Bharat Disinformation Geopolitics Hindus

Ideology Before Inquiry? A Rejoinder to New York Times RSS Narrative

Dr. Aniket Pingley I am not a journalist by profession. But like any reader who values intellectual honesty, I expect journalism to adhere to its own stated standards of ethics, verification, and fairness. In its article published by NYT titled “From the Shadows to Power: How the Hindu Right Reshaped India,” that expectation is repeatedly taken for a toss. If the NYT is willing to relax on standards when writing about the RSS, readers are entitled to ask whether what is being offered is reporting at all, or merely a predetermined story wearing the language of journalism. This essay examines where and how the article by Mashal and Kumar departs from those standards. My critique does not rest on disagreement with conclusions alone, but on demonstrable violations of widely accepted journalistic ethics, as codified in the IFJ Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists, the Munich Charter, and the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. In the sections that follow, I identify specific statements from the article, map them to the standards they violate, and offer rewritten versions showing how the same points could have been presented in a professional manner. 1. Failure: Fact–Opinion Separation Violated Statement Violated standard How should it have been written RSS’s stated position “The far-right group known as the R.S.S. has spent a century trying to make India a Hindu-first nation.” “The journalist shall make sure to clearly distinguish factual information from commentary and criticism.” – IFJ Global Charter, Article 2 Founded in 1925, the RSS has articulated a vision of national identity centered on Hindu cultural/civilizational unity. Critics interpret this vision as seeking a Hindu-first political order, an interpretation the organization has refuted consistently. India, that is Bharat, is a Hindu nation. The word Hindu transcends Hinduism (religion). Hindu is the collective identity of the people of this nation called Bharat. The nationhood of Hindus has evolved over thousands of years independently of the kingdoms in Bharat and their political boundaries. 2. Failure: Loaded Language Used as Factual Description Statement Violated standard How should it have been written Some common sense “The R.S.S. originated as a shadowy cabal for the revival of Hindu pride after a long history of Muslim invasions and colonial rule in India, its early leaders openly drawing inspiration from the nationalist formula of Fascist parties in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s.” “Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.” – SPJ Code of Ethics The RSS began as a small, closely organized volunteer movement during the colonial period, operating primarily through local branches, called as shakhas, rather than public political platforms. An honest discussion with the RSS leadership reveals that the founder Dr. Hedgewar was inspired by the vision of Swami Vivekananda, Yogi Aurobindo, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Bal Gangadhar Tilak etc. The RSS was founded in 1925, about half a decade prior to the start fascism in Europe. Why would anyone in the RSS had to go to Europe to learn about martial discipline if they could simply observe the British exercise the same, first-hand and for free? Suggested reading for NYT: Bhawani Mandir pamphlet written by Yogi Aurobindo in 1905. 3. Failure: Suppression of Essential Context Statement Violated standard How should it have been written RSS’s stated position “It’s philosophy casts India’s Muslims and Christians as descendants of foreign invaders who need to be put in their place.” “The journalist shall not suppress essential information or falsify any document.” – IFJ Global Charter, Article 3 Some critics argue that certain Hindutva interpretations frame Indian history through a civilizational lens that emphasizes foreign invasions. RSS leaders, however, state that their definition of national belonging is cultural rather than religious and applies to all citizens. As a matter of fact, Sarasanghachalak Dr. Mohan Bhagwat has stated, on record, umpteen times that everyone in Bharat shares a “common DNA”, irrespective of their faith. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/living-in-harmony-is-our-culture-mohan-bhagwat-says-dna-of-people-in-undivided-india-same-for-40000-years-as-rss-marks-100-years/articleshow/123528212.cms The article itself states: “Their definition is a cultural one, and they consider everyone living in India as Hindu, he (Dr. Mohan Bhagwat) said.” 4 & 5. Failure: Causal Claims Without Verification and Prediction Presented as Fact 2 Statements Violated standards How should it have been written “The R.S.S. has infiltrated and co-opted India’s institutions to such a degree …” “that its deep roots will ensure it remains a powerful force long after Mr. Modi is gone.” “Never confuse the work of a journalist with that of a publicist or a propagandist.” – Charter of Munich, Responsibility 9 “The notion of urgency or immediacy in the dissemination of information shall not take precedence over verification.” – IFJ Global Charter, Article 5 Individuals associated with organizations that describe ideological affinity with the RSS are present across political parties, civil society groups, and public institutions in India. Scholars and analysts disagree on whether this presence reflects coordinated organizational strategy, informal ideological influence, or the broader political mobilization of Hindu nationalist ideas. However, no judicial findings or investigative agency has proven that the R.S.S exercises institutional control over state bodies or established centralized direction of such influence. 6. Failure: Unfounded Accusations by Association Statement Violated standard Counter question for the NYT “And when you see Hindu vigilantes parading through Muslim neighbourhoods or ransacking churches, you are seeing the R.S.S. affiliates exercising their vision of supremacy.” “Slander, libel, defamation, unfounded accusations are serious professional misconduct.” – IFJ Global Charter, Article 10 The article itself states: “He (Dr. Mohan Bhagwat) discouraged engaging in hooliganism and incitement of violence”. The basis of this article is a study conducted by Felix Pal that attempts to establish RSS having a tight control over all its affiliates. So does the RSS’s discouragement to incitement of violence and its affiliates’ “exercising their vision of supremacy” through hooliganism logically add up? 7. Failure: Unverified causal theory presented as settled fact Statement Violated standard Counter statement with similar flavour “But the formula has remained central to its success ever since: uniting Hindus around grievances from the past and injecting

Bharat Hindus Leadership Policy

135

A Civilisational Reawakening in 1943

CIHS Desk On the morning of 30 December 1943, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose fulfilled his vow, he hoisted the tricolour at Port Blair. This was no ritual gesture but a declaration that the soul of Bharat had arisen. Under Bose’s leadership of the Azad Hind Fauj, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands were liberated from British colonial occupation. The solemn Cellular Jail, long the symbol of British cruelty, now looked on as its jailors empire began to crumble. The flag fluttering at Netaji Stadium (then the Gymkhana Ground) proclaimed that India’s freedom was no longer a distant dream, it was being claimed here and now. In mid-1943, Bose had already proclaimed the Azad Hind Sarkar, India’s first provisional government in Singapore. He made clear that this was not a symbolic cabinet-in-exile, but a strategic, ideological and military assertion of India’s right to self-rule. The INA raised its own treasury and even issued stamps and currency under Bose’s tricolour, signaling real statehood. India’s freedom struggle had transformed into a true war of liberation. Bose explicitly rejected petitions and half-measures: “India would fight for her freedom not through pleas or petitions, but through armed struggle and sacrifice,” he declared. In his words, the Azad Hind Government was “the Government of the free Indians… representing the will of the entire Indian people”. This fiery claim of sovereignty stunned the colonial occupiers. By late 1943, even a Japanese handover made Port Blair and nearby islands the first piece of Indian soil “freed from British rule.” On 30 December itself, Bose stood before a crowd of freedom-loving Andamanis. With pride and resolve he unfurled the tricolour at the very spot where countless patriots like Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had once been tortured. The effect was electric. In a speech charged with the fervor of Bharat Mata, Bose invoked the martyrs of the Cellular Jail, comparing its gates opening to the fall of the Bastille in France, and consecrated the day as one of liberation. He renamed the Andaman’s as Shaheed Dweep (Martyr’s Island) and the Nicobar’s as Swaraj Dweep (Self-Rule Island), dedicating them to the memory of India’s sacrificed heroes. This was more than pageantry, the tricolour rising there “symbolised not just the freedom of the islands but the resurgence of India’s spirit”. The colonial empire understood the message: Indians had moved from petitions to power, and Britain’s colonial story was broken. Bose’s act proclaimed that India would seize its destiny “through determination, sacrifice, disciplined action and uncompromising courage,” not through British concession. 30 December 1943 therefore must be remembered not as a footnote, but as a defining assertion of Bharat’s civilizational will. On that day, Netaji, born of a family steeped in patriotism, rekindled the ancient flame of Bharat’s freedom. The raising of the tricolour at Port Blair stands as a witness that India’s independence was not granted but earned, seized by heroes who embodied the country’s spiritual resilience. This is the legacy of that day, a story of national awakening that resonates with the soul of Bharat.

Between Washington and Beijing, India Steadily Rewrites the Space Race

Bharat China Defence International Technology United States USA

115

Between Washington and Beijing, India Steadily Rewrites the Space Race

In an era increasingly defined by a U.S.-China contest for orbit, India’s space wave is emerging as the third force: not just competitive but trusted. Rahul PAWA | @imrahulpawa (X) From Sriharikota’s launch pads to orbiting skies, India’s space agency ISRO has quietly become the go-to commercial launcher for dozens of countries. In the past decade, Indian rockets have placed nearly 390 foreign satellites into orbit. The United States is by far the biggest client, 232 U.S. built satellites have hitched rides with India since 2014, but others are close behind. For example, Britain has sent roughly 83 satellites via ISRO, Singapore about 19, with Canada and South Korea also among the customers (8 and 5 satellites respectively). Space industry analysts note that ISRO “has become a symbol of reliability and innovation, with rockets praised for precision, efficiency and affordability. This reputation for dependable, cost-effective launches helps explain why a dozen nations now entrust key payloads to India’s launchers. At the heart of ISRO’s appeal is its workhorse rocket, the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV). Decades of development have yielded an unusually high success rate, about 94% over 63 missions to date and even occasional world records. In 2017, for instance, a single PSLV mission put 104 satellites into orbit at once shattering the previous record and demonstrating ISRO’s scheduling precision and multi-payload management. As ISRO executives have noted, each launch showcases India’s growing expertise and boosts international confidence. This technical reliability comes with a financial edge. ISRO’s launch prices are substantially lower than many competitor rates. One survey finds PSLV missions run on the order of $21-31 million apiece, compared with roughly $62-67 million for a SpaceX Falcon 9 and $178 million for a Europe’s Ariane 5. Even for very small satellites, India is pushing the cost down. Its new Small Satellite Launch Vehicle (SSLV) is advertised around $3.7 million per flight, a tiny fraction of Western ride-share prices. In short, ISRO offers clients a low-cost, high reliability launch option. No wonder space agencies and companies in emerging markets often choose India when budgets are tight or missions are sensitive. Countries and companies have leveraged ISRO’s launchers across a range of applications. In Europe-India collaborations, the UK’s Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. contracted ISRO to orbit two remote-sensing satellites in 2018: NovaSAR (an S-band synthetic-aperture radar craft) and S1-4 (a high-resolution optical imager) to monitor forests, floods and ships. Likewise, Brazil launched its Amazonia-1 Earth-observation satellite on a PSLV in 2021, gathering critical imagery of Amazon deforestation and agriculture. Singapore has also joined the client roster: in 2023 PSLV carried the TeLEOS‑2 radar satellite and a small experimental payload (LUMILITE‑4) for Singapore’s government, both intended for maritime and environmental data collection. American commercial entities make heavy use of India’s ride shares. For example, a single 2017 launch carried 96 cubesats built by U.S. companies: 88 from Planet Labs for high-resolution Earth imaging and 8 from Spire Global carrying weather and ship-tracking sensors. ISRO’s track record gives confidence even to sensitive payloads, from Earth-observation craft to communication satellites. Recent missions have included U.S. tech-firms communications spacecraft (AST Space Mobile’s BlueBird satellite) and French company data-relay microsats, all trusting PSLV or India’s heavy-lift GSLV rocket to deliver them to precise orbits. In every case, India’s rockets deliver their payloads efficiently attracting clients from around the globe. Back home, this international success has coincided with a boom in India’s private space industry. Since 2020 the PM Narendra Modi led government has opened the sector, launching an independent regulator (IN-SPACe) and a dedicated $1.2 billion venture fund to back innovation. The result: over 200 new space startups have emerged, from launch-vehicle builders to satellite manufacturers and data analytics firms. These companies are designing everything from small rockets to Earth-observation constellations. Government studies project India’s space economy could quintuple, reaching around $44 billion by the early 2030s as the country captures 8-10% of a global market that could hit that size. Even global investors are taking notice: for example, Google’s parent Alphabet has put $36 million into one Indian satellite startup to build hyper spectral-imaging craft. Crucially, India’s startups stand to benefit from ISRO’s infrastructure even as they go commercial. By law, private launches must use ISRO launchpads, and new small-launcher ventures are in line to use the upcoming Sriharikota New Spaceport as well as the older coastal range. Meanwhile, partnerships abound: several startups work alongside ISRO labs (for avionics, propulsion or data downlinks), and some major projects (like Gaganyaan astronaut flights) channel advanced R&D that will have civilian spinoffs. In short, India’s homegrown space ecosystem is maturing just as global demand for satellites is exploding. This groundswell highlights the imperative that India is not just a launcher for others, but a growing hub of space innovation. In pure dollar terms, the satellite-launch business has so far yielded moderate sums for India. The official trade data show that ISRO’s foreign-launch revenue from 2015-2024 totalled on the order of $143 million. (By comparison, SpaceX alone earned tens of billions over the same period.) However, a more detailed breakdown highlights rapid growth: India’s Minister for Department of Space, Dr. Jitendra Singh recently reported about $172 million in receipts from U.S. satellite contracts and €292 million from Europe in the last decade, with more launches on the manifest. Crucially, these revenues come from launch service fees, not counting the wide range of data and technology that follow. What matters more is momentum. The global space market is on a steep upward trajectory. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate up to 70,000 new satellites will be launched worldwide in the next five years, as low-orbit constellations multiply and nations seek independent capabilities. To capture a share of that market, India leverages its reputation for reliability and low-cost service. Policy planners note that India’s portion of the global space economy (currently around 2%) could realistically rise into the high single digits or 10% range by the early 2030s. Now competing head-to-head with American and Chinese players, ISRO is no longer merely offering “low

Democracy, Disorder and the Question of Legitimacy in Bangladesh - An Interview with Sheikh Hasina

Bangladesh Bharat Disinformation Geopolitics Hindus Human Rights Pakistan Policy Security

154

Democracy, Disorder and the Question of Legitimacy in Bangladesh

Sheikh Hasina’s Interview With Arun Anand In an exclusive and wide-ranging conversation with author and columnist Arun Anand, former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina breaks her silence on the dramatic events that led to her departure from Dhaka, the violent derailment of the 2024 student protests, and what she describes as the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions under the Yunus-led interim regime. Speaking with rare candour, Hasina addresses allegations against her government, warns of rising extremism and minority persecution, and outlines the constitutional and political conditions she believes are essential for Bangladesh’s democratic recovery. From regional geopolitics and relations with India to the future of the Awami League and the legitimacy of proposed elections, this interview offers an unfiltered account from a leader who governed Bangladesh for over a decade and continues to shape its political destiny. Question: Could you share what factors influenced your decision to leave Bangladesh, and what assurances you would need to consider returning? Answer: What began as a genuine student movement was escalated by radicalists who led the crowds into violence, destroying state and communications infrastructure and burning down police stations. By then, this was no longer a peaceful civic movement, but a violent mob. My instinct has always been to protect our country and our citizens, and it was not an easy decision to leave while my country erupted into lawlessness. I regret that I was compelled to leave, but it was a decision I took to minimize any further loss of life, and to ensure the safety of people around me. For me to return, Bangladesh must restore constitutional governance and the rule of law. This means lifting the unlawful ban on the Awami League, releasing political prisoners detained on fabricated charges, and holding genuinely free elections. You cannot claim democratic legitimacy while banning the party elected nine times by the people. Question: How do you reflect on your government’s handling of the 2024 protests, and how do you respond to the concerns raised about the use of force and the legal cases that followed? Answer: In the initial days, we allowed students to protest freely and accepted their demands. Then extremists transformed peaceful demonstrations into a violent insurrection. We responded as any government would when faced with burning police stations and attacks on state infrastructure; we acted to restore order and to prevent further bloodshed. I attempted to gain a full picture of the events in August 2024 by establishing a judicial inquiry commission to investigate every death. The conspiracy behind these attacks became clear only later when Yunus immediately dissolved this inquiry, released convicted terrorists, and granted blanket immunity to those he now glorifies as ‘July warriors.’ These same actors marched on the Indian embassy last week, no doubt emboldened by the protection of the interim government. If there were genuine concerns about excessive force or wrongful prosecutions, why destroy the very mechanism designed to investigate them? The truth is that Yunus has consistently thwarted attempts to establish what really happened in July and August 2024, because an impartial investigation would reveal the orchestrated nature of the violence. Question: What is your assessment of the current Yunus-led regime, and how do you view Bangladesh’s future—both with the proposed February 2026 elections and in the longer term? Answer: We cannot forget that Yunus governs without a single vote from the Bangladeshi people. He has placed extremists in cabinet positions, released convicted terrorists, and done little or nothing to stop attacks on religious minorities. The economy that quadrupled during my tenure is now stalling. Yunus came to power promising reform yet all he has sown division and banned the country’s oldest and most popular political party, thus disenfranchising millions. These elections can never be legitimate if the Awami League is banned. My concern is that extremists are using Yunus to project an acceptable international face while they radicalise our institutions domestically. But Bangladesh and its people have extraordinary resilience and an unwavering belief in the power of participatory democracy. I trust that democracy will prevail and that we will set our great country back on the path to recovery and growth. Question: Looking back, how do you view the debate over democratic space during your tenure, and what reforms or new approaches would you prioritize if given another opportunity to lead? Answer: I believe our greatest achievement as a party was the restoration of democracy in the 1990s. When I returned to Bangladesh following my father’s assassination, the biggest challenge facing our country was a lack of popular representation. Those years of military rule and unelected leadership taught us valuable lessons about the power of democracy that we never took for granted during our time in government. As a government, we encouraged political engagement and participation across the nation. Democracy thrives with healthy opposition, yet some of those parties chose to boycott previous elections, restricting the democratic choice of millions of ordinary citizens. It is interesting that those who accused us of restricting democratic space now rule without a single vote, have forced judges to resign, and have detained journalists brave enough to critique their increasingly authoritarian grip on our nation. The question isn’t what reforms I would implement, it’s whether Bangladesh will retain any democratic institutions to reform. We are proud of our record in government. During those 15 years, we helped to lift millions out of poverty, empowered women, and transformed Bangladesh into one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies. We consistently protected the rights of minorities and prevented radicalism from eroding our democracy. It takes a legitimate and strong government to forge our country’s place both domestically and internationally, and we did so by operating within constitutional boundaries. We were repeatedly mandated by voters at the ballot box. Question: How do you assess the country’s current political course under the interim government, particularly in terms of national stability and long-term strategic interests? Answer: The Yunus government took power with a wave of western support from those who confused economic success with political

Bharat Disinformation Hindus Media Misinformation News Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Rebuttal World

144

What’s RSS: Starfish or Spider?

The New York Times & its author fail to understand RSS, that’s open, grounded, service oriented, Hindu centric organization for humanity. Dr Aniket Pingley Be it journalistic writing, scientific research or an analytical study, merit and rigour of methods used are compulsive ingredients. Strong conclusions would be accepted when readers see distinct difference between analysis based on facts and otherwise. Careful distinctions, causal explanation, proportional language and an openness to contradiction are scientific way of analytical writing rigmarole. When those elements weaken, even widely shared concerns begin to read as assertions in search of proof. This essay examines The New York Times opinion article, published on December 23, 2025 headlined, “Youth Hostels, Blood Banks, Yoga: How One Far-Right Network Spread Across the World” by Felix Pal, which follows a long-form “study” by the same author in The Caravan. The coveted subject is Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its extended ecosystem across the globe. Pal’s research study published in The Caravan has been comprehensively analysed and published at https://www.cihs.org.in/hit-job-guised-as-study/. The composite central hypothesis of the author is stated here: The RSS is not a loose family of ideologically inspired but autonomous organizations (across the globe), as claimed. Rather, it functions as a single, centrally coordinated political organism that strategically uses thousands of legally distinct civil-society entities as proxies to expand power, evade accountability, and manufacture the illusion of an organic grassroots movement. The RSS is a far-right movement that has infiltrated institutions of daily life to achieve power. The focus of this essay is about whether mechanism of evaluation used to analyse it meets standards implied by the author’s credentials and by the platform that published him. A close reading, especially when the Caravan and NYT articles are read side by side, reveals a consistent pattern: claims escalate while evidence does not. Interpretive language hardens into assertion; associative facts are recoded as proof of control; and metaphor substitutes for mechanism. Let us begin by examining a couple of claims that the author had made in NYT article. Claim one: “This picture offers insight into the social forces that propelled the Hindu far right to dominance in India. It also helps explain how, as nativist parties are in ascendance globally, a far-right movement can infiltrate the institutions of daily life to achieve political power.” The claim that “this picture offers insight into the social forces that propelled the Hindu far right to dominance in India” is presented as conclusion, but the article never explains what that insight actually consists of or how it was derived. Nowhere does the author specify a causal mechanism linking the mapped organizations to political dominance. There is total absence in sequence of actions, decision-making processes or measurable effects on voter behaviour identified. Description is substituted for explanation: the presence of schools, charities, hostels, and cultural bodies is treated as self-evident proof of political causation. Claim 2: The second claim that same “picture” explains how far-right movements globally can “infiltrate the institutions of daily life to achieve political power” extends this unsupported inference even further. The article neither defines what “infiltration” means in operational terms nor shows how voluntary, legally registered and publicly functioning institutions constitute covert penetration. More critically, it offers no comparative evidence demonstrating that this supposed mechanism operates across different national and political contexts. And, most importantly, the statement implies that RSS hasfelt the need to “infiltrate” the same organizations that share ideas, outlook and work independently. Claim 3 Let us take another statement. “The organizations we mapped help give the R.S.S. the avenues to work toward the whole-of-society change it seeks. It might be by providing private alternatives to crumbling state health care, by indoctrinating children through tens of thousands of private Hindu nationalist schools or by churning out news and media content through dozens of publishing houses, websites and newspapers. Not all the groups we tracked are explicit about far-right ideas, but many of them become key vectors for legitimacy, information and often resources (financial or otherwise) that sustain the core of the R.S.S. network.” Let us examine what can be proven here and what is purely an opinion. Facts: By normal civic criteria, these facts describe a robust, resilient civil-society network Opinions: If one were to write a book titled: “How to move from description to judgment without crossing the evidentiary bridge”, this article could become a seminal reference work! Because Dr. Pal is trained in political science and international relations, readers are entitled to expect analytic discipline, which is found wanting. The author states: “For the past six years, I have been part of a team that has mapped thousands of organizations in 40 countries with links to the R.S.S.” The author believes that looking at GPS navigation map software is same as actually traveling the landscape under purview. A desk-based network analysis could be a legitimate method only if its limits are acknowledged shown as extrapolation of “facts”. Compositely the NYT write up along with The Caravan article falls flat on their face on several fronts (list is not exhaustive): Previously in a rebuttal to Washington Post article, it was explained how consensus-building within the RSS is interpreted as rigidity or control, rather than as indicators of decentralized decision-making and collective reasoning. Here is the link: https://cihs.blog/2025/10/27/western-media-lacks-framework-to-understand-rss/. Organizations inspired by RSS continue to engage with it because of its ability to stay current through an extensive, continuously feedback-driven network. Any organization would value access to cross-sector, verified and up-to-date information provided unconditionally. RSS as a phenomenon is a case-study in organizational theory. The book (not related to RSS) byOri Brafman and Rod Beckstromtitled “The Starfish and the Spider” provides some insights. While the “spider” organizations are centralized with clear head (CEO / HQ) to alone calls the shots, “starfish” organizations have catalysts. A catalyst is a leader who inspires, connects people and leads by example without exercising coercive power. They step back and let the circle run itself. Dr. Pal’s six-year long mapping effort has a fundamental

Geopolitics International United States USA

155

Will Religion Limit Talent Hiring in US?

JD Vance prodding that businesses hiring personnel from other communities and countries were ‘anti-Christian’ is simply gross. CIHS Desk For first time in recent history of United States of America (USA), faith and religion have been introduced to run businesses, economy, make investments and hiring of personnel. Valuing diverse culture of America may not be against basic ethos or tenets of that country. But to suggest that as a ‘Christian nation,’ US companies and businesses have to rethink employing talented people at cost-effective wages from third world is gross. US Vice President JD Vance described America as a “Christian nation” and said we need to protect American jobs from cheaper workers of other countries. Speaking at Turning Point’s America First conference 2025, Vance prodded that employing people of other origins at competitive terms was not part of ‘true Christian politics’. Well, Vance may have to be shown the mirror. Not many would complain about ‘America First’ policy of President Donald Trump or his Vice President. But to give a religious or faith related twist to hiring, employment, running businesses is seriously untenable. The Republican eager to launch his presidential campaign in 2028 may have overstepped ideologically and pursued a sectarian, politically volatile agenda. While Christians of different denominations form US majority polity today, US itself came into being on the graves of Red Indians. In a globalized economy, flexibility in running businesses and recruitment of personnel based on their education, training, talent, value-addition, deliverables and costs must be the basis. Businesses and industry in US may not like to take J D Vance too seriously and reject a large number of their personnel just because they are not Christian or do not subscribe to his political agenda of exclusivity. In case businesses do limit their choice in talent hunt to American Christians as suggested by Vance, what about the large mass of atheists, agnostics and other minorities? While pandering to 162 million Christians of Protestants, Catholics is rather tempting, but to reject others from within and outside irrespective of talent and their contribution in terms of economic value is unsustainable even in short term. Is J D Vance making out a case against those coming for jobs, valued contribution to American economy? Does Vance not understand as to how many universities and institutions run just due to students and professionals from different countries? Is Vance laying the roadmap for Christian and ‘others’ kind of political campaigns that’s pugnacious? American cultural and civilizational evolution has subscribed to making it the ‘land of high value workers’ irrespective of their origin or pay packets they take home. Does Vance not appreciate contribution of religious minorities that include Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or people of colour? From the days of George Washington, Church has had a big say in governing United States though there was huge resistance to religious interference in state’s affairs. Now, extending it to private sector is something that the Catholic turned Vance proposes to do. This will have serious implications for American businesses as liberal access to talent globally sustained them till now. And, non-availability or limited choice would translate into gaps in high value chains across industrial and services sectors of American economy. Big question therefore several analysts posed was governing America by the country’s constitution or Apostles? Will ‘Ten Commandments have upper hand over Bill of Rights? Several policymakers within Trump administration think that JD Vance postulation of a Christian nation may not allow for hiring the brightest and most talented human resources to compete with China. Exclusive or restrictive policies may not only restrict opportunities for other communities but force top technology giants to shift their investments to more competitive, flexible and open markets.

Bharat Disinformation Media Misinformation News Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

186

Hit Job Guised as Study

Caravan’s purported study on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and like-minded organisations smack of framing agenda for future Dr Aniket Pingley “A plausible explanation is not necessarily a true one.” Dr. Richard Feynman, American Physicist & Nobel Laureate Synopsis: The Caravan published a study on December 17, 2025 titled “Unveiling the RSS – Exposing the largest far-right network in history”. Its central hypothesis can be summarized as follows: The RSS is not a loose family of ideologically inspired but autonomous organizations, as claimed. Rather, it functions as a single, centrally coordinated political organism that strategically uses thousands of legally distinct civil-society entities as proxies to expand power, evade accountability, and manufacture the illusion of an organic grassroots movement. The study repeatedly asserts that what appears as decentralization has in fact concealed bureaucratic control and that RSS maintains a dual narrative: public denial of control and internal acknowledgment of centralized authority. The central hypothesis smuggles in multiple unstated claims that radically escalate its meaning. Here is what the study actually posits: The study advances several interlocking claims: This is not the first, nor the last, “study” that “attempts” to “demystify” RSS and a large bouquet of organizations with shared ideals. Keeping my subjective opinion about the intention behind this study aside, let us put it to an objective, rational and fundamental test. The test has three questions: “Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.” Supreme Court of India, February 2021 Mapping Caravan’s Claims Against Four Postulations The afore-stated verification framework which includes first-hand verification, evidentiary validity and inferential necessity, will be applied to all postulations. P1: “Claims of autonomy are intentionally deceptive; RSS is consciously lying.” This is an accusation of intentional deception and not mis-description. Here are Caravan’s claims. Failure on Verification Test: Caravan’s Proof #1: Caravan states that RSS public material states that it “runs” other organizations as well. The books by Rakesh Sinha and Ratan Sharda are used as a proof of RSS own public material. It also hand wavingly states, “It is, however, common knowledge that the RSS’s influence extends far beyond this limited circle.” Counter-questions for Caravan: What is the basis to qualify a certain literary work as RSS own public material? Does RSS own a publication or on the contrary publicly denies owning a publication? Are even the authors cited holding any official position in RSS? Did Caravan meet an RSS top-level functionary to ascertain if the authors in-fact officially represent RSS? How does Caravan define and measure extent of RSS’s circle of influence? Failure: By asserting and concluding, before offering any evidence, that any literary work by an RSS sympathizer, well-wisher or volunteer is automatically RSS public material, Caravan demonstrates that it treats its own conclusions as proof, rather than seeking actual substantiation. Caravan has accused RSS of obfuscation while it being blurry about the mechanism to measure RSS influence by making use of hand waving statements. Caravan’s Proof #2: Caravan states, “the RSS, as has been repeatedly noted, is —not registered—not as an NGO, not as a religious trust, nor as any other legal entity.” And, that “ … lack of traceability on paper allowed it to set up a headquarters in the heart of the national capital without having to disclose its sources of funding, or even who its members are.” Failure: Legalese, clearly, is not of Caravan’s botheration. RSS is legally recognized in India as a “body of individuals” under the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 2(31). This means that RSS, as a BOI, can be assessed for income tax purposes as a separate entity. Headquarters of RSS are built and operated under Dr. Hedgewar Smarak Samiti, an independent society registered under the Societies Act. Both these facts are (purposefully?) left-out from the study. A cursory reading on Internet shows several legal notices, defamation suits, sedition charges etc. levied against Caravan by a variety of individuals and entities. Perhaps, it is due to lack of rigour for the legalese. Counter questions for Caravan: Which legal obligation is actually being evaded by RSS? Provided its disregard for legal facts, should anything that Caravan states related to legality be taken seriously? Closing remarks: The “evidence” by Caravan supports an alternative explanation: a culturally networked movement with loose (or strong) coordination but no unitary legal control, since RSS is presented to be “not” a legal entity. If not legally backed, how is control defined or measured? P2: Decision-making authority flows from a central node; affiliates lack discretion Here are the claims made by Caravan: Failure on the Verification Test: Caravan’s Proof #3: I will take one example among a few similar ones. Caravan states “the Maharaja Pratap Singh Ved Vidyalaya was established by a Pune-based organisation, Maharshi Ved Vyas Pratishthan, whose founder, Govindadev Giri, is an RSS member, the treasurer of VHP-controlled trust Ramjanmabhoomi Tirth Kshetra and also sits on the advisory board of the Nagpur hospital Madhav Netralaya, named after former RSS chief Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar. According to RSS mouthpiece, Organiser, Govindadev Giri’s “initial samskars as RSS swayamsevak are manifested in” the Pratishthan.” Counter-questions for Caravan: Is it being posited that Govinddev Giri (Maharaj) takes orders from RSS on how to conduct his activities? Even if Maharaj is advisor to Madhav Netralaya, does the eye hospital run on whims of RSS through him? If so, can the chain of command be established and proven to be enforced? Counter-example for Caravan: The creative director at Caravan happens to be alumni of the same University as many members of UK-based Conservative Party, so Caravan must be peddling Conservative views. Is there any apparatus to measure degree of ridiculousness of this “proof”? Failure: The establishment and operational excellence of Maharishi Ved Vyas Pratishthan is not being considered as a meritorious position of Govinddev Giri’s national influence; but his early association with RSS is posited as his de facto qualification. Caravan’s Proof #4: “Pracharaks are trained in central RSS mission and, upon qualifying, sent out to Sangh appendages to maintain and consolidate control over the network,

Bangladesh Bharat Hindus Human Rights Pakistan Security Terrorism

158

Situational Analysis: Global Silence as Bangladesh’s Hindus Are Lynched Under a Nobel Laureate’s Watch

Bangladesh Bharat Hindus Human Rights Pakistan Security Terrorism

218

Bangladesh: A Nobel Halo, an Islamist State,Terror Networks and Radicalisation as State Policy

Rahul PAWA | @imrahulpawa (X) Global jihadists see an opening: a chance to reconnect their Pakistani networks with Bangladeshi extremists, reversing years of counterterrorism and counter-radicalisation gains. On a mid-December night in Bangladesh, 25-year-old Dipu Chandra Das, a Hindu garment factory worker was beaten by a frenzy of Islamists, hung from a tree, and set ablaze on a highway. His alleged “crime”? A rumor that he insulted Islam. Yet investigators have since confirmed there is zero evidence that Dipu ever blasphemed at all. Not one can point to a single derogatory remark he made; “no one saw or heard” anything offensive, a Rapid Action Battalion officer admitted. In other words, an innocent Hindu man was lynched and immolated over a lie. One would expect such a medieval atrocity, captured on video and circulated worldwide, to provoke an outpouring of shock from international human rights watchdogs. Imagine if the roles were reversed: a Muslim man lynched and burned by a mob in a Hindu-majority country. The global indignation would be instantaneous and deafening. But in Dipu’s case, the outrage has been oddly muted. Major human rights organizations and Western governments that normally champion minority rights barely mustered a whisper of protest. The deafening silence of these supposed watchdogs is as harrowing as the crime itself, and it exposes a disturbing double standard. Bangladesh’s own minority rights groups vehemently condemned the lynching, the Bangladesh Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council decried the “so-called blasphemy” killing as an assault on communal harmony. But where were the urgent press releases from Geneva, the high-profile tweets from Human Rights Watch, the emergency sessions at the UN? Their voices have been either absent or astonishingly subdued. Such restraint stands in stark contrast to their usual activism when religious persecution occurs elsewhere. The message implicit in this silence is chilling: that the lynching of a poor Hindu man in Bangladesh is somehow a lesser transgression on the global human rights ledger. The hypocrisy extends to Bangladesh’s interim rulers. The current government, led by Nobel Peace laureate Muhammad Yunus, swept to power in August 2024 after a Islamist-led “Monsoon Revolution” toppled Sheikh Hasina’s democratically elected administration. Internationally, Yunus is venerated for championing human rights and equality. Domestically, his regime’s actions tell a darker story. Chief Adviser Yunus was quick to issue a condemnation of Dipu’s lynching, vowing the perpetrators “will not be spared”. However, such words ring hollow against the regime’s track record: while it denounces one mob killing, it has concurrently overseen the release or escape of hundreds of criminals and Islamist extremists since taking power. At Hadi’s funeral, Yunus himself delivered a eulogy that should have set off international alarm bells. In front of tens of thousands, Yunus heaped praise on Hadi’s “mantra” and vowed to fulfill Hadi’s vision “generation after generation”. Let’s be clear: Hadi was explicitly known for his anti-India and anti-Hindu rhetoric and polarising, Islamist-tinged politics. By publicly sanctifying Hadi’s ideals, Yunus sent a dangerous signal that anti-India and anti-Hindu dictate is now quasi-official ideology in Dhaka. Unsurprisingly, the fallout was swift. Days after Hadi’s death, Bangladesh erupted in fury, not just against alleged conspirators in his killing, but against perceived Indian influence. Mobs attacked the Indian Assistant High Commission in Chittagong, and hundreds of protesters marched on the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, chanting anti-India slogans and even hurling stones at diplomatic compounds. Bangladesh’s police hinted (without evidence) that Hadi’s assassins might have fled to India – where ex-PM Hasina has taken refuge – a claim that only inflamed public paranoia. In the frenzy, fact and fiction mattered little: ‘anti-India and anti-Hindu agenda’ was the rallying cry. Caught in the crossfire were Bangladesh’s Hindu minorities, now doubly scapegoated as both “blasphemers” at home and perceived fifth-columnists for India. Attacks on Hindu homes, temples and community leaders have spiked over the past year and a half. Even before Dipu Das’s lynching, minority groups warned that the post-Hasina political climate had emboldened extremists to settle scores with Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. Tragically, those warnings proved prescient in Bhaluka, Mymensingh, when Dipu’s killers exploited a religious rumor to unleash lethal mob “justice.” Police and RAB have detained ten suspects, Mohammad Limon Sarkar, Mohammad Tarek Hossain, Mohammad Manik Mia, Ershad Ali, Nijum Uddin, Alomgir Hossain, Mohammad Miraj Hossain Akon, Mohammad Azmol Hasan Sagir, Mohammad Shahin Mia, and Mohammad Nazmul, aged 19 to 46. The interim regime’s, especially Mohammad Yunis’s own actions, from baiting an anti-Indian agitator to allowing Islamist hardliners back into public life, have fertilised the soil in which Islamist extremism and radicalisation grows. Perhaps most cynical of all has been the Bangladesh Foreign Ministry’s complicity and the atrocious attempt to downplay these horrors. When India officially protested the mob killing of a Hindu Bangladeshi (and even a small peoples demonstration in New Delhi decrying it), Dhaka’s response was dismissive. Foreign Affairs Adviser Mohammad Touhid Hossain bristled at the notion that Dipu Das’s lynching had anything to do with minority targeting. He then lectured that “such incidents occur across the region” and every country has a responsibility to address themas if mob lynching and immolation of religious minorities is just business as usual in South Asia, nothing special. This whataboutist shrug is nothing short of an attempt to normalise hate crimes. By equating a communal lynching with generic law-and-order problems everywhere, Bangladesh’s officials signal that the brutal murder of a Hindu for an unproven slur is not a national emergency but a routine matter that merits no extra soul-searching. This attitude is profoundly dangerous. Bangladesh was founded on principles of secularism and communal harmony in 1971, a legacy now under siege. To shrug off anti-Hindu violence as “common in the region” is to abandon the very idea of a pluralistic Bangladesh. It emboldens extremists and tells persecuted minorities that they are essentially on their own. Indeed, Islamist radicals have heard the message loud and clear. With the new regime’s indulgence, dormant terrorist networks are roaring back to life. Key jihadist leaders have re-entered the fray, for example,

Bharat Business Economy Human Rights Leadership Policy

107

Beyond Binaries!

Four labour codes balance economic prosperity spread with workers’ social protection, minimum wages, social security, industrial safety. Ayadoure Stalin India’s reforms in labour sector represent one of the most consequential policy transformations of modern times. Public debate has largely framed consolidation of 29 central labour laws into four codes as an exercise in administrative simplification or investor-friendly deregulation. What’s unfolding is not merely statutory restructuring but reorientation of India’s labour philosophy that seeks to reconcile economic growth with social dignity, flexibility with security and national competitiveness with ethical responsibility. India’s labour reforms must be situated within a deeper intellectual lineage articulated decades ago byDattopant Bapurao Thengadi, founder of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, India’s most original labour thinkers. Thengadi’s vision of “Third Way” rejected binaries that have long dominated labour discourse: capitalism versus socialism, employer versus worker, market versus state. Instead, he proposed a distinctly Bharatiya framework rooted in civilisational values, social harmony and national interest. Viewed from this prism, India’s four Labour Codes are not an imitation of western neo-liberalism nor a retreat from worker protection but an evolving attempt to institutionalize labour order that Thengadi imagined. Pro-worker without being anti-industry, pro-growth without being socially extractive and modern without being alien to India’s socio-economic realities was what Thengadi professed. Failure of Imported Models Since Independence, colonial legacies and imported ideologies have had predominant say in shaping India’s labour regime. British-era labour laws were designed to regulate industrial unrest, not to empower a young nation’s workforce. Following independence, many of these laws were retained and expanded under influence of socialist and marxist frameworks that essentially viewed labour from class struggle lens. This approach produced paradoxical outcomes. On paper, India had one of the most protective labour regimes. In practice, over 90 per cent of workers remained outside protective cover of the state. A miniscule, organized and vocal workforce cornered all the benefits with strong safeguards, while vast majority—informal, contractual, agricultural, and migrant workers—were denied social security, safety and wage stability. Thengadi was among earliest critics of this diabolic contradiction. Excessive legalism without universality weakens the entire labour force, he had argued. Laws that protect only a minority foster informality, discourage enterprise growth and ultimately undermine workers’ dignity. He rejected capitalist view that labour protections are obstacles to efficiency and growth. For Thengadi, labour was neither a commodity nor a revolutionary instrument but a key stakeholder in national development and spreading prosperity.India’s labour reforms must be read as an effort to escape this historical trap. Consolidation & Philosophical Reorientation Consolidation of 29 central labour laws into four Codes: Wages, Industrial Relations, Social Security and Occupational Safety, Health, and Working Conditions, addresses not only administrative fragmentation but ideological incoherence. For decades, employers navigated overlapping definitions, contradictory compliance requirements and inspector-driven enforcement. Workers, meanwhile, faced confusion over entitlements and limited security coverage and wages. The result was regulatory fatigue without universal justice. Four Codes establish a single, coherent legal architecture that replaces multiplicity with clarity. This rationalisation is not abandonment of labour welfare but a prerequisite for its expansion. Thengadi consistently emphasized that justice must be practical, accessible and enforceable. A legal framework that is too complex to comply with is ultimately unjust. Simplification is not a concession to capital, it is a tool to widen protection. Social Security & Inclusion Most transformative aspect of India’s labour reforms is Code on Social Security, 2020 that formally brings gig workers, platform workers and unorganised labour within the ambit of statutory social security. Globally, the rise of platform-based work has exposed inadequacy of traditional labour categories. Many advanced economies remain mired in binary debates: are gig workers employees or independent contractors? India’s approach is notably different. Rather than forcing rigid classifications, Indian framework prioritises coverage over categorisation. This reflects Thengadi’s ethical orientation. In The Third Way, he argued that social security is not by-product of industrial employment but a societal obligation. The dignity of labour does not depend on contract but work contribution to national economy. By recognizing gig and platform workers as beneficiaries of social security, they can now avail pension, insurance and health benefits. India signals a global normative shift. In an era where technological change often erodes worker protection, India is asserting that modernity need not mean precarity. Wage Rationalization & Economy Code on Wages, 2019 replaces a fragmented system of wage laws with unified framework governing minimum wages, timely payment and bonuses. Historically, India’s wage regulation suffered from sectoral silos and definitional ambiguities that enabled wage suppression and delayed payments. The new Code establishes a national floor wage while allowing contextual variation in states and sectors. This balance is critical. Thengadi opposed both exploitative wage competition and rigid uniformity. He believed that wages must reflect economic realities while meeting ethical threshold of ensuring livelihood security. Wages Code advances this moral economy. By ensuring timely payment and transparent definitions, it strengthens the workers’ position without undermining enterprise viability. It reflects a belief that fair wages are not anti-growth but foundational to sustainable growth. Industrial Relations & Adversaries Industrial Relations Code, 2020 has been most contested of the four reforms. Critics argue that raising thresholds for government approval in layoffs and closures weakens labour protection. Such critiques, however, often overlook India’s empirical employment landscape. Rigid exit regulations discouraged firms from scaling sizes, incentivizing contracts and informality. Consequence was not workers’ security but job insecurity for millions outside formal employment. Thengadi rejected the idea of labour being constantly adversarial with companies’ managements. He opposed both managerial authoritarianism and perpetual militancy. For him, industrial harmony and growth were a shared national responsibility grounded in dialogue, discipline and mutual respect. Industrial Relations Code aims to strike a balance between flexibility and protection. By promoting collective bargaining, streamlining dispute resolution and reducing incentives for informality, it aims to create stable workplaces rather than fragile jobs. Stability, not rigidity is the foundation of workers’ welfare. Occupational Safety & Trust OSHWC Code, 2020 modernizes safety standards while introducing risk-based inspections. This marks a shift from inspector-driven control to

Blog Post