Connect with us

Featured

Kashmiri Leader Yasin Malik is Sentenced to Life Imprisonment

Published

on

Kashmiri separatist leader Yaseen Malik in court.

An Indian court on Wednesday sentenced Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik to life imprisonment. A National Investigation (NIA) special court in Delhi convicted Yasin Malik in a case related to alleged terrorism and secessionist activities in Kashmir. Earlier on 10 May 2022, Malik pleaded guilty to all the charges framed against him. He had told the court that he was not contesting the charges levelled against him. The charges include sections 16 (terrorist act), 17 (raising funds for the terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy to commit terrorist act) and 20 (being a member of a terrorist gang or organization) of the UAPA and sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 124-A (sedition) of the IPC. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had sought the death penalty for Malik.

Who is Yasin Malik?

Yasin Malik is the leader of the banned organization Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). JKLF was the first group to start an armed struggle against Indian rule in Kashmir in the late 1980s. Malik was himself among the first Kashmiris to pick up the gun against Indian rule. However, in 1994, JKLF led by Malik gave up armed struggle and committed itself to a non-violent struggle against Indian rule. Since then, JLKF was mostly involved in mass protests, strikes and signature campaigns. It was committed to finding a peaceful solution to the Kashmir issue. The organization was banned in 2019 by the Narendra Modi-led Hindu nationalist government under an anti-terror law. Coincidentally, the ban had come months before the Bhartiya Janata Party-led Indian government revoked the autonomy of Kashmir.

Also Read: Jammu & Kashmir: a year after the abrogation of article 370

Gandhian or a Terrorist?

During the trial, Yasin Malik claimed that he followed the Gandhian principle of non-violence and was spearheading a peaceful non-violent struggle. “After dropping weapons, I have followed the principles of Mahatma Gandhi. Since then, I have been following non-violent politics in Kashmir,” Yasin Malik said in court hours before the court pronounced the sentence on Wednesday. A report by IANS quoted a lawyer who attended the court proceeding saying, in the courtroom, “Yasin said that if I have been involved in any terrorist activity or violence in 28 years, if Indian Intelligence proves this, then I will also retire from politics. I will accept the hanging. With seven Prime Ministers, I have worked.” On the demand by NIA for the death penalty, he said, “I will not beg for anything. The case is before this court and I left on the court to decide it.”

Earlier during the trial, Malik had protested the terrorism charges against him and said that he was a freedom fighter. “Terrorism-related charges levelled against me are concocted, fabricated and politically motivated,” JKLF cited him as telling the court. “If seeking Azadi (freedom) is a crime, then I am ready to accept this crime and its consequences,” he told the judge.

Also Read: Islamophobia in India: The Hostile Treatment Against Muslims

It is ironic that Yasin Malik claimed to follow Gandhian principles in his defence. The current ruling party has no love for Gandhi and his principles. It owes its allegiance to Gandhi’s killers. It is no secret that Hindu nationalists sympathize with Gandhi’s assassin, Nathuram Godse. Ever since Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) came into power in 2014, there have been several incidences in which serving parliamentarians and legislators belonging to BJP have glorified Godse. In the last four years, BJP MP from Bhopal Pragya Thakur has twice publicly referred to Nathuram Godse as a ‘patriot’. Godse was a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS or National Volunteer Organisation). RSS is the ideological fountainhead of India’s ruling BJP. Most of the BJP’s leaders come from RSS. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself is a long-time member of RSS. The organisation enjoys powerful influence over the current government.

What Does Yasin Malik’s Sentence Mean?

Yasin Malik’s sentencing is a win for the armed struggle and a defeat of the non-violent movement in Kashmir. The fact that Malik was sentenced to life imprisonment despite giving up the gun and following a peaceful and non-violent path will raise questions over the relevance of non-violent struggle in Kashmir. As Malik claimed, he has worked with different prime ministers and preferred dialogue over violence. With the sentencing of Malik, the opportunity to pursue dialogue has been reduced.

Also Read: Islam in India: Then and Now!

Pakistan’s Reaction to Yasin Malik’s Sentencing.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif tweeted that it was a “black day” for Indian democracy. He further added that Yasin Malik is a “valiant freedom fighter”. Similarly, Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan condemned the sentencing of Malik. The country’s foreign minister, Bilawal Bhutto called the process “a sham trial.” Pakistan’s foreign ministry also summoned Indian High Commission’s senior-most diplomat and issued a demarche. Further, Pakistan’s foreign office stated that the foreign minister had sent the letter to UN human rights chief Michele Bachelet “as part of Pakistan’s ongoing efforts to draw the attention of the international community to the alarming situation” in Kashmir.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured

Gaza on the Brink Again: How the Rafah Border Closure Is Pushing 2 Million People Toward Extreme Hunger

Published

on

Source: Reuters

Although the world is more focused on the ongoing Israel-Iran War, a lot of severe genocidal acts are underway as a backdrop in Gaza. The 2.2 million people who are living in the Gaza Strip in abysmal conditions are just surviving, day after day.

Amidst the war, Israel again closed the Rafah border crossing after it was reopened just a month ago. It is undoubtedly a heinous attack on the innocent civilians of Gaza. Gaza’s only direct gateway to Egypt has once again pushed the enclave toward a severe humanitarian catastrophe.

Israel was allowing just a limited number of aid supplies into Gaza before the Rafah closure, but this genocidal act has completely stopped every humanitarian effort. As a result, the crisis of food shortages, medical collapse, and worsening hunger is getting extreme.

Rafah Crossing: Gaza’s Last Remaining Humanitarian Lifeline

The Rafah crossing has long been Gaza’s most critical humanitarian corridor. Unlike other crossings that are controlled by Israel, Rafah connects Gaza directly to Egypt and the wider Muslim world.

The Rafah crossing serves through:

  • Entry of humanitarian aid, including food, medicine, and fuel
  • Evacuation of wounded and critically ill patients
  • Entry of doctors, journalists, and international humanitarian workers

Gaza’s population is heavily dependent on imported supplies. The enclave produces less than 20% of the food it consumes, making border access essential for survival.

Before the latest closure, aid agencies estimated that 500 to 600 humanitarian aid trucks per day were needed to meet Gaza’s basic needs. In reality, only a fraction of that number has been able to enter.

Ultimately, when Rafah shuts down, Gaza’s already fragile humanitarian system quickly begins to collapse.

Gaza’s Growing Hunger Crisis

Food insecurity in Gaza has reached alarming levels.

The United Nations has warned that hundreds of thousands of people are now facing severe hunger, and food insecurity is reaching its highest levels. Humanitarian agencies report that many families have already reduced their daily meals to one per day or less.

Key indicators illustrating the scale of the crisis are as follows:

  • Over 80% of Gaza’s population relies on humanitarian food aid
  • Nearly a million Palestinians face catastrophic food insecurity
  • Food prices in local markets have surged dramatically due to shortages

Basic staples such as flour, rice, cooking oil, and sugar are becoming increasingly difficult to find. When supplies do appear in markets, prices are often far beyond what ordinary families can afford.

But now, as the aid is completely blocked, the survival of these families is uncertain.

Hospitals on the Edge of Collapse

Before the Rafah closure, critical patients were admitted to Egypt’s hospitals for better medical care. However, since its abrupt closure, medical officials warn that hospitals – a few remaining ones – across the territory are facing critical shortages of medicine, surgical equipment, and fuel needed to power generators.

Key health statistics revealing the severity of the situation are as follows:

  • More than half of Gaza’s hospitals are no longer operational.
  • Thousands of patients require urgent evacuation for treatment abroad.
  • Fuel shortages threaten intensive care units and dialysis centers.

Doctors report that shortages of antibiotics, anesthesia, and surgical materials are forcing hospitals to delay or cancel life-saving procedures.

Moreover, Electricity is another point of contention. Gaza’s power grid has been heavily damaged, meaning hospitals rely almost entirely on diesel generators. Without regular fuel deliveries, critical medical services could stop altogether.

The Role of the Regional Escalation

The latest humanitarian crisis in Gaza is unfolding against the backdrop of a wider regional confrontation involving Israel, the United States, and Iran.

Military tensions between these countries have intensified dramatically, raising fears of a broader Middle Eastern war. As security concerns rise, Israel has tightened its illegal control over Gaza’s borders, including restrictions affecting humanitarian aid routes.

In practice, these security measures primarily impact civilians living in Gaza, who are already struggling with displacement, economic collapse, and widespread destruction of infrastructure.

The result is that Palestinians in Gaza are once again paying the highest price for geopolitical conflicts that extend far beyond their territory.

The Genocide and Growing Global Criticism

The entire world is appalled by the scale of genocide and devastation in Gaza by Israel, with the unravelling support of the US.

The International Court of Justice, the United Nations, and other international organizations have declared it a genocide.

Critics argue that the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, mass displacement, and restrictions on food and aid amount to a form of collective punishment prohibited under international humanitarian law.

At the same time, many Western governments continue to provide Israel with political and military support, framing its actions as legitimate self-defense.

For many observers across the Muslim world and the Global South, this response highlights what they see as a profound double standard in the enforcement of international law.

A Population Pushed to the Edge

For Palestinians in Gaza, the closure of Rafah is not simply a political development, but an existential crisis.

Every closed crossing means no aid trucks, medical evacuations, and absolutely no opportunities for relief. Each restriction deepens the humanitarian emergency facing a population already enduring one of the most severe crises in modern history.

With Gaza’s borders sealed and humanitarian access restricted, the enclave’s two million residents remain trapped in a territory where survival increasingly depends on decisions made by distant political and military figures.

This is not so bothersome for the people living outside Palestine, but one must feel the pain that they are living through. How can we survive without food, water, and medical supplies for days and even years? How can we see our children, elders, and women die of hunger, thirst, and bombs? The world must take action before it’s too late!

Continue Reading

Featured

From Gaza to Tehran: The Politics of Power Behind Western Double Standards

Published

on

Iran-Israel War

Across the globe, there are two dominating crisis headlines today: Israel’s blatant genocide in Gaza and the ongoing war between Israel-US and Iran. This war is undoubtedly imposed by Israel and the United States, labeling it necessary for peace.

Western governments and media houses frame their policies around the language of “security” and “stability”. There is a pattern of double standards that undermines international law, credibility, and humanity.

On one side stands Gaza, where more than 2.2 million Palestinians are being killed by Israel. It has produced one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes of the 21st Century. On the other hand, stands Iran, a country that is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) yet faces sanctions, threats, and even attacks on its civilians.

Why are some countries given carte blanche and strategic exceptions while others face relentless punishment?

Gaza: A Genocide in Plain Sight

Since the beginning of Israel’s large-scale assault on Gaza, the humanitarian impact has been staggering. According to Palestinian health authorities and international humanitarian organizations, more than 80,000 Palestinians have been killed, with a large proportion of the victims being women and children.

Entire neighborhoods across Gaza have been reduced to rubble. The United Nations reports that the vast majority of Gaza’s population has been displaced, many of them forced to move multiple times as Israeli military operations expanded across the territory.

This is the purest form of genocide in modern human history. The scale of destruction, starvation, and forced displacement goes far beyond conventional warfare. However, not all media groups are showing the real picture. Western media is showing its unquestioned support for Israel even during the most heinous crimes against humanity.

Western Silence and Political Protection

The United States remains Israel’s closest international ally. According to data from the U.S. Congressional Research Service, Washington provides Israel with approximately $3.8 billion in annual military assistance under long term defense agreements.

Beyond military aid, Western governments have repeatedly shielded Israel from international accountability. In diplomatic arenas such as the United Nations Security Council, attempts to impose sanctions or demand ceasefires have often been blocked or diluted.

This pattern represents a profound contradiction: while Western leaders frequently emphasize human rights and international law, their response to the devastation in Gaza appears far more restrained than in other global conflicts.

Source: TRT World

Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal: The Middle East’s Open Secret

Another major source of controversy lies in the nuclear dimension of Middle Eastern politics.

Israel is widely believed by international experts to possess between 80 and 200 nuclear warheads, developed through its long-standing nuclear program centered around the Dimona facility in the Negev desert.

Yet Israel maintains a policy known as “nuclear ambiguity” — neither confirming nor denying the existence of its nuclear arsenal.

More importantly, Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the global framework designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Just because it operates outside the NPT system, Israel’s nuclear facilities are not subject to full international inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Despite this reality, Western governments rarely criticize Israel’s nuclear capabilities or call for sanctions related to its weapons program.

Iran and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

On the other hand, Iran’s nuclear program exists in a very different legal context.

Unlike Israel, Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, which means it is legally permitted to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes such as energy production and scientific research.

Under the NPT framework, Iran’s nuclear facilities are supposed to operate under international monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Nevertheless, Iran has faced decades of economic sanctions and intense political pressure from Western governments, which argue that its uranium enrichment activities could eventually lead to nuclear weapons development. However, Iranian officials insist that their nuclear program is intended solely for civilian purposes.

Attacks on Iran and the Broader Muslim World

Recent tensions have further escalated the crisis. Israel and the United States have carried out strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, including sites associated with uranium enrichment. The assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with other high-ranking officials show how brutal these strikes are.

Just like in Gaza, Iran’s civilians are also being attacked. One such example is the recent bombing of a girls’ school in Iran in which more than a hundred innocent children and teachers were killed.  Such attacks raise serious concerns among international security experts.

Moreover, striking nuclear infrastructure carries enormous risks, including the possibility of radioactive contamination and the potential collapse of global nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Some analysts argue that military attacks on nuclear facilities could actually push targeted states to accelerate weapons development rather than abandon it.

Ultimately, these strikes represent another example of selective enforcement of international norms.

From Gaza to Tehran: A Crisis of Global Credibility

The combined effect of these policies has produced a growing crisis of credibility for the international system.

International law is being applied selectively, enforced strictly against adversaries, while ignored when allies are involved.

From the ruins of Gaza to the nuclear facilities of Iran, the politics of power continue to shape the Middle East in profound ways.

For millions of people across the region, the question is not merely about military strategy or diplomatic rivalry. It is about whether international law truly applies equally to all nations — or whether global justice remains dependent on political alliances.

Until those questions are addressed, the perception of double standards will continue to fuel anger, instability, and distrust across the Middle East and beyond.

Continue Reading

Crimes Against Humanity

Shockwaves Across the Gulf: How the US–Israel Strike on Iran Could Redraw the Region

Published

on

Shockwaves-Across-the-Gulf-How-the-US–Israel-Strike-on-Iran-Could-Redraw-the-Region

The clouds of a full-scale war are hovering over the Middle East amidst the Gaza genocide. The US-Israel unprovoked strike on Iran has sent political, military, and economic shockwaves across the region. Ultimately, it pushed the region into one of its most dangerous moments in decades. What Washington and Tel Aviv describe as a “preemptive defensive operation” is a direct assault on national sovereignty. It has become a dramatic escalation that risks engulfing the Guld in prolonged instability.

During the early hours of 28 February 2026, coordinated American and Israeli air operations struck multiple targets inside Iran, including military infrastructure as well as a couple of girls’ schools. Within hours, Iranian state media confirmed the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with senior security officials. Hundreds of coordinated strikes were carried out in the opening phase by Israel and the United States against Iran.

Washington termed the operation as necessary to neutralize an imminent threat. Israel also justified it as eliminating what it calls an “existential danger.” However, these attacks are unprovoked acts of aggression and severe violations of international law.

A Leadership Assassination with Structural Consequences

The attack on Iran’s Supreme Leader was not a usual casualty. Ayatollah Khamenei had led the Islamic Republic for over 35 years, shaping its strategic doctrine, regional alliances, and military posture. Removing such a figure represents a direct strike at the political and religious core of the Muslim states.

Decapitation strategies like targeting top leadership in the name of deterrence carry profound consequences. They do not end conflicts but often intensify them. Resultantly, Iran announced a 40-day national mourning period and vowed retaliation. Senior officials signaled that the response would extend beyond symbolic gestures.

Iran’s Retaliation and Gulf Vulnerability

Retaliatorily, Iran launched missile and drone strikes toward Israeli territory and toward strategic locations in states hosting US military infrastructure. Gulf capitals responded with emergency security consultations, temporary airspace closures, and heightened defense readiness.

The Gulf’s dilemma is acute as numerous Gulf countries host the US bases. While these facilities are described as stabilizing forces, they simultaneously transform host nations into potential targets during escalation cycles.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global oil supply transits, became an immediate focal point of concern. Even limited disruptions threaten global energy markets. This sustained instability could push oil prices sharply upward, intensifying economic strain worldwide.

Gaza: The Overlooked Consequence

The escalation comes while Gaza remains devastated by months of genocide. Humanitarian agencies have repeatedly warned of extreme infrastructure collapse, medical shortages, and displacement levels affecting the entire population. Large portions of Gaza’s housing stock and essential services have been destroyed or severely damaged.

Heightened regional conflict often leads to tightened border controls and reduced humanitarian access, justified by security concerns. Aid corridors become entangled in broader military calculations.

This shift in focus carries real consequences. When diplomatic bandwidth is redirected toward containing a wider war, reconstruction plans, ceasefire monitoring, and accountability processes in Gaza may stall.

Thus, the connection is evident – escalation elsewhere reduces urgency for justice in Palestine.

Economic and Strategic Fallout

The economic reverberations are already visible. Energy markets are getting volatile, and regional investors are recalibrating exposure to Middle Eastern assets.

Conflict in the Gulf does not remain confined to the battlefield. It translates into global price pressures, supply chain disruptions, and political uncertainty.

Strategically, the precedent of targeting a sitting supreme leader introduces a new threshold. It signals that regime leadership itself is no longer beyond direct military targeting. Such normalization raises questions about future conflicts and global stability norms.

The Muslim World at a Crossroads

Public anger across Muslim-majority countries has intensified. Protests, political debates, and social mobilization reflect deep concern about sovereignty and double standards in global governance.

This moment tests whether regional powers will push collectively for de-escalation and accountability or remain constrained by strategic alliances.

What Comes Next?

Several scenarios are emerging:

  1. Controlled retaliation followed by backchannel diplomacy.
  2. Escalation cycles involving proxy actors across multiple fronts.
  3. Strategic realignment in which new regional blocs consolidate in response to perceived aggression.

The direction will depend not only on Tehran and Washington, but on Gulf capitals, Beijing, Moscow, and European governments navigating between confrontation and containment.

A Dangerous Threshold

The US–Israel strike on Iran marks a decisive turning point. By targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader, the conflict crossed a political and psychological threshold that reshapes regional calculations, as it was a “Red Line” that had been crossed.

Whether framed as defensive or aggressive, the outcome is the same: the Gulf is more exposed, Gaza’s crisis risks being overshadowed, and the Muslim world faces renewed instability. History shows that wars justified as preventive often expand beyond their stated objectives. The coming weeks will determine whether diplomacy reenters the equation, or whether the Middle East moves into a prolonged era of open confrontation.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending