Artificial Intelligence Cyber Security Defence Pakistan Terrorism

A Terrorist Tech Review in Khorasan

Broader implication is that counterterrorism efforts must adapt to an era of synthetic propaganda and AI-assisted operations. This means investing in new detection technologies, updating regulations for AI platforms, and perhaps rethinking how we monitor online terrorist communities without infringing on common people’s privacy. Rahul Pawa In June 2025, an unlikely tech column appeared in Voice of Khorasan, the English-language web terrorist propaganda magazine of ISIS-K (Islamic State Khorasan Province). Amid usual disillusions, Issue 46 featured a detailed comparison of popular AI chatbots; from OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Bing AI to the privacy-focused Brave Leo and the Chinese bot dubbed “DeepSeek.” The tone resembled a consumer tech review, but the intent was deadly serious. The authors warned fellow jihadists about the risks of these tools, raising alarms about data privacy and surveillance. ChatGPT and Bing, they noted, might log user data or even expose a terrorist’s IP address, a potential death sentence for an terrorist on the run. They cautioned that generative AI could churn out false information or even mimic someone’s writing or speaking style, making it a double-edged sword for propaganda. After weighing the platforms, the magazine gave its endorsement: Brave’s Leo AI, integrated into a private web browser and requiring no login, was deemed the safest option for terrorists seeking anonymity. In essence, ISIS-K selected the chatbot that asks for the fewest questions in return, a chilling reminder that even terrorists prize privacy features. This surreal scene, a terrorist group rating AI assistants illustrates how terrorist organisations are eagerly probing the latest technology for their own ends. If Islamic State’s Afghan affiliate is producing in-house reviews of chatbots, it is because they see potential tools for propaganda, recruitment, and even operational support. And ISIS-K is not alone. Across the ideological spectrum, violent terrorists are experimenting with generative AI, ushering in a new chapter in the long history of terrorists exploiting digital media. From jihadists in remote safe houses to far left extremist cells in Western suburbs, terrorists are testing how AI can amplify their hateful messaging and help them evade detection. It’s a development that has counterterrorism officials on high alert, and for good reason. For decades, terrorist groups have been early adopters of new media. In the late 1990s, Al-Qaeda circulated grainy VHS tapes and CD-ROMs with lectures by Osama bin Laden. By the mid-2010s, ISIS perfected the art of online propaganda: slickly edited videos, encrypted chat channels, and multilingual web magazines reached recruits worldwide at the click of a button. The Islamic State’s media operatives earned a dark reputation as “innovators” in digital terror, leveraging YouTube, Twitter, and Telegram in ways governments struggled to counter. Now, generative AI is the latest technology wave and once again, terrorists are riding it. What’s different today is the power and accessibility of these AI tools. Modern generative AI can produce content that is startlingly realistic and tailored to an audience’s biases or emotions. This opens troubling possibilities for propaganda. Terrorist groups can now generate fake images, videos, and even interactive dialogues at scale, with minimal resources. In recent months, terrorists have used AI-created images and videos to stoke sectarian hatred and amplify conflicts. During the Israel counter strike on Hamas in 2023, for example, Hamas-linked propagandists circulated doctored visuals, including fabricated pictures of injured children and fake photos of Israeli soldiers in humiliating situations to inflame public emotion and spread disinformation. These AI-manipulated images blended seamlessly into the online information ecosystem, making it harder to separate truth from fabrication in the fog of war. ISIS and its offshoots have likewise ventured into deepfakes. Islamic State’s media affiliates reportedly published a “tech support guide” in mid-2023 instructing followers how to securely use generative AI tools while avoiding detection. Not long after, ISIS-K began unveiling AI-generated propaganda videos. Following a 2024 attack in Afghanistan, ISIS-K released a video bulletin featuring a fictitious news anchor, generated by deepfake technology calmly reading the group’s claims of responsibility. The video looked like a normal news broadcast, complete with a professional-looking anchor, except it was entirely fabricated by AI. In another case, after an assault in Kandahar, an ISIS-K propagandist created a second deepfake “Khurasan TV” clip, this time with a Western-accented avatar as the presenter. The goal is clear: lend terrorist propaganda a veneer of credibility and polish that previously required a studio and camera crew. Instead of grainy cellphone martyr videos, we now see digital avatars delivering the jihadists message in high definition, potentially fooling viewers (and automated content filters) that would dismiss overtly violent footage. As one security analyst observed, this marks a stark upgrade from the early 2000s when terrorist videos were rudimentary and “prioritised the message over higher production values” , today’s AI-crafted terror content can closely resemble legitimate media broadcasts. Why are terrorist groups so keen on generative AI? The answer lies in what these tools promise: speed, scale, personalisation, and a degree of deniability. A large language model can produce terrorist propaganda texts in multiple languages almost instantaneously, allowing a group like ISIS-K or al-Qaeda to tailor messages to different ethnic or national audiences without a large translation team. AI image generators can churn out endless visuals for memes, posters, or fake “news” proof, enabling agitators to flood social media with content that algorithmic moderation hasn’t seen before, thereby evading detection by hash-based filters that flag known terrorist photos. As Adam Hadley of Tech Against Terrorism warned, if terrorists manipulate imagery at scale with AI, it could undermine the hash-sharing databases that platforms use to automatically block violent content . In effect, generative AI offers terrorists a way to boost volume and variety in their online output, potentially staying one step ahead of content moderation efforts. Just as importantly, AI lowers the barriers for creating sophisticated lies. Misinformation and conspiracy theories can be mass-produced with ChatGPT-like models, which excel at mimicking authoritative tone or even an individual’s speech patterns. ISIS-K’s magazine explicitly noted this danger that AI can “create false information or mimic specific speech patterns”

Geopolitics United States USA World

514

Trump’s Tantrums & Lies!

Quixotic dealing with strategic allies untenable, US may lose out on India and get cornered as the deep state and left lobbies plays dirty. K.A.Badarinath Overwhelming opinion amongst intelligentsia is that US President Donald Trump is throwing tantrums and lying through his teeth. His repeated claims from Washington DC, Kananaskis – the venue for G-7 summit – and elsewhere have come under close scrutiny internationally. First big claim that President Trump made was to have successfully mediated between Bharat and Pakistan during the week-long conflict to avert a nuclear war. The two countries fought a limited war following daylight murder of 26 tourists in Pahalgam of Jammu and Kashmir by ISI sponsored terrorists in April 25, 2025. Yesterday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi categorically debunked President Trump’s falsified claims from White House and outside. Neither was there any mediation, dialogue nor intervention by President Trump to pause the armed conflict. Instead, ‘Operation Sindhoor’ was paused only at specific and desperate request of Pakistan military establishment through regular channels of communication after Bharat pounded its airbases deep. In fact, Trump had gone ahead and tweeted to claim his leadership role in dissuading the South Asian neighbours from going to a major nuclear war. Yesterday, President Trump went a step further and pointed out that international media did not write about his ‘stellar role’ as peacenik between the arch rivals. On the contrary, in his 35-minutes telephonic conversation with Trump, Modi unambiguously stated that the latter had no role whatsoever. Indian foreign office ‘read out’ by Secretary Vikram Misri clearly dismissed in most certain terms any mediation by President Trump. What’s laughable is that Donald Trump repeated his bombastic claim from Oval office that he stopped the war even after getting a ‘earful’ from Modi. Second big claim of President Trump that trade deal between India and US was used as leverage to bring around Prime Minister Modi. Again, this has been outright dismissed outright by India. President Trump’s suggestion that trade deal in the works between India and US leveraged to prevent a larger war was again billed as ‘preposterous’ and ‘untrue’. To drive home India’s unambiguous position on war with terror infested Pakistan, Modi firmly and politely declined Trump’s invite to stop over in Washington DC for a chat citing ‘prior commitments’. One cannot recall if American President’s invite was ever declined by Indian leadership in the past. Few things have been stated crystal clear to President Trump in the telephonic conversation whether he liked it or not. India will not and never accept mediation with Pakistan. This is key articulation of the country’s policy as part of its ‘strategic autonomy’ framework. Yet another point made was that funding, sponsoring and abetting terrorism will now on be considered war against India and not Proxy war. And, hence, Bharat reserves the right to hit back in a manner it deems fit. Thirdly, Jammu & Kashmir is non-negotiable, integral to India and only discussion could be on areas under illegal occupation of Pakistan. In last few weeks, India exercised maximum restraint in not taking on President Trump’s claim either directly or indirectly. Yesterday’s phone call between the two leaders reflected clarity in articulation India’s position. On the parallel, General Asim Munir of Pakistan getting close to White House, having a closed door lunch with President Trump is something that clearly indicates complete disruption in US foreign policy under Republican Presidency. Reports that President Trump promised hitherto denied defence technologies to Pakistan for using its territory to strike against Iran has its own implications. Old foreign policy hands have an independent analysis on the chain of events including President Trump’s claims that have been eventually denied by Indian foreign secretary Misri. Entire rule book in diplomatic niceties have been consigned to dust bin by President Trump and his bunch of policy advisors from corporate world while dealing with Presidents and Prime Ministers. Hosting General Asim Munir has its own nuances and messaging for sure. President Trump seems to have realized that General Munir could be deployed to could push the American agenda in Asia. Using Pakistani airbases and army entry – exit points across 1000 kilometres long border with Iran will only expand the war theatre between Israel and Iran. Courting Pakistan at most critical junctures have had happened even in the past. Hence, Trump – Munir lunch may not have come as a big surprise for some Indian security hawks. Also, Donald Trump may be looking at a defunct and rudderless Pakistan as ‘potential market’ for clinching transactional business deals as well as go down in human history with a ‘peace nobel’ courtesy Islamabad’s leadership. One big suspicion is that American deep state may be playing dirty against Prime Minister Modi’s decisive leadership as it had attempted at denying his re-election for a third consecutive term. Cosying up of Pakistan military establishment with Republican White House may have come after a successful trade deal hammered out by Trump and Chinese Communist Party’s iron-fisted President Xi Jingping. In ultimate analysis, President Trump comes out as an ‘undependable ally’ for anyone including Bharat. Disruptions in equations with friends and foes may be treated with equanimity by the slippery Trump administration. Rising American societal unrest that has begun to show up in demonstrations and protests may only deepen threatening the very idea of ‘United States of America’. American deep state and Left aligned lobbies entrenched over decades are bound to exploit the churn to their advantage. In the process, there’s huge possibility of President Trump getting cornered. In the process, Trump may lose out on India. (Author is Director & Chief Executive of New Delhi based think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies)

Bharat International Media News Security World

506

‘Mis-Reporting on War Against Terror’

India faced serious issues when a few top international media outlets shred objectivity in their reportage on terror, terrorist organizations, their handlers and financiers. Rohan Giri In the dense fog of war against terror unleashed by India after dastardly killing of 26 tourists in Pahalgam, several international media outlets rushed not to inform, but to build slanted opinion in sync with their agenda-based narratives. From manipulated assumptions to selective outrage, recent reportage by outlets like The Independent, Al Jazeera, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Times raises serious questions not just about journalistic standards but the intent behind this slanted coverage of war on terror. Even global news agency like Reuters fell to prey to such narratives. Between May 7 – 11, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) jointly released evidence and detailed press briefings were held showing how India’s calibrated military actions were in direct response to a spate of cross-border terror attacks traced to Pakistan-based jihadi networks. Indian government provided satellite Intelligence, precision strike data and official press briefings were held. But, the international media houses chose to bury facts, ignore or sidestep India’s security concerns, campaign against terror and gave platform to unverifiable Pakistani military propaganda. One big question was the possible agenda these media houses peddled during the conflict? London-based The Independent carried articles in series on terror attacks, military retaliation by India and the two full days of conflict. One piece suggested that Pakistan shot down three Indian Rafale fighter jets. Reuters went a step further and put the number of fighter jets lost by India at five. The New York Times even claimed that it had evidence. But then, what’s the basis for these dispatches? Well, an old hand at international news agencies averred that the story was blurted out by American security establishment sleuths that reportedly kept a watch on India’s precision strikes that led to destruction of nine terrorist sites in Pakistan occupied Jammu Kashmir and deep within Pakistan where over 100 terrorists were neutralised. Another version was that Chinese Communist Party apparatus swung into action. Its agenda that apparently was pushed big time. As per these media analysts, China was keen to portray that its military aircraft and missiles in Pakistani armour shot down the Rafale fighter jets. Beijing’s possible intent was to establish its superiority in tactical and technological superiority in a complex war theatre. The word around was that China was simultaneously looking at testing its fighters capabilities and missiles power as against French Dassault built Rafales and Indian missiles. Well, one wonders on ethical part of media ecosystem that comes under close scrutiny in trying war situation. But then, lobbies with geo-political interests and corporates pushing their defence ware also played out. Unverified claims made by Pakistani military as part of its psychological offensive was taken as ‘fact based’ news copy without third-party verification or forensic satellite imagery. Interestingly enough, the big unanswered question was why several international media outlets failed to pass muster by for not juxtaposing India’s official version or basic checks done with South Block that houses defence ministry on Raisina Hill. A story on similar lines filed by The New York Times team in South Asia with screaming headlines that India lost jets. This is contrary to Indian army version that all aircraft returned safely to their base. If Pakistan had such decisive victories shooting down as many as five Indian jets and global media networks reported this as the ‘absolute truth’ where’s the evidence? Did Pakistan present wreckage or pilot log information? Was evidence sought either from US security establishment, Chinese peddlers or Pakistani machinery? Is this objective ‘war reporting’ or part of the larger misinformation campaign launched by Islamabad, its backers and cahoots? Another write up by Independent claimed that India used Israeli-origin Harop drones against Pakistan in a provocative act insinuating recklessness. Again, no proof was offered, no drone telemetry was shown and no assessment was provided of the Harop’s actual precision capabilities. Were these articles meant to inform the reader—or feed into a broader narrative that paints India as a trigger-happy aggressor, irrespective of facts? Al Jazeera went a step further. It aired emotional testimonies from locals in Muridke who disputed India’s intelligence that a mosque in the town had doubled up as a terror training camp. Civilians deserve to be heard in a war situation. But, why was it that these newsmen with huge track record failed to piece together Muridke’s well-documented history as headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba. This is not classified information—it is part of the 26/11 Mumbai terror ATF reports and independent research. Why suppress this reality? Who benefits from painting that Muridke was a “victim”? Moving to the next peddler, The Guardian published a humanizing profile of Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir, portraying him as a composed and stabilizing force. What got omitted in the process was Munir’s leadership of Pakistani military that intensified support to jihadist proxies under the guise of “strategic depth”—a doctrine responsible for decades of regional instability. Why romanticize military leadership in a country where elected civilian voices are repeatedly silenced and the army retained unchecked power? Why does The Guardian avoid similar puff pieces for India’s civilian leadership during crisis management? In another article, The Guardian casually reported India’s accusations that Pakistani drones had attacked Indian civilian and military sites. It framed this as part of a “tit-for-tat” cycle—effectively equating defensive action with terrorist provocation. But how can a country’s retaliation after civilian deaths be presented as escalation? Is there no difference between attacking civilians and targeting terror camps based on intelligence? Meanwhile, The Washington Post centered its story on the theme of “misinformation”—but blurred the lines between Pakistan’s unverifiable claims and India’s official statements backed by data and press briefings. Does Washington Post really believe a constitutional democracy’s formal briefings are on par with WhatsApp forwards and anonymous leaks pushed by a military-intelligence complex with a known

Disinformation Media Misinformation News World

760

Hypocrisy Mars Press Freedom Index

Enhanced transparency, fairness, inclusivity and addressing structural issues will make Reporters Without Borders report more credible. Madhu Hebbar World Press Freedom Day is observed annually on May 3 by United Nations General Assembly beginning 1993 to champion fundamental role of free press in free democratic societies. It promotes press freedom, evaluates its global state, defends media independence and honours journalists who face persecution or death for their work (United Nations, www.un.org). In 2025, the focus is impact of artificial intelligence on journalism, addressing both its potential to enhance reporting and its risks, such as misinformation and surveillance. The day calls for governments to protect journalists and encourages media professionals to reflect on ethical challenges, emphasizing the press as cornerstone of democracy. World Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), ranks 180 countries based on press freedom across five indicators: political context, legal framework, economic context, socio-cultural context and safety (RSF, rsf.org). In 2024, rankings for United States, United Kingdom, France and India reveal varied challenges, while criticisms of the index’s methodology and perceived biases spark debates about its objectivity. United States (Rank: 55th, Score: 66.59) As per the index, US dropped 10 places from 45th in 2023 with press freedom score of 66.59, the lowest in recent years (Statista, www.statista.com). RSF cites growing public distrust in media, fueled by political antagonism, as a key factor. Limited government interference notwithstanding, media ownership concentration, decline of local newsrooms, and layoffs—thousands of journalists lost jobs in 2023–2024—have weakened media landscape (RSF, rsf.org). Biden administration’s rhetoric such as calling journalism “not a crime,” contrasts with its pursuit of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and failure to press allies like Israel on press freedom violations (RSF, rsf.org). Critics argue US ranking reflects domestic political polarization rather than overt censorship, yet its mid-tier position highlights structural vulnerabilities in a supposed bastion of free speech (ICIJ, www.icij.org). United Kingdom (Rank: 23rd, Score: 78.29) UK improved slightly to 23rd in 2024 from 26th in 2023 with a score of 78.29 reflecting a relatively strong press freedom environment within Europe (RSF, rsf.org). However, challenges persist, including threats to public media funding and legal harassment of journalists through Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). UK’s score benefits from a robust legal framework and media pluralism but RSF notes concerns over surveillance laws and detention of Assange which raise questions about government commitment to press freedom (RSF, rsf.org). Critics argue the UK’s high ranking may downplay these issues, especially when compared to lower-ranked nations with more overt censorship, suggesting a possible Western bias in the index’s weightage for subtle versus explicit threats. France (Rank: 21st, Score: 78.53) France rose to 21st in 2024 from 24th in 2023, with a score of 78.53, bolstered by strong legislative framework and European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) which protects journalists from political interference (Vajiram & Ravi, vajiramandravi.com). Yet, RSF highlights issues like police violence against journalists during protests and increasing online harassment particularly targeting female reporters. France ranking reflects Europe’s generally favourable press environment but its score masks domestic challenges such as media ownership concentration and occasional government pressure on public broadcasters (RSF, rsf.org). Critics question whether France’s high ranking overstates its press freedom given these issues compared to lower-ranked nations facing more severe restrictions. India (Rank: 159th, Score: 31.28) India improved slightly from 161st in 2023 to 159th in 2024, but its score dropped from 36.62 to 31.28 with gains only in security indicator (Vajiram & Ravi, vajiramandravi.com). RSF reports that nine journalists and one media worker were detained in 2024 and new laws like the Telecommunications Act 2023 and Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 grant government sweeping powers to censor media (Drishti IAS, www.drishtiias.com). Modi government’s ties with media conglomerates such as Reliance, which owns over 70 outlets reaching 800 million people, exacerbate concerns about media independence. India’s government has dismissed the index as “propaganda,” arguing it overlooks democratic vibrancy and uses a flawed methodology with small sample size (Hindustan Times, www.hindustantimes.com). India’s low ranking behind relatively unstable nations like Pakistan (152nd) fuels accusations of bias, as critics claim the index penalizes non-Western democracies disproportionately. Hypocrisy in Rankings RSF index faces accusations of hypocrisy, particularly in its treatment of Western versus non-Western nations. US, UK, and France despite domestic issues like media concentration and legal harassment, consistently rank higher than India, where overt censorship and journalist detentions are more prevalent. Critics argue that RSF’s methodology, reliant on expert questionnaires and Western funding, may prioritize subtle threats in democracies (e.g., distrust in the US) over systemic repression elsewhere (Global Investigative Journalism Network, gijn.org). For instance, India’s ranking near conflict zones like Palestine (157th) seems harsh to its defenders, given its democratic elections, while the UK’s high ranking despite Assange’s detention raises questions of consistency. RSF’s focus on political indicators, which fell globally by 7.6 points in 2024 may amplify perceptions of bias when Western allies face lighter scrutiny than adversaries like China (172nd) or Russia (162nd) (RSF, rsf.org). The index’s credibility is further questioned due to its funding from Western governments and NGOs which some argue aligns rankings with geopolitical interests. For example, Qatar (89th) ranks surprisingly high despite media restrictions, possibly reflecting strategic alliances (RSF, rsf.org). India’s stagnation at 159th despite its democratic framework, suggests a potential Western-centric lens that undervalues non-Western contexts. To address these criticisms, RSF could enhance methodological transparency and diversify its expert pool to better reflect global realities. Conclusion World Press Freedom Day underscores vital role of a free press but RSF index’s rankings for US, UK, France and India highlight both unique national challenges and broader questions about the index’s fairness. While US grapples with distrust, UK and France face legal and structural issues and India contends with overt censorship, index’s perceived biases undermine its credibility. A more transparent and inclusive approach could strengthen its role as a global advocate for press freedom. (Author is an IIT Graduate Engineer, living in the greater Los Angeles area. He is engaged in coaching youngsters interested in Hindu civilizational

The Polis Project Exposed - A Web of Bias, Misinformation, and Deception

Disinformation Hindus Misinformation Security

768

The Polis Project Exposed: A Web of Bias, Misinformation, and Deception

Rohan Giri The Polis Project bills itself as a journalism and research group, but its activities betray a much darker purpose. Instead of being an impartial organisation dedicated to the truth, it routinely targets Hindu organisations and India, spreading misleading information while omitting the realities of religious persecution and intricate geopolitics. Under its cover of human rights, it serves as a platform for anti-India propaganda, twisting the truth and influencing opinions around the world to support its political agenda. Another illustration of The Polis Project’s continuous effort to discredit Hindu organisations and harm India’s reputation abroad is the recent propaganda report it released titled “Transnational Funding in Hindu Supremacist Movements”. This purported report is a politically driven attempt to paint Hindu institutions as extremist fronts rather than an unbiased analysis of financial networks. With an aim to provide the impression that there is an organised supremacist movement, where none actually exists, the paper has selectively omitted important information, using inflammatory language, and cherry-picking statistics. It vilifies organisations involved in humanitarian, educational, and cultural preservation efforts while willfully ignoring the actual threats posed by radical groups operating in South Asia and abroad. There is a certain pattern to the Polis Project’s operations. While ignoring grave human rights abuses in other regions of the world, it unfairly criticises India. Its obsession to depict the current Indian government as authoritarian, using hyperbolic phrases like “genocide” and “fascism”, is to stir up indignation and sway global opinion. By creating a biased narrative that ignores the complexity of religious conflicts and communal tensions in India, their reporting on sociopolitical events distorts reality. While ignoring the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Kashmir, it creates the impression that India is an oppressive state by publicising certain occurrences and interpreting them with a preconceived ideological framework. Deep state funding, particularly those supported by George Soros, is the source of the Polis Project rather than an independent organisation. Its creator, Suchitra Vijayan, has a history of endorsing radical groups while posing as an activist. A cursory glance at her social media activity shows that she publicly supports people who have been charged with inciting violence, such as Umar Khalid, who was detained for his role in the Delhi riots. She also offered assistance to Irfan Mehraj, a “journalist,” who was detained in connection with a terror financing investigation in 2023. Mehraj was identified by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as a close associate of Khurram Parvez, a well-known anti-Indian activist and a prominent member of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Societies (JKCCS), a group connected to dubious financial dealings that aid separatist elements. The Polis Project’s operating structure further demonstrates foreign influence over it. As per Disinfo Lab’s claim, the administrator of its Facebook page is headquartered in Pakistan, which raises severe questions regarding its legitimacy and motivation. Although its propaganda efforts are focused on India, its digital presence indicates external management, raising the prospect of planned influence tactics aimed against India’s stability. This aligns with broader international efforts to amplify divisive narratives against the country. Even outside of its digital activities, The Polis Project has close connections to groups that have openly supported separatist and Islamist causes. The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC), an organisation well-known for advocating against India on global forums, regularly features in its events. Despite IAMC’s acknowledged affiliations with extremist organisations, The Polis Project finds common ground with them, confirming that it is far from being an unbiased research organisation. Its unclear funding structure is another issue. The Polis Project says it is transparent, although it hasn’t given a detailed account of where its funding comes from. Its closed financial sources raise serious concerns, and as a nonprofit organisation with headquarters in the United States, it is nevertheless vulnerable to outside interference. Who provides the funding for it? What outside parties gain from its persistent anti-Indian propaganda campaign? The ambiguity surrounding these issues suggests a conscious attempt to hide the foreign entities that might be controlling its operations. Besides targeting Hindus in India, The Polis Project has also reached out to the Hindu diaspora around the world. It attempts to damage the standing of charitable endeavours carried out by Hindu communities around the world by unjustly associating Hindu cultural organisations and charities with a purported supremacist purpose. Claims that organisations like Sewa International, Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation, and Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh are political fronts are unfounded, despite the fact that they have played important roles in social service, education, and disaster relief. Discrediting the Hindu diaspora and stifling its contributions to social advancement are deliberate goals. The Polis Project’s utter silence over the religious persecution of Hindus is another example of its duplicity. It vigorously promotes stories of state-led persecution of minorities in India, but it ignores the violent attacks on Hindu communities around the world, the systematic discrimination and persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan, and ethnic cleansing in Kashmir. Its selective activism reveals its lack of sincere support for human rights and demonstrates that its goals are not to promote justice but to pursue a political agenda. India’s sovereignty is being undermined globally by The Polis Project, who continuously depicts India as an authoritarian state. It is in line with larger efforts to destabilise India as it presents internal policies as dictatorial, supports separatist language, and purposefully leaves out important background information. This cannot merely be the result of a journalistic error, but a well calculated move to damage India’s reputation internationally. In an effort to undermine India’s position as a rising global force and sow internal strife, it manipulates narratives for the benefit of outside interests. With a blatant ideological agenda, the Polis Project is not an impartial monitor. Its biased narratives, foreign affiliations, selective activism, and untransparent funding make it clear that it is an anti-India propaganda tool. It is crucial to refute its misinformation with factual arguments and stop its lies from becoming widely accepted in global discourse. Organisations with a stake in dividing

Disinformation Misinformation Security United States

581

USAID Shady Agenda Exposed

Foreign influence peddling is not new to India. From colonial trade networks to modern soft power strategies, external forces have long sought to shape the nation’s socio-political landscape. In the present era, dominance is not limited to dominance through military strength but exercised via economic dependencies, cultural narratives and policy interventions to try and subjugate communities to slavery of ultra-modern variety. In Indian context, foreign influence is often orchestrated through a meticulously structured network of private corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks and academic institutions with funding streams strategically directed to shape public discourse and policy formulation. And, in most cases, it’s an operation of the deep state. At the heart of this intricate web, the common patron is United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Washington Post’s Propaganda, Prejudice, Prevarication

Disinformation Misinformation

775

Washington Post’s Propaganda, Prejudice, Prevarication

Wild allegations that Bharat masterminded killings in Pakistan or sought to destabilize Muizzu regime in Maldives is part of WaPo’s agenda driven falsehoods. Why is The Washington Post turning hostile towards Bharat? Has the editorial policy of The Washington Post biased and agenda driven? Who’s behind this framing against Bharat and its people? These are questions for which the Post may not have any plausible explanation even to its own readers. In recent days, two such write ups that kicked up big controversy in Bharat relate to alleged killings done by Bharat in Pakistan and purported plot to destabilize Maldivian government headed by President Muizzu. On December 31, 2024, WaPo published, “In India’s shadow war with Pakistan, a campaign of covert killings,” written by Gerry Shih. It is a glaring example of the paper’s disturbing record of bias and agenda-driven journalism. Promptly, Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India responded quoting Hillary Clinton, the former US Secretary of State, as saying, “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbours,” as a warning to Pakistan about terrorist organizations. A day earlier, Gerry Shih and Siddharth Roy wrote, “A plot in paradise and India’s struggle for influence in Asia” to allege that there was a serious plot to destabilize a government led by President Muizzu. The Washington Post went ahead with its own agenda driven write up though former Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed, leader of opposition Maldivian Democratic Party debunked the write up. He stated that India has always supported democracy in the Maldives and will never engage in such acts. Both the writer ups were nothing more than an attempt to make a sensational yearend with biased and heavily skewed narrative that undermines India’s legitimate national security concerns while conveniently ignoring political standing, mutual interests and Pakistan’s long-standing sponsorship of cross-border terrorism. This kind of coverage necessitates a critical, incisive and unapologetic reaction since it not only misinforms global audiences but also raises disturbing issues about The Washington Post’s editorial biases and the agenda underlying its ongoing anti-India stance. WaPo’s Double Standards and Troubling History This is the same newspaper that frequently criticized countries like India who have made serious moves protect her sovereignty from unfriendly neighbours. While The Washington Post had the zeal to spread false narratives, it conveniently failed to report on issues back home in United States’ or its partners’ covert activities and extrajudicial actions. For example, why was The Washington Post silent on CIA’s drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal regions that killed scores of civilians? Where is the serious investigation of US role in destabilizing entire regions via proxy wars and targeted assassinations? The selective anger is obvious. The Washington Post’s history is rife with paradoxes and instances of questionable journalism. Eugene Meyer, a billionaire and influential Republican, purchased the insolvent Post in 1933, promising the public that it was politically independent. Meyer’s hostility to Roosevelt’s New Deal resulted in biased editorials and even pseudonymously authored news pieces that mirrored his ideological leanings. His wife, Agnes Ernst Meyer, contributed socialist ideas to the Post’s pages, spotlighting people such as John Dewey and Saul Alinsky, demonstrating the publication’s contrasting influences. Meyer further shaped the paper’s ideological stance in1940s by using his political and family ties, such as bringing in his son-in-law Phil Graham as publisher. The Post’s political stance was tainted for decades by the ties with Georgetown elites and well-known political figures like the Kennedys. In the twenty-first century, the paper’s coverage of Iraq War was blatantly erroneous with over 140 front-page articles endorsing the invasion by Bush administration while censoring criticism from within. Its present coverage follows this pattern of selective reporting and ideological scheming which includes publicly criticizing India while neglecting more significant structural problems in other spheres. Baseless Allegations and Flimsy Evidence There is serious lack of reliable evidence to support the article’s core argument stating that a string of assassinations in Pakistan had been planned by India’s intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). The article makes extensive use of Pakistani officials, which is a notoriously untrustworthy source considering the country’s history of creating stories to divert attention away from its own shortcomings. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been the mastermind behind cross-border terrorism for decades, funding organizations like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) that have caused chaos in India and beyond. Pakistan has been regularly accused by the international community of harbouring and funding terrorists, particularly by Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and United Nations. However, the story in The Washington Post ignores this fact and instead concentrates on unsupported allegations against India. The article’s reliance on “Western officials” to support its assertions is absurd considering that these sources provide no hard evidence. The reported “evidence” consists of ambiguous allusions to WhatsApp messages and purported confessions that were taken under dubious conditions. Such little evidence would not be sufficient to support a real journalistic investigation, much less stand up in any court of law. Ignoring the Root Cause: Pakistan’s State-Sponsored Terrorism Pakistan’s unrelenting financing of terrorism is a major issue that must be addressed before any conversation regarding clandestine activities in South Asia can be considered complete. Pakistan has used terror as an instrument of state policy since it came into being. Numerous acts of terror against India, be it the 1947 Kabali raid, 2001 Parliament Attack, 2008 Mumbai attacks, 2016 Uri attack and 2019 Pulwama bombing, clearly bear Pakistan’s fingerprints. Beyond India, Pakistan is a global hub for terrorism, as evidenced by its backing for Taliban’s comeback in Afghanistan and its role in providing sanctuary to Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. The Washington Post piece, however, attempts to minimize this uncomfortable reality by portraying Pakistan as a helpless victim rather than an offender. This must be taken into consideration when evaluating India’s purported actions as detailed in the article. India has a policy of “zero tolerance against terrorism” given that terror activities led to loss of thousands of its

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)

882

Trouble with ‘The Economist’

Write-up on RSS is steeped in distortions, prejudices, agenda driven narrative push rather than nuanced analysis that stands scrutiny. On December 19, 2024, as festive season approached, The Economist released its holiday double issue, featuring an unnamed article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The publication, owned by immensely wealthy Agnelli and Rothschild families, traces its origins to 1843, when it was founded to advocate for repeal of import tariffs. Yet, in its long history, The Economist has strayed little from its original mission of pushing selective agendas cloaked in garb of intellectual rigour. Over the years, it has subtly perfected the art of propaganda, blending curated narratives with psychological imprinting to advance the interests of its elite patrons. This Christmas edition is no exception. Beneath the veneer of incisive commentary lies a carefully orchestrated exercise in bias—shaping perceptions to align with the ruling class worldview that The Economist so loyally upholds. Whether degrading communities or offering justifications for wars, the magazine has long operated as a conduit for dangerous and radical global agendas. In this latest offering, the publication’s signature word crafting meets its predictable penchant for soft-pedaling propaganda, leaving readers with a polished but shallow narrative that serves its masters across oceans, rather than the truth it claims to champion. In its article titled “Inside the RSS: The World’s Most Powerful Group,” The Economist employs its arsenal of rhetoric to perpetuate a troubling narrative against what it perceives as a significant ideological opposition to its wealthy western ruling elite. The elite, seemingly vested in a global order conducive to its own interests, appears to view Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as a formidable challenge. The article alleges that RSS is a paramilitary organization culpable for persecution of India’s post-partition minorities —a claim that rests on foundation of conjecture rather than tangible evidence. In reality, Bharat boasts a thriving minority landscape, some of the world’s most robust legal protections and welfare schemes for minorities, unparalleled in their scope and inclusivity. At a time when Western corporations and elite amass fortunes from wars that devastate nations across the globe, Bharat’s ethos has consistently championed inclusivity, cultural oneness and wellness. The worldview embodied by the RSS—an organization that represents the world’s largest voluntary movement—is deeply rooted in this ancient Indian philosophy. Far from the aggression suggested by The Economist, the RSS reflects a commitment to harmony and resilience, offering a counterpoint to exploitative frameworks perpetuated by those who profit from division and conflict. By choosing to distort rather than understand this ethos, The Economist exhibits its own inability—or unwillingness—to engage with perspectives that challenge the interests of its benefactors. More so, in relentless pursuit of narrative control, The Economist once again attempts to link Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, to the RSS, describing him as an “ex-member” of the organization. This is a jaded agenda-based narrative that has had exposed RSS rivals. This very fixation not only underscores the publication’s penchant for propaganda but reveals a troubling reliance on conspiracy theories when they align with its agenda. Interestingly, The Economist spares no effort in crafting curated narratives about others while maintaining a conspicuous silence on controversies closer to its own sphere of influence. The Rothschilds, for instance—a family whose immense wealth and influence have been the subject of countless theories, from the Kennedy assassination to the Islamic State—remain untouched by the magazine’s purported investigative zeal. Similarly, the rumoured role of US government in assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. is conspicuously absent from its pages, despite widespread historic scrutiny. This selective focus speaks volumes about the publication’s biases and priorities. For those who can discern fact from fiction, The Economist’s approach serves as a reminder to distinguish credible media from outlets that prioritize agenda driven narratives over professional reportage. By choosing to amplify baseless charges against the RSS while ignoring deeper, systemic issues tied to its elite patrons, The Economist exposes its own limitations as a serious journalistic institution – which it tries to project itself. Ironically, The Economist expects its readers to believe that the RSS draws inspiration from Hitler’s Nazi Germany—a claim that is as baseless as it is sensational. The narrative point that lost its shelf life in last couple of decades, undoubtedly was reborn in champagne circles and elite echo chambers and it fails to hold up against the reality experienced by millions across India. From the youngest child to the eldest member of society, anyone who has encountered RSS firsthand can unequivocally attest to its true source of inspiration: the sacred Vedas, Upanishads and Sanatan Dharmic philosophy and outlook to Hindu way of life. Far from the twisted historical parallels The Economist seeks to draw, RSS is deeply rooted in timeless principles of Indian philosophy, centered on harmony, inclusivity, and selfless service. Such erroneous narratives find little resonance with the Indian population, who recognize them for what they are—attempts to vilify through misinformation. Instead, they gain traction in controlled settings where carefully curated echo chambers are created, often with backing of media outfits like The Economist. By perpetuating these flawed depictions, the magazine reveals not just its bias, but also its disconnect from ethos of a nation it claims to critique. In its relentless campaign against Bharat’s leadership, The Economist perpetuates baseless accusation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi bears responsibility for unfortunate Gujarat riots of 2002. This charge, however, crumbles under scrutiny, exposing not only its absurdity but also the Hinduphobic bias that underpins such narratives. What The Economist conveniently omits—and what must be highlighted—is the inhumane and brutal burning alive of 59 Hindu kar sevaks (volunteers) aboard Sabarmati Express at Godhra. This act of terror, meticulously planned and coordinated by Islamist extremists, sparked the violence that followed. Among those convicted for orchestrating this atrocity were Maulvi Umarji, Farooq Bhana and Imran Sheru—a stark reminder of premeditated nature of the attack. Yet, this foundational context finds no mention in The Economist’s coverage, which prefers to portray Hindus as aggressors while absolving the instigators of their

Geopolitics Hindus Human Rights Policy Security

723

Boys Play Big in Muddied Waters!

US, China with diverse agendas coupled with religious extremist forces in Islam and evangelists may shrink open space to operate for Bharat that has big stakes in Bangladesh K.A.Badarinath The big boys are at play. Bangladesh government under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus is bound to be pulled apart by both United States of America seeking to establish a military base in South Asia and Chinese Communist Party led by President Xi Jingping that’s seeking unquestioned dominance in Asia. Jamaat-e-Islami and Bangladesh National Party (BNP) led by Khalid Zia would play willing tools in the big boys power play with Pakistan reduced to a lackey of minor variety. There’s denying that Muslim Brotherhood that’s globally dreaded would complicate the equation with its Islamist – Jihadist agenda on Bharat’s Eastern frontiers. ‘Razakars’ would become handy frontline private army in the hands of jihadist Muslim leadership internationally. There have been reports that already these Razakars have taken over civic policing as an occupational army of zealots. Well, tasks for Bharat are cut out after Sheikh Hasina’s government fell last week, Awami League purged, safe exit to her provided in a swift deal and Army took reins in a coup. Though interim government headed by Yunus and a battery of over dozen advisors have taken charge, nothing seems to have changed on the ground while Army calls the shots. Bangladesh’s under-belly has several layers that must be understood before Bharat gets to the drawing board to establish a working relationship with the new Army controlled, Yunus fronted regime given that Chinese, US and Pakistan deep state haggling for their pound of flesh. The ‘transitional’ Yunus regime got legitimacy as Democratic White House was first to recognise the government. Secretary of State’s spokesperson was drafted to convey that US was ‘ready and looked forward’ to working with Dhaka under Yunus. St Martin Island also known as ‘Narikel Jinjira’ (Coconut Island) or ‘Daruchini Dweep’ (Cinnamon Island) off-the-Chittagong coast may be eyed by US to set up a military base to lord over both Bharat and her expansionist neighbour China. Direct US presence in the region may not be encouraged or welcomed by Bharat given the strategic implications. Also, Bharat would get cut off virtually from entire South East Asia in terms of trade, investment and services. Church driven ‘Project K’ to carve out an artificial autonomous region christened as ‘Kukiland’ will come to the forefront. Church’s fancy idea of a separate Christian state encompasses parts of Bangladesh, Burma and Bharat’s Manipur and Mizoram. This Christian agenda is expected to get complete backing of White House under President Joe Biden or his possible successor Kamala Harris. Even if Donald Trump upstages the democrats and gets elected in November 2024 elections, this agenda may get going. Even if general elections in Bangladesh were to be held anytime now, a pliable government in Dhaka is what Washington DC may expect to see in the saddle given that Awami League is virtually out of power play. On the other hand, China would try and get Teesta River Project and other infrastructure ventures that provide Beijing proximity to India’s ‘chicken neck’ area. Weeks before Hasina government fell, US $ two billion worth interest free, concessional, commercial loans apart from grants were reportedly promised by China after a meeting that Bangladesh Prime Minister had with President Xi. On face of it, funding infrastructure projects either directly or through Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) may not just be limited to investment push. Instead, it will result in strategic issues for Bharat giving China advantage at her doorstep. Third dimension to Bangladesh story is the Jamaat-e-Islami backed by Pakistan and part of larger Muslim Brotherhood going berserk would pose serious challenges to Bharat. Jamaat pursuing genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh has been widely reported. CIHS has meticulously documented these grave crimes. Jamaat is popular as ‘congregation of Muslims’. Known as the largest Muslim formation founded in 1975, Jamaat was banned from political participation by Bangladesh Supreme Court in 2013 citing its opposition to religious freedom or practice of faith. Within its ambit were other organizations like Al – Badr, Al – Shams and self-styled peace committee that formed the jihadist network. All these are pronouncedly anti-Hindu, Buddhists and Christians in Bangladesh. Evangelists and Islamist forces are expected to be on collusion course given their extremely divergent agendas for Bangladesh. Bid to carve out an autonomous Christian area by extreme evangelists with backing from US may be at odds with ‘theocratic’ ‘Islamist’ state that Jamaat may like to evolve Bangladesh into. Conflict between evangelists and Muslims may turn rough reported from several cities in European countries. Contrarian geo-political forces in China, US and religious extremism donned by evangelists and Jamaat leaves very little space for open, flexible and forward thinking democratic agenda in Bangladesh. This is a heady mix in which India will have to tread carefully to safeguard her geo-political and strategic interests apart from that of Hindus and Indian origin people living in Bangladesh. Rightly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has emphasised that Yunus government in Bangladesh must take steps to protect Hindus lives, properties, businesses especially women that have been targeted by Jihadists. For Bharat, dealing with influx of Bangladeshis fleeing the violence torn country may be a big priority apart from safeguarding her people in Bangladesh. Secondly, New Delhi may have to swerve through muddy waters that have become playground for both US and China apart from minions like Pakistan. Thirdly, recalibrating equations with Dhaka given an array of forces from far-left extremists, religious jihadists to military establishment may pose a big challenge. Fourthly, pursuing her agenda of peace, tranquillity and prosperity in South Asia may not be easy for Bharat. Fifthly, smoothening relations with Bangladesh may turn tricky while former Prime Minister and senior Awami League leader Sheikh Hasina continue to be respected state guest in Delhi. Sixthly, working with likeminded stakeholders to ring in democracy with all forces in tact may be a tall order. Seventhly, relatively tension free

Bangladesh Feature Post Hindus Human Rights Security

889

Hindu Genocide Unfolding in Bangladesh

The situation in Bangladesh has reached a critical and alarming juncture, with a systematic and coordinated campaign targeting the Hindu community through acts of violence, destruction, and terror. This genocide, characterized by the deliberate annihilation of Hindu religious and cultural sites, as well as the targeted killings and displacement of individuals, poses an existential threat to the Hindu population in Bangladesh. The interim government must act with urgency and decisiveness: deploying security forces to protect vulnerable communities, ensuring justice through swift prosecution of those responsible, and initiating a comprehensive restoration of destroyed religious and cultural heritage. Moreover, the government must engage with international bodies to secure support and demonstrate a commitment to protecting all citizens, ensuring that such atrocities never occur again. Immediate action is not only a moral imperative but also crucial for the preservation of Bangladesh’s core fabric. Updated – Hindu Genocide Unfolding in Bangladesh

Blog Post