Who is Malik Swashbuckler? Indian YouTuber who objectified Turkish women in his videos
Malik SD Khan, who goes by Malik Swashbuckler on social media, received severe criticism online after his derogatory comments on Turkish women. Following the backlash, he deleted all the videos from his profiles and uploaded apology posts.
He often referred to the local women in his videos using derogatory terms and objectified them. One of his now-deleted videos even had rape threats. In the clip, he asked the audience if he should rape his Turkish guide at night.
He shared a note in Turkish on Instagram, which when translated to English reads, 'I apologize with all my heart. I never intended to hurt or upset anyone. If my words or actions hurt anyone, please know that it was completely unintentional. It really hurts me to know that I upset people. I questioned myself and I promise to be much more careful from now on. With respect and love... I truly, sincerely apologize.'
According to a report in Turkiye Today, he was taken into custody for his social media remarks. The police report stated that he deliberately spoke in Hindi to avoid being detected while in the country.
Khan initially took down both his Instagram and YouTube profiles as a result of the controversy. However, they are now active. He has deleted all the videos from his Instagram account except two posts, both of which are apologies for uploading the controversial videos.
There are no videos on his YouTube channel. His bio, when translated into English, reads, 'I Am Aware of My Mistake—Apologies Türkiye.'
He also uploaded another video where he berated a shopkeeper in Turkey for not putting up an Indian flag while showing off world flags. His abusive language in the video irked many Indian social media users.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Kidnapped in Iran on way to Australia, three Punjab men rescued: Embassy
Three men from Punjab, who had left for Australia on the promise of jobs by travel agents but found themselves in Iran and were later 'kidnapped' there, have been rescued, the Embassy of India in Iran Wednesday said. 'The three kidnapped Indian citizens have been safely rescued & are now under the care of the Embassy of India, which is facilitating their early repatriation. We sincerely thank the Government of Iran for their swift and effective efforts in securing their release. Your support reflects the true spirit of friendship between our two nations,' the Embassy of India in Iran posted on X. Amritpal Singh (23) from Bhagowal village in Hoshiarpur, Husanpreet Singh (27) of Dhuri in Sangrur and Jaspal Singh (32) of Langroya in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar — all in Punjab — were 'freed in a police operation against the hostage takers in Varamin in south Tehran,' Iran's Tasnim news agency reported Tuesday. All three had left for Australia in April with work visas after being promised lucrative jobs there by the travel agents back home in Punjab. They ended up in Iran where they were allegedly kidnapped by a network of travel agents from Pakistan who then demanded a ransom of Rs 18 lakh each for their release. The respective families received phone calls from the three men Tuesday evening, soon after the Iranian embassy in New Delhi, citing local media in Iran, said that the 'missing Indian citizens have been freed by Tehran police'. Husanpreet's cousin Manpreet Singh told the Indian Express that he received a call from an Iranian number at around 6 pm Tuesday. 'It was Husanpreet. He only said, 'We are safe now. Indian authorities have rescued us and we are now being taken to the embassy'. Before I could ask anything, the line went dead. Now, at least we know that he is alive,' said Manpreet.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Group insolvency framework: When one is not for all
The principle of separateness is no minor technicality. It lies at the heart of company law. The landmark 1896 ruling by the British House of Lords, in Salomon vs Salomon & Co, established that once incorporated, a company acquires its own legal identity, distinct from its shareholders, directors, or affiliates. This was more than a formalism; it unleashed the modern economy, shielding personal assets from business risks and allowing capital to move freely. India's Supreme Court has affirmed this on many instances, underscoring that corporate separateness is not a legal fiction to be set aside for convenience, but a deliberate construct governing credit, liability, and risk. The IBC reflects this. It treats companies as distinct legal persons, with debts, defaults, and proceedings that are all individually determined. Section 3(7) defines a 'corporate person' in individual terms—one corporation at a time. Section 5(8), which defines 'financial debt,' presupposes a direct relationship between debtor and creditor, not a complex web of inter-corporate obligations. And from Section 6 onwards, the entire resolution mechanism is built around initiating proceedings against 'a corporate debtor'—not a group, conglomerate, or an economic cluster. Of course, the notion that each company is a sealed legal island has its exceptions. Courts in India and abroad have occasionally 'pierced' the corporate veil—especially when the structure is used to commit fraud or evade the law. As early as 1933, Lord Denning remarked that courts could 'pull aside the corporate veil' to see the true actors behind it (Gilford Motor Co vs Horne). Indian courts have likewise reaffirmed that corporate identity is not a shield for misconduct. But these are the exceptions to the rule, triggered by fact-specific abuse, not tools for convenience or policy innovation. The call for a group insolvency framework stems from real-world frictions, not just theory. Consider the Srei Group, where both the parent and its subsidiary were forced into parallel insolvency proceedings, despite shared cash flows, cross-guarantees, and overlapping liabilities. This created a procedural quagmire: creditors filed claims in both forums, there was confusion over ownership of assets, and value was steadily lost. The Videocon case posed an even starker dilemma. Thirteen companies, all functionally run as one business, were admitted into distinct CIRPs—only to be later resolved collectively by judicial innovation, not legislative design.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Video: Biker Performs Zig-Zag Stunt In Front Of Delhi Bus, Bike Scrapped
A man on a Royal Enfield Bullet found himself in trouble after riding recklessly and performing stunts in front of a Delhi transport bus. Police teams were formed, and the biker was traced through an Instagram video. The bullet rider is seen not wearing a helmet in the video and riding zig-zag in front of the bus, 253, toward East Delhi's Yamuna Vihar, blocking its path and not letting the driver overtake him. The biker then moves toward the side of the bus driver and tries to hold the side-view mirror of the bus in an attempt to ride along. The video, with a song playing in the background, had the caption "Ab batao location" (Now tell the location). The police teams were formed, and the cops corroborated the information from the video and other sources, which helped them zero in on the biker. The vehicle was sold by the first owner over 13 years ago to the biker, but the name transfer was not done. The police questioned the first owner of the bike in the case. The Royal Enfield Bullet is over 15 years old, and as per the anti-pollution policy in Delhi, the authorities decided to scrap the vehicle. Delhi Police urged bikers to adhere strictly to road safety rules and avoid dangerous stunts that endanger lives.
