 |
| War & peace |
Monday, April 20, 2026
History’s Warning: Why Empires That Chase Domination Always Fall
Sunday, April 19, 2026
Compare the Kashmiri diaspora in Karachi with Kashmiri populations in other cities
 |
| Kashmiri diaspora |
In contrast, cities closer to Kashmir, such as Rawalpindi, show stronger cultural retention. Due to geographical proximity to Kashmir and Azad Kashmir, many families maintain the Kashmiri language at home and continue traditional practices. Here, identity remains more visibly rooted in everyday life.
Meanwhile, in Lahore, the Kashmiri population is largely assimilated into Punjabi culture. While many residents trace their ancestry to Kashmir, the language is rarely spoken. Identity survives mainly through surnames and historical awareness rather than active cultural expression.
In regions like Muzaffarabad, Kashmiri identity is strong, but even there, linguistic shifts toward Pahari, Hindko, and Urdu are evident. This highlights a broader trend: while ethnic identity remains resilient, language preservation is increasingly fragile.
Overall, the Kashmiri diaspora shows that proximity to homeland often strengthens cultural continuity, while large urban centers encourage assimilation.
 |
- Refugee Population: A 1961 record showed 10,000 original refugees, which grew to 400,000 registered refugee voters by 1990.
- Settlement Areas: Aside from AJK, significant concentrations are found in Punjab and other parts of Pakistan.
- Language and Identity: According to the 2017 Pakistan Census, about 350,000 people identified Kashmiri as their first language.
- Broader Diaspora: The term "Kashmiri diaspora" often refers to those living outside Kashmir, including in the UK, but in the context of Pakistan, it refers to those who migrated from Jammu and Kashmir.
- Refugee Population: A 1961 record showed 10,000 original refugees, which grew to 400,000 registered refugee voters by 1990.
- Settlement Areas: Aside from AJK, significant concentrations are found in Punjab and other parts of Pakistan.
- Language and Identity: According to the 2017 Pakistan Census, about 350,000 people identified Kashmiri as their first language.
- Broader Diaspora: The term "Kashmiri diaspora" often refers to those living outside Kashmir, including in the UK, but in the context of Pakistan, it refers to those who migrated from Jammu and Kashmir.
Monday, March 23, 2026
“Public Opinion in India: Beyond Pakistan and Kashmir Narratives”
The idea of gaining public support in India by speaking against Pakistan, Islam, or Kashmir reflects a sentiment that is often driven by frustration, media narratives, and long-standing geopolitical tensions. However, such an approach is not only risky but also largely ineffective when it comes to building sustainable and meaningful public support.
India is an incredibly diverse country, made up of multiple religions, languages, cultures, and identities. Any attempt to generalize or criticize entire groups—whether based on nationality or religion—can quickly alienate large sections of the population. Instead of uniting people, it creates polarization, which weakens the very support one might be trying to build. Public opinion in India is complex and cannot be mobilized through negativity alone; it requires credibility, balance, and a sense of shared purpose.
The issue of Kashmir, for example, is deeply sensitive and layered with historical, political, and emotional dimensions. Reducing it to a tool for rhetoric or public mobilization oversimplifies the reality and risks undermining genuine dialogue. People are increasingly aware and informed, and they tend to respond better to nuanced perspectives rather than one-sided narratives.
Regarding the film industry, it is true that themes related to nationalism, cross-border tensions, and conflict with Pakistan have gained visibility in recent years. However, this does not mean that the industry “depends” on such topics. Indian cinema has always evolved with audience preferences—ranging from romance and social issues to biopics and global themes. Filmmakers often choose subjects that resonate emotionally or commercially at a given time. If the geopolitical climate changes, storytelling will naturally shift as well. Creativity is not confined to a single narrative.
If the goal is to build strong public support—whether for a social issue, a political stance, or even a local initiative—the more effective strategy is to focus on constructive engagement. This includes highlighting real problems, offering practical solutions, and connecting with people on issues that directly impact their lives, such as employment, education, environment, and development.
For instance, if you are advocating for land rights, herbal farming, or environmental protection, your message will resonate more if it emphasizes transparency, scientific evidence, and community benefit. People are more likely to support initiatives that promise positive change rather than those that are rooted in criticism or division.
In today’s interconnected world, credibility and trust are key. Messages that promote unity, development, and fairness tend to travel further and gain wider acceptance. On the other hand, narratives based on targeting or blame often face resistance and lose effectiveness over time.
In conclusion, while geopolitical tensions and media narratives may influence public discourse, lasting support in India is built through inclusive, solution-oriented, and fact-based communication. Shifting the focus from opposition to constructive action is not just a better strategy—it is also a more responsible and impactful one.
Sunday, March 22, 2026
The Role of China and Pakistan in a Potential US–Iran Ceasefire
By: Sheikh Gulzar
The claim that only China and Pakistan can bring about a ceasefire between the United States and Iran is an oversimplification of a much more complex geopolitical reality.
It is true that China and Pakistan have actively called for de-escalation. China, in particular, has repeatedly urged dialogue and condemned military escalation, positioning itself as a diplomatic actor seeking stability in the Middle East. Pakistan has also supported ceasefire initiatives at international forums like the United Nations, often working alongside China and other countries to push for negotiations.
However, global diplomacy is rarely limited to just two countries. Historically, ceasefires involving the United States and Iran—or conflicts linked to them—have involved multiple actors, including the United Nations, European powers, regional states like Oman or Qatar, and sometimes even direct backchannel talks. In fact, a recent UN Security Council resolution called for an immediate ceasefire in the 2026 Iran conflict, showing that multilateral institutions still play a central role.
The idea that Iran “does not trust any other country” is also not entirely accurate. While Iran has strategic partnerships and varying levels of trust with different nations, it has historically engaged in negotiations with multiple parties, including the U.S. itself during nuclear talks, as well as European intermediaries.
In reality, China and Pakistan are important voices advocating peace, but they are not the only ones capable of influencing a ceasefire. Achieving lasting peace between the United States and Iran would require broad international cooperation, complex negotiations, and mutual willingness from the primary parties involved.
Thursday, March 19, 2026
Ababeel and Shaheen III: Can Pakistan Really Build Missiles That Can Reach the US?
During a briefing to the US Senate, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has included Pakistan among the countries that could pose significant security threats to the US.
While presenting the 'Annual Threat Assessment' report before the US Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, Tulsi Gabbard warned that Pakistan's rapidly developing missile capabilities could put the US mainland within its range in the future.
Tulsi Gabbard said that “Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Pakistan are conducting significant research and development in advanced, conventional or new types of missile systems with nuclear and conventional payloads, which brings our country (the United States) within range.”
She further said that Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile technology could in the future develop into an intercontinental missile system, which could also reach the United States.
Tulsi Gabbard said that “the countries identified in the threat assessment report will likely try to understand the United States’ advanced missile defense plans so that they can determine the direction of their missile technology development and be able to assess Washington’s intentions regarding defense strategy and deterrence.”
Friday, March 6, 2026
26 Countries US Bombed Since 1945
Since 1945, the United States has carried out aerial bombing operations in an alarming number of countries.
Attacks in 26 of these countries -- the form of airstrikes, drone attacks, or air support provided during wider military engagements -- have been confirmed, as per a list compiled by worldvisualized.com
 |
| Clary Sage Kashmir |
Country Year
Japan 1945
Germany 1945
China 1945-1946, 1950-1953, 1999
North Korea 1950-1953
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1961
Laos 1964-1973
Vietnam 1965-1973
Cambodia 1969-1973
Lebanon 1983-1984
Libya 1986, 2011
Iran 1987-1988, 2025, 2026
Nicaragua 1980
Iraq 1991, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2003-2011, continuing since 2014
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993, continuing since 2007, 2025
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998, continuing since 2001-2021
Yugoslavia/Serbia 1999
Pakistan 2004-2018
Yemen 2002, 2009-2020, 2024-2025
Syria continuing since 2014, 2025
Nigeria 2025
Venezuela 2026
Sunday, March 1, 2026
Why Israel Cannot Sustain a Long War With Iran
 |
| Israel v/s IRAN |
The idea that Israel cannot sustain a long war with Iran, and that the United States is not interested in prolonged conflict, reflects a strategic reality often discussed by military analysts and political experts. A full-scale war between Israel and Iran would be very different from Israel’s previous conflicts with neighboring groups or states. The geographic distance, military complexity, economic costs, and political consequences would make a long war extremely difficult for Israel and undesirable for the United States.
Israel’s military strategy has traditionally been based on short, decisive wars. Because Israel is a relatively small country with a limited population, prolonged mobilization of reserve soldiers would disrupt its economy and society. Long wars can reduce industrial production, weaken business activity, and place heavy pressure on government finances. Israel’s defense system, including missile interceptors and advanced aircraft, is highly effective but expensive. Sustaining continuous operations against a large country like Iran would require enormous resources.
Iran is geographically far from Israel, which creates logistical challenges. Israeli aircraft would need to travel long distances for repeated missions, requiring air refueling and technical support. Maintaining such operations over months or years would be difficult without strong external assistance. Iran also has significant missile capabilities and allied groups across the Middle East that could attack Israeli territory, creating a multi-front conflict. This would further strain Israel’s defense resources and civilian infrastructure.
Another major factor is the role of the United States. Israel depends heavily on American military support, including advanced weapons, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic backing. Without U.S. assistance, sustaining a long conflict against Iran would be extremely challenging. However, the United States has shown little interest in becoming involved in another prolonged Middle Eastern war. After long and costly conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, American policymakers and the public generally prefer limited military engagement rather than extended ground or air campaigns.
The United States is more likely to support defensive measures or limited strikes instead of a full-scale war. American leaders often emphasize the importance of preventing regional escalation, protecting global oil supplies, and maintaining international stability. A long war with Iran could disrupt global trade, increase oil prices, and create instability across the Middle East. For these reasons, the United States usually encourages restraint while still maintaining strong support for Israel’s security.
Despite these constraints, tensions between Israel and Iran remain high. Both countries see each other as major strategic threats. Israel is concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence, while Iran opposes Israel’s policies and alliances. This rivalry increases the risk of short but intense military confrontations.
In conclusion, a prolonged war between Israel and Iran would be extremely costly and difficult to sustain. Israel’s limited size and resources favor short military operations rather than long conflicts. At the same time, the United States is unlikely to support a lengthy war, although it may assist Israel in limited ways. As a result, most experts believe that if fighting occurs, it would likely be brief but intense rather than a long-lasting war.
US role in Israel Iran war,
Middle East conflict analysis,
Israel Iran military comparison,
Israel long war capability,
US foreign policy Middle East,
Israel defense strategy,
Iran missile capability,
US military involvement Middle East,
Israel Iran war scenario,
Middle East war risks,
Israel security challenges,
Iran regional influence,
US support for Israel,
Israel military limitations,
Iran military strength,
Middle East conflict analysis,
Israel Iran military comparison,
Israel long war capability,
US foreign policy Middle East,
Israel defense strategy,
Iran missile capability,
US military involvement Middle East,
Israel Iran war scenario,
Middle East war risks,
Israel security challenges,
Iran regional influence,
US support for Israel,
Israel military limitations,
Iran military strength,
Thursday, February 26, 2026
Why Kashmir Needs Jhelum River Development More Than Railways
By: Ginkgo Gulzar
Many experts believe that investing in the Jhelum River could reduce floods and protect agriculture in Kashmir more effectively than large infrastructure spending on railways. Kashmir’s economy depends heavily on agriculture, horticulture, and wetlands, all of which are closely connected to the health and flow of the Jhelum River. When the river is neglected, the entire valley becomes vulnerable to flooding, soil damage, and crop loss.
The devastating 2014 Kashmir Floods showed how dangerous an unmanaged river system can be. Thousands of homes were damaged, farmland remained underwater for weeks, and farmers suffered major financial losses. Experts later pointed out that excessive siltation, blocked flood channels, and shrinking wetlands had reduced the river’s natural capacity to carry water safely. If proper dredging and river management had been maintained, the impact of the floods could have been significantly reduced.
Agriculture in areas such as Pampore and other parts of the Kashmir Valley depends on stable water conditions. Crops like saffron, vegetables, and orchards are sensitive to waterlogging. When the Jhelum overflows, fertile soil becomes damaged and productivity declines. Regular river dredging, strengthening of embankments, and restoration of flood channels could protect thousands of hectares of farmland and improve long-term agricultural income.
Another important factor is the role of wetlands. Wetlands connected to the river, such as Wular Lake, naturally store excess floodwater. Over time, many wetlands have shrunk due to siltation and encroachment, reducing their ability to absorb water during heavy rains. Restoring these wetlands would help regulate river flow and reduce flood risks across the valley.
Investment in the Jhelum River would also create local employment. River dredging, embankment strengthening, wetland restoration, and irrigation improvements require continuous work and could provide jobs for local communities. Unlike railway projects that mainly benefit transport corridors, river projects directly support farmers and rural populations.
Environmental stability is another major advantage. A healthy river system supports fisheries, groundwater recharge, and soil fertility. Cleaner and better-managed river water would improve irrigation quality and reduce long-term environmental damage. Sustainable river management could also protect biodiversity and maintain ecological balance in the valley.
Salvia sclarea (Clary Sage): Uses in Herbal Medicine and Aromatherapy
For these reasons, many experts believe that long-term investment in the Jhelum River system would provide stronger protection for agriculture, reduce disaster risks, and support sustainable economic development in Kashmir. A balanced development strategy that includes both transportation and river management would offer the greatest benefits for the region’s future.
Tuesday, February 24, 2026
240 Years of Conflict: The War History of the United States
 |
| why America is always at war |
America is accustomed to wars, having spent only 16 years without a conflict in its 240-year history.
The history of the United States is closely connected with war and military conflict. Since its founding in 1776, America has been involved in numerous wars, interventions, and military operations across the world. Historians often point out that the country has experienced only a small number of years without some form of military engagement. While the exact calculation varies depending on definitions, the idea that the United States has spent very little time at complete peace has become a widely discussed observation. This long history of conflict has shaped America’s political institutions, economic power, and global influence.
The United States was born through war. The American colonies fought for independence from Britain during the late eighteenth century, creating a national identity based on resistance and struggle. After independence, the young nation quickly became involved in further conflicts, including wars with Native American tribes and disputes with European powers. These early wars were closely connected to territorial expansion. As settlers moved westward, conflicts increased, and the country gradually expanded its borders across the continent.
During the nineteenth century, America experienced several major wars that strengthened federal power and transformed society. The War of 1812 confirmed American independence and national pride, while the Mexican-American War resulted in the expansion of territory across the Southwest. The Civil War was one of the most destructive conflicts in American history and reshaped the nation politically and socially. After the Civil War, the United States continued military campaigns against Native American tribes as the government consolidated control over western lands.
By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States began to expand its influence beyond North America. The Spanish-American War marked the emergence of America as an overseas power. Territories such as Puerto Rico and the Philippines came under American control, signaling a new phase in foreign policy. The country was no longer focused only on continental expansion but increasingly involved in global affairs.
The twentieth century brought even larger and more influential wars. The United States played a decisive role in both World War I and World War II. These global conflicts established America as one of the world’s most powerful nations. After World War II, the United States emerged as a superpower with global responsibilities and military commitments. The Cold War period saw the United States engaged in ideological and strategic competition with the Soviet Union. Although this rivalry did not develop into direct large-scale war between the two powers, it involved numerous proxy wars and military interventions.
Conflicts such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War demonstrated the extent of American involvement abroad. These wars were fought not for territorial expansion but for political and strategic influence. They reflected the broader struggle between competing political systems during the Cold War era. The experiences of these wars also shaped American public opinion, leading to debates about the role of military power in foreign policy.
After the Cold War ended, the United States remained heavily involved in international conflicts. Military operations in the Middle East, the Balkans, and other regions reflected America’s continued role as a global power. The attacks of September 11, 2001 marked another turning point. The United States launched military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a broader effort to combat terrorism. These conflicts lasted for many years and involved large-scale deployments of troops and resources.
Several factors explain why the United States has been involved in so many conflicts. One reason is geography and expansion. During its early history, the country expanded across a vast continent, and conflict often accompanied this growth. Another factor is economic and strategic interests. As American trade and influence spread around the world, the government sought to protect those interests through military strength.
Political ideology has also played an important role. American leaders have often believed that the country has a responsibility to defend democracy and maintain global stability. This belief has sometimes justified military intervention in distant regions. Supporters argue that American involvement has helped maintain international order and prevent larger conflicts. Critics argue that frequent military interventions have caused unnecessary suffering and instability.
Military power has also contributed to technological and economic development in the United States. Large-scale defense spending has supported research and innovation in areas such as aviation, communications, and medicine. At the same time, war has imposed heavy costs in terms of human lives and financial resources. Many Americans have debated whether these costs are justified.
The idea that America has had only a few years of peace does not necessarily mean the country has been in constant large-scale war. In many cases, military involvement has taken the form of smaller operations, overseas deployments, or limited conflicts rather than full-scale wars. Nevertheless, the overall pattern shows that military activity has been a regular feature of American history.
America’s long record of military engagement has shaped its identity as a global power. The country maintains one of the world’s largest and most advanced military forces, with bases and alliances across many regions. This global presence reflects both the responsibilities and the challenges of being a superpower.
Understanding America’s history of war provides insight into its current role in world affairs. The pattern of frequent conflict raises important questions about the relationship between power and peace. Some observers believe that strong military capability helps prevent war by deterring aggression. Others believe that military strength can encourage intervention and prolong conflicts.
In the future, the United States will likely continue to face decisions about when and how to use military force. The lessons of history suggest that war has played a central role in shaping the nation, but they also highlight the importance of seeking peaceful solutions whenever possible. America's experience shows that while war can influence national development, lasting stability depends on diplomacy, cooperation, and mutual understanding.
Friday, February 20, 2026
Kota Rani – Symbol of Self Rule in Kashmir
 |
| Kota Rani (Kashmir Ki Beti) |
Understanding the frequent floods that threatened Srinagar, Kota Rani paid special attention to public welfare and infrastructure. She is credited with constructing canals and improving flood-control systems along the Jhelum River to protect the capital from devastating floods. One such canal, often associated with her name, helped divert excess water and safeguard agricultural lands and residential areas.
Kota Rani (Kashmir Ki Beti) is remembered in Kashmir’s history as a powerful symbol of self-rule, dignity, and independent governance. She ruled Kashmir in the 14th century during a time of political chaos and foreign interference, yet she stood firmly for the sovereignty of Kashmir and welfare of its people.
After the death of her husband King Udayanadeva, Kota Rani took charge of the kingdom and became the last independent Hindu ruler of Kashmir before the establishment of the Shah Mir Sultanate. Her rule is often described as a period when Kashmir was governed by its own people, reflecting the idea of Kashmiri self-determination.
Kota Rani focused on strengthening administration, protecting the kingdom from internal conspiracies, and improving public welfare. She built canals and flood-control systems in Srinagar to safeguard the population from natural disasters and ensure agricultural stability. These efforts showed her commitment to people-centric governance and local self-rule.
Her resistance against political conspiracies and external pressure made her a symbol of courage. According to popular tradition, she chose death over submission when forced into a political marriage, turning her legacy into one of honour, sacrifice, and independence.
Today, Kota Rani is remembered across communities in Kashmir as a historic figure who represents self-rule, resilience, and the shared heritage of Kashmir, inspiring discussions about identity, unity, and the right of a people to govern themselves.
Even though she ruled before Muslim rule began, many Kashmiri Muslims respect Kota Rani because:
She is seen as a daughter of Kashmir (Kashmir Ki Beti)
She worked for the people of Kashmir, not just a religion
Kashmiri culture values shared history beyond religious lines
Kota Rani, the last Hindu queen of medieval Kashmir, is remembered not only for her political struggle but also for her administrative strength and vision. She focused on strengthening governance during a period of instability and internal conspiracies. Surrounded by rival factions and power struggles, she worked carefully to maintain unity within the kingdom and protect it from collapse.
Understanding the frequent floods that threatened Srinagar, Kota Rani paid special attention to public welfare and infrastructure. She is credited with constructing canals and improving flood-control systems along the Jhelum River to protect the capital from devastating floods. One such canal, often associated with her name, helped divert excess water and safeguard agricultural lands and residential areas.
Her rule reflected a balance between political resilience and social responsibility. While defending the kingdom from internal betrayal and external threats, she also ensured that the needs of the people were addressed. These public works strengthened the economy, protected livelihoods, and demonstrated her commitment to the welfare of Kashmir.
Kota Rani’s legacy remains significant in Kashmir’s history as a symbol of administrative capability, courage, and dedication to her people during one of the region’s most challenging eras.
Kota Rani death story, Kota Rani and Shah Mir, Medieval Kashmir queen, Hindu queen of Kashmir, Kashmir last Hindu dynasty,
Wednesday, February 18, 2026
Salvia miltiorrhiza Farming Guide: Future Medicinal Gold of Kashmir
 |
| Red Sage Roots |
Kashmir’s climate and soil conditions make it a promising region for the commercial cultivation of Red Sage. The plant thrives in well-drained sandy or loamy soils with moderate moisture and full sunlight. It prefers cool temperatures ranging from 15°C to 30°C, which are common in many parts of the Kashmir Valley. Farmers can grow the crop using seeds or root cuttings, with planting usually done in spring. The roots typically mature for harvest within two to three years, after which they are carefully cleaned, shade-dried, and prepared for sale or processing.
The commercial potential of Salvia miltiorrhiza in Kashmir is considerable. With increasing global demand for natural medicines and herbal extracts, Red Sage cultivation offers farmers an opportunity to diversify into high-value medicinal crops. The dried roots are in demand among Ayurvedic, Unani, and international herbal product manufacturers. By adopting scientific cultivation methods, proper drying techniques, and strong market connections, farmers in Kashmir can develop Red Sage as a profitable and sustainable medicinal crop. Its cultivation not only supports economic growth but also strengthens the region’s reputation as a hub for valuable medicinal plants and herbal resources.
For the past 15 years, the Jammu and Kashmir Medicinal Plants Induction Centre in pvt. sector institition has been working on this plant with great dedication. In 2006, the institution collected 3000 kg of its roots and in 2008, 4200 kg. And has started its plantation again from 2026. It is hoped that it will be able to collect its roots for the third time in 2028.
Planting material can be pbtained from.
Write us at : Jammu and Kashmir Medcinal Plants Introduction Centre
POB 40 GPO Srinagar, Kashmir-JK 190001
WhatsApp : 9858986794
Ph: 01933-223705
e-mail: jkmpic@gmail.com
high profit medicinal crops Kashmirsalvia miltiorrhiza benefits, red sage medicinal uses,commercial cultivation of red sage,
herbal farming business Kashmir, salvia miltiorrhiza root price, medicinal root farming India, export demand red sage,
best medicinal plants to grow in Kashmir, salvia miltiorrhiza growing guide, danshen cultivation guide,medicinal plant nursery Kashmir,
Thursday, February 12, 2026
Gaza in Ruins: When Advanced Weapons Meet Civilian Lives
 |
| War in GAZA |
The war in Gaza has caused immense human suffering, and many people around the world are deeply disturbed by the scale of destruction and loss of civilian life. Reports from humanitarian organizations, journalists, and international bodies have documented heavy casualties, displacement, and the devastation of homes, hospitals, and infrastructure.
Whenever advanced military weapons are used in densely populated areas, the humanitarian consequences can be catastrophic. Civilians — especially children, the elderly, and non-combatants — often bear the heaviest burden. This has led to widespread global debate about the legality, morality, and proportionality of modern warfare, as well as the responsibility of countries supplying weapons.
International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, requires that all parties in conflict distinguish between civilians and combatants and avoid disproportionate harm to civilian populations. Calls for ceasefires, investigations, and accountability have come from various governments, NGOs, and human rights groups.
Beyond politics and military strategy, the core issue remains human: thousands of families on all sides are grieving, displaced, and living through trauma. Many observers stress that long-term peace and security can only come throug
Gaza,
Tuesday, February 10, 2026
Man offered money to kill 'Mohammad Deepak' to gain followers
Social media-driven crime scandal unfolds
Kumar came into the national limelight after confronting Bajrang Dal activists who had gathered outside a clothing store to pressure its owner to change the shop's name. During the incident, Kumar allegedly identified himself as 'Mohammad Deepak', following which the protesters dispersed.
- Police identified the person who allegedly offered a Rs 2 lakh reward for the killing of gym owner 'Mohammad' Deepak Kumar.
- The accused claimed he posted the reward offer on social media to increase his follower count and gain online visibility.
- Deepak Kumar gained attention after confronting Bajrang Dal activists protesting a shop's name.
- An SIT is investigating the Bajrang Dal protests outside the shop and gym, identifying participants through videos and photographs.
- Tensions arose after Bajrang Dal activists protested outside a clothing store, demanding the owner change the shop's name, leading to clashes involving Deepak Kumar.
Police have identified the man who allegedly offered a reward of Rs 2 lakh for the killing of gym owner Deepak Kumar, popularly known as 'Mohammad Deepak', in connection with a shop name dispute in Kotdwar, Uttarakhand, an official said on Monday.
The accused, Utkarsh Kumar Singh, a resident of Motihari in Bihar, told police that he had posted the message on social media merely to increase his follower count, the official said.
Kumar came into the national limelight after confronting Bajrang Dal activists who had gathered outside a clothing store to pressure its owner to change the shop's name. During the incident, Kumar allegedly identified himself as 'Mohammad Deepak', following which the protesters dispersed.
Kumar came into the national limelight after confronting Bajrang Dal activists who had gathered outside a clothing store to pressure its owner to change the shop's name. During the incident, Kumar allegedly identified himself as 'Mohammad Deepak', following which the protesters dispersed.
Police said Kumar had lodged a complaint at Kotdwar Police Station on Sunday, alleging that an unknown person was offering a Rs 2 lakh reward on social media for his killing.
Considering the seriousness of the matter, police registered a case against the unidentified accused under Section 351 (3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and launched an investigation.
Police used technical surveillance and other means to ascertain Singh's identity. With the coordination of Bihar Police, Singh was brought to a police station near his residence for questioning.
During interrogation, Singh allegedly told police that his social media following was not increasing, while Kumar was constantly trending online.
More : https://www.rediff.com/news/report/kotdwar-bihar-man-offered-money-to-kill-mohammad-deepak-to-gain-followers/20260210.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)