funding for the mosque. They argue that the Muslim families living there did not appear financially capable of collecting the large sums required to construct such a building. Residents and Hindu organisations suspect that external funding may have been used for the mosque’s construction.
Following the construction of the mosque, the number of Muslim households reportedly increased steadily, with locals estimating that 200–300 Muslim families now reside in the area. They allege that as the population grew, Muslims first began referring to the locality among themselves as “Islampura”, after which the name gradually started appearing in official government records. Consequently, newer documents belonging even to Hindu residents now carry the name Islampura instead of Jhapatpara. Locals also claim that a large section of the current population consists of migrants from outside the state.
Older documents and municipal records still mention ‘Jhapatpara’
OpIndia examined government documents shown by residents and found that records issued decades ago, including those belonging to elderly residents aged around 70–80 years, consistently mentioned the locality as Jhapatpara, with no reference to Islampura.
However, documents issued or updated in recent years reportedly mention Islampura instead, replacing the older name. This pattern was observed across multiple residents’ documents.
Interestingly, municipal records continue to officially refer to the locality as Jhapatpara, with no mention of Islampura.
During the visit, OpIndia also spoke to a Muslim resident named Abid, who acknowledged that the locality’s original name is Jhapatpara but said it is now commonly known as Islampura. He stated that he did not know how the name change came about but believed the locality came to be called Islampura because a large number of Muslims now live there.
"અહીંયા અમારા ઇસ્લામિક લોકો વધારે રહે છે એટલે અમે નામ ઈસ્લામપુરા કરી દીધું."
એક સ્થાનિક મુસ્લિમે જ ઑપઈન્ડિયાના કેમેરા સામે જ ઇસ્લામિક માનસિકતાની ખોલી દીધી પોલ!
આબિદ કલાલ નામના આ મુસ્લિમ વ્યક્તિએ ડેમોગ્રાફિક ચેન્જનું આખું ષડયંત્ર હિંદુઓ માટે સમજવું સરળ કરી દીધું…
Local Hindu residents argue that even if Muslims informally refer to the locality by another name, it does not legally change the area’s official name, nor should such a name appear in government records.
One resident further claimed that while only a few Muslim families lived in the locality earlier, their numbers have increased substantially over time, prompting many Hindu families to sell their homes and move away. He also demanded that the Disturbed Areas Act be implemented in the locality.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has demanded legal action over the matter. Harij town VHP minister Ravi Prajapati said that the organisation had submitted a memorandum to the Mamlatdar a week earlier seeking correction of all official documents so that the locality’s name is restored to Jhapatpara.
He further demanded strict action against any officials or residents who may have allegedly conspired to change the locality’s name in official records.
Wednesday at Atlanta’s Mercedes‑Benz Stadium will be packed, and something old will stir along with it. Lionel Messi, thirty nine and still chasing a fourth star for that shirt, will walk out for what might be his last World Cup semi‑final. Opposite him are England, carried by Jude Bellingham’s boots and Harry Kane’s early goals, three points from a final they’ve already begun planning for.
What England’s FA will carefully leave out of the match programme is this. After they beat Switzerland, and after that ridiculous comeback against Egypt, the Argentina players did what they always do now when they win, they sang. Not the national anthem but they belted out La Cuarta Estrella, the song written specially for this World Cup, the one that reaches straight back to Maradona and forward to Messi and never once forgets to name the islands Argentina still calls the Malvinas (Falkland Islands). The dressing room line is pure and blunt, ‘Por Malvinas, por el Diego, por la última de Leo’ FIFA, the same body that had just confiscated England flags for ‘political imagery,’ watched the whole thing and said nothing. Funny how the rules work when it suits them. So no, this is not just a football match. It never was.
Letra completa. “Por Malvinas, por el Diego”
Soy hincha de la Selección La aliento con el corazón Ganamos la tercera con Lionel Queremos ser campeones otra vez Y 32 años después La Scaloneta va a vengar La Copa que le robaron al diez La que no nos dejaron levantar Quiero ver la…
Let’s finally set the record straight, because Britain has spent the better part of two centuries polishing a comfortable fiction.
These islands belonged to Spain. When Argentina declared independence in 1816 it inherited Spanish territory the same way every new republic in the Americas did, under the legal principle that international lawyers still recognise today, uti possidetis juris. Uti possidetis juris is simply the rule of customary international law that when a colony becomes a country, it keeps the borders it already had under the colonial power on the day of independence. It was invented for one reason: to stop the European empires from slicing up the Americas the moment Spain fell apart, and it is still the basis for nearly every border drawn across Latin America.
Buenos Aires formally claimed the islands in 1820. From 1826 a settler named Luis Vernet, with the explicit backing of the Argentine government, built a real, functioning colony there.
Then, on 3 January 1833, a Royal Navy sloop called HMS Clio dropped anchor in Port Louis. Its captain simply told the Argentine commander, José María Pinedo, to haul down his flag and leave. Pinedo had only a handful of men, several of them British born, and no realistic chance of resistance. He lodged a formal written protest and sailed away two days later. That is the entire story of how Britain ‘acquired’ the Falklands. No treaty, no purchase, just a warship and an order to get out.
Argentina never accepted it. Not for a single year, not for a century, and not now.
Falklands war, image via Nat Geo
Fast forward to 1982. The military junta in Buenos Aires invaded on 2 April, gambling that Britain would never fight for a wind-swept rock eight thousand miles from home. They miscalculated badly. Margaret Thatcher summoned her chiefs of staff. When First Sea Lord Henry Leach told her a task force could be ready within days, she gave the order on the spot. On 5 April, just three days after the invasion, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible sailed from Portsmouth. They were eventually joined by more than a hundred ships, including the requisitioned ocean liners Queen Elizabeth 2 and Canberra. Even Washington, deep in the Cold War, spent the first crucial days trying to mediate rather than automatically siding with Britain, proof that American support was never as automatic as the later mythology claims. Seventy-four days later, 649 Argentine servicemen, 255 British, and three islanders were dead, and Britain held the islands again, by force, exactly the same way it had taken them in 1833.
International Law already ruled, England just won’t read it
Here’s the legal case, clean and without the usual British varnish.
Argentina inherited the islands from Spain in 1816 under uti possidetis juris, the exact same doctrine that fixed almost every border in Latin America, and recognized as a general principle by the International Court of Justice. Britain seized them by force in 1833. Force has never been a source of legal title, not in the nineteenth century and not now. Argentina has kept the claim alive ever since, bilaterally and at the United Nations, for nearly two hundred years. That is not a country that walked away. That is a country that has never stopped knocking.
The United Nations itself still treats this as an open dispute, not a closed book. General Assembly Resolution 2065 of 1965 does not invite Britain to carry on as if nothing happened. It tells both sides to sit down and negotiate a settlement. That call has never been withdrawn. Every year since 1983 the UN Special Committee on Decolonization has passed a fresh version of the same resolution, most recently with not a single vote against it, still describing the islands as an unresolved colonial situation.
Britain’s answer is self determination, the islanders should simply decide. Fair enough, the numbers are clear. In the 2013 referendum 1,513 out of 1,517 voters chose to remain British. No serious person disputes what the current population wants.
But that vote cannot do what Britain needs it to do. The UN’s own decolonization committee has said it in plain language, you cannot use self determination to whitewash an illegal occupation. These people are not an indigenous population freely choosing their destiny. They are the descendants of the settlers Britain brought in after it expelled Argentina’s colony at gunpoint. Ask anyone from the Chagos Islands how that particular defence has aged. Self determination was invented to dismantle colonialism, not to put a notary stamp on it.
An empire that now begs Washington for scraps
They used to say the sun never set on the British Empire. These days it can barely find the light switch. In April a Pentagon mail leaked, reportedly shaped with input from senior adviser Elbridge Colby, that floated the idea of reviewing American support for Britain’s claim to the Falklands. The reason was pure punishment. Britain hadn’t fully lined up behind Washington’s war with Iran, hadn’t handed over the airbases and overflight rights the Pentagon wanted, so its 190-year-old colonial leftover suddenly became a bargaining chip. The Pentagon’s press office didn’t deny the memo existed; it simply refused to discuss ‘internal deliberations.’ British politicians slammed the ranks shut at once, calling the idea nonsense and non-negotiable. One Washington think tanker went further and labelled it disgusting. Imagine having to use that word about your closest ally. The timing made it even uglier. The leak dropped right before King Charles’s state visit to Washington, and palace aides spent days trying to keep the whole trip as far from the subject as possible.
This is a country that once decided, alone, where every line on the map went. Now it needs Washington’s permission just to hang on to the colonies it still has left.
And that is before you look at the economy. The Atlantic ran a long piece this year on how Britain, the nation that built the railways, the factories and half the modern world’s legal system, now produces less per person than Mississippi, America’s poorest state. Take London out of the picture, and the gap gets worse. Junior doctors have walked out repeatedly over starting salaries around £38,800. A high-speed rail line has tripled in cost and still doesn’t reach half the cities it was supposed to serve. The IMF warned this year that Britain faces the sharpest economic shock of any G7 country as the Iran war rattles energy prices. An empire that once coloured a quarter of the map pink can’t currently outearn a state its own comedians use as a punchline.
Keep the islands? Britain can barely keep the lights on.
Football between Argentina and England isn’t just football
In 1972, Bobby Fischer sat across a chessboard from Boris Spassky in Reykjavik, and nobody with half a brain thought it was really about chess. Henry Kissinger personally rang Fischer and told him to play, not for the money, but for his country. The Soviets had held the world title for twenty-four straight years. Losing it to an American wasn’t two hobbyists having a scrap. It was the Cold War reduced to sixty-four squares, and every single person watching understood exactly what was happening.
Nobody was confused about that match. So let’s not suddenly pretend to be confused about this one.
Football between Argentina and England hasn’t been just football since 1982, and it certainly hasn’t been since Diego Maradona stuck his fist in the net four years after the guns went silent and called it justice. Every time the two sides meet, it carries the same freight, flags, memory, a war that never really finished, only paused. Wednesday’s semi-final is the same fixture it’s always been, just wearing a new year’s shirt. Sport doesn’t get to sit politics out. It never has. It’s been a battlefield with better lighting since the day countries first decided to keep score.
Conclusion
So here’s the point, and it isn’t complicated. Argentina should walk out on Wednesday and play like the islands are on the line, because in every way that matters, they are. Beat England. Beat them badly. Give Messi the ending he deserves, let that stadium in Atlanta belt out every verse of the song FIFA is still too nervous to touch, and send England home to add up its shrinking GDP and its borrowed American goodwill. The scoreline is only one thing. The islands are the bigger prize, and international law has been saying so for sixty years. Argentina doesn’t need to ask nicely any more. It’s waited long enough. The Malvinas are Argentina’s. Time really is up.
