Reuters' X account blocked in India; govt says no legal requirement made
However, a government spokesperson said there is no legal requirement made by it to withhold the account and it is working with X to resolve the issue.
New Delhi, Jul 6 (PTI) International news agency Reuters' X account has been withheld in India 'in response to a legal demand', as per notice displayed by the social media platform.
'There is no requirement from the Government of India to withhold Reuters and we are continuously working with X to resolve the problem,' the spokesperson said.
Sources said a demand for blocking of Reuters' X account alongside several hundreds of other accounts was made during Operation Sindoor in May.
While several accounts were blocked from accessing in India, Reuters handle wasn't.
Elon Musk-owned X seems to have now acted on that request and blocked Reuters' X handle in India.
And since the issue isn't relevant now, the government has asked X to explain the blocking and lift the embargo.
'An order was issued on May 7 (during Operation Sindoor) but it was not enforced. X seems to have enforced that order now which is a mistake on their part. Government has reached out to X for resolving it at the earliest,' an official source said An email sent to Reuters seeking comments did not elicit a response.
While affiliated X handles such as Reuters Tech News, Reuters Fact Check, Reuters Asia, and Reuters China are accessible in India, both official X accounts of the global news agency as well as Reuters World handles are inaccessible.
X users attempting to access the main account can see a message that reads: 'Account withheld. @ Reuters has been withheld in IN in response to a legal demand.' On its help centre page, X explains such messages 'about country withheld content' means X was compelled to withhold the entire account specified or posts in response to a valid legal demand, such as a court order or local laws. PTI PRS MBI ANZ HVA
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Former DOGE adviser sends letter to Tesla Board, says: Meet Elon Musk immediately and ask him to clarify his ...
Former DOGE adviser James Fishback seems very upset with Tesla CEO Elon Musk's decision to start a new political party. Last week, made the announcement a day after polling his followers on the social media platform Twitter, declaring, "Today the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Slamming Musk's plans to create political party, Fishback has sent an open letter to Tesla Board. The letter urges Tesla board members to ask Elon Musk to clarify his political ambitions. "I encourage the Board to meet immediately and ask Elon to clarify his political ambitions and evaluate whether they are compatible with his full-time obligations to Tesla as CEO," Fishback wrote. Fishback added that the announcement undermines the confidence shareholders had in Tesla's future after Musk said in May he was stepping back from his role leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). He added that his investment firm Azoria Partners will defer the listing of its Azoria Texla Convexity exchange-traded fund due to Musk's announcement. Azoria was set to launch the Tesla ETF, which would invest in the electric vehicle company's shares and options, next week. James Fishback letter to Tesla Board slamming Elon Musk Elon has gone too far. My investment firm (@InvestAzoria) has decided to postpone next week's public listing of our Azoria Tesla Convexity ETF. Our decision comes in direct response to @ElonMusk's announcement that he is launching a new national political party. This creates a conflict with his full-time responsibilities as CEO of Tesla. It diverts his focus and energy away from Tesla's employees and shareholders. Azoria believes that Tesla is the most compelling long-term investment in AI. With breakthroughs in robotaxis, Optimus, and full self-driving, no other company is positioned to lead the future like Tesla. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now In May, when Elon stepped back from his work at DOGE and returned his attention to Tesla, we were encouraged. With Elon fully engaged, he gave shareholders renewed confidence in Tesla's future. Elon's announcement today undermines that confidence. Unlike his work with SpaceX or xAI, which complement Tesla's R&D efforts in AI, automation, and engineering, a political party not only fails to complement Tesla's mission—it actively undermines it. I just sent the attached letter to Robyn Denholm, Chair of Tesla's Board of Directors. I encourage the Board to meet immediately and ask Elon to clarify his political ambitions and evaluate whether they are compatible with his full-time obligations to Tesla as CEO. I remain hopeful that Elon will return his full attention to Tesla. If not, I trust the Board will take appropriate action. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wants Elon Musk to worry about his companies, not politics US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the Tesla and SpaceX boss focus on business and not politics. When asked by CNN if Elon Musk's plan bothered the Donald Trump administration, Bessent offered a thinly veiled criticism. "I believe that the boards of directors at his various companies wanted him to come back and run those companies, which he is better at than anyone," Bessent said. "So I imagine that those board of directors did not like this announcement yesterday and will be encouraging him to focus on his business activities, not his political activities." Bessent went on to add that the principles of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which Musk ran for several months as part of Trump's drive to slash government spending and jobs, were "very popular."
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran orders millions of Afghans to leave country or face arrest as deadline ends
Iran has ordered millions of Afghan refugees and migrants to leave the country or risk being arrested as a government-imposed deadline expires, as reported by Al Jazeera. Iran currently hosts around 4 million Afghans, many of whom have lived there for years.(Representational/REUTERS) Tehran set the deadline date for July 6 for the Afghans who were in the country and left Afghanistan to escape the war, poverty, or Taliban rule after the organisation came back to power in 2021 following the withdrawal of US and NATO forces. As per Al Jazeera, the enforcement comes amid heightened tensions and security fears following a 12-day war with Israel, during which the US also targeted Iran's nuclear sites on June 21-22 under "Operation Midnight Hammer". Humanitarian groups have raised concerns, warning that mass deportations could further destabilise Afghanistan, already one of the poorest nations in the world. Iran currently hosts around 4 million Afghans, many of whom have lived there for years. In 2023, the Iranian government began a crackdown on undocumented foreigners. In March 2025, authorities gave Afghans without legal residency until early July to leave voluntarily or face expulsion, as reported by Al Jazeera. Since then, over 700,000 Afghans have left, including more than 230,000 in June alone, Al Jazeera reported, citing the United Nations' International Organisation for Migration. Hundreds of thousands more remain at risk of being deported. As per Al Jazeera, citing UNHCR, Iran ramped up deportations during the conflict with Israel, sending back more than 30,000 Afghans per day--up sharply from the previous daily average of 2,000. Iranian officials insist they are not singling out Afghans and say the actions are based on national security concerns. "We have always striven to be good hosts, but national security is a priority, and naturally, illegal nationals must return," Iranian government spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani said on Tuesday, as quoted by Al Jazeera. By late June, more than half of the 1.2 million Afghans who had returned to the country in 2025 had come from Iran. UNHCR official in Afghanistan, Arafat Jamal, described chaotic scenes at the border, with Afghan families arriving in buses, confused, exhausted, and hungry. "They are coming in buses, and sometimes, five buses arrive at one time with families and others, and the people are let out of the bus, and they are simply bewildered, disoriented and tired and hungry as well," Jamal said as quoted by Al Jazeera. Though some Afghans returned voluntarily, many were forcibly removed, part of what UNHCR called a broader pattern of returns from Iran.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
The new battle challenge of China-Pakistan collusion
On July 4, the Deputy Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant-General Rahul R. Singh, confirmed an important aspect of the China-Pakistan nexus that has been discussed in the strategic community since the four-day military hostilities with Pakistan (Operation Sindoor, May 7-10). Speaking publicly, he said that China was an ever-present factor bolstering Pakistan's military efforts through unprecedented battlefield collusion during Operation Sindoor. Lt. Gen. Singh also spoke of the military assistance extended by Türkiye, but that was of a much lesser order of magnitude. In the India-Pakistan military confrontations of 1965 and 1971, and even during the Kargil operations in 1999, China was a background player, offering diplomatic backing and token military gestures on Pakistan's behalf, without engaging directly in hostilities. This time, however, China's posture was distinctly more layered and collusive, leveraging its robust defence-industrial base, sophisticated intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, practised interoperability, and geostrategic assets to reinforce Pakistan's war efforts without overtly crossing red lines. This represents a major progression in China's traditional strategy of building up Pakistan's strategic and conventional capabilities through overt and covert help to counter India and keep it off-balance. Also Read | China used conflict between India and Pakistan as a live lab: Deputy Chief of Army Staff Subtle but strategic diplomatic signalling In the diplomatic arena, China refrained from condemning the Pahalgam terrorist attack (April 22) until a belated telephonic conversation on May 10 between Foreign Minister Wang Yi and National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval. In fact, China's official responses mirrored Pakistan's narrative — advocating a 'quick and fair investigation' of the Pahalgam attack and expressing 'full understanding' of Islamabad's 'legitimate security concerns'. The May 7 strike by India on terrorist targets was deemed 'regrettable' by the Chinese Foreign Office spokesperson. China also collaborated with Pakistan in diluting the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) press statement, excising any direct reference to The Resistance Front, the group behind the Pahalgam attack Significantly, India avoided any political-level contact with China in the context of Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor (until the NSA's conversation with Wang Yi), unlike with other UNSC members (excepting Pakistan), signalling India's assessment of China's unhelpful stance. The Chinese media played a very active role in shaping perceptions. State-affiliated platforms amplified Pakistan's propaganda, which included exaggerated claims about the loss of Indian fighter aircraft. Social media commentators aligned with the Pakistan Army's Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR)-fuelled psychological warfare efforts — this included celebrating the alleged success of Chinese-origin military platforms deployed by Pakistan in its first-ever encounter with advanced western weapon platforms in a combat situation. This digital landscape underscored not only China's active informational support but also its alignment with Pakistan's strategic messaging. By omitting the context of the terror attack's severity, Chinese reports sought to imply that India's military actions were disproportionate. A recurring theme among Chinese experts was the concern that the crisis could escalate into a nuclear conflict, prompting calls for international diplomatic intervention to prevent further escalation. Also Read | Pakistan, China working to establish new regional bloc with potential to replace SAARC: Report Hardware, ISR and tactical integration China's military collusion, however, went beyond diplomatic alignment and propaganda. The less-likely scenario of a 'two-front war' — with China and Pakistan launching simultaneous military operations against India — has distinctly metamorphosed into the more imminent challenge of a 'one-front reinforced war', where a conflict with Pakistan can now openly involve China. For the first time, advanced Chinese-origin systems were visibly employed by Pakistan in a live operational environment. The Pakistan Air Force's deployment of Chinese J-10C fighters armed with PL-15 beyond-visual-range missiles, alongside HQ-9 air defence systems, demonstrated enhanced capability through operational integration honed over the years of joint exercises such as the Shaheen-series. This interoperability was not just symbolic. It was translated into tactical advantages in real-time combat. Drones, cyber operations, and net-centric warfare elements employed by Pakistan showed unmistakable imprints of the 'Chinese military playbook'. As Lt. Gen. Singh has confirmed, Chinese ISR systems provided real-time data, situational awareness, and surveillance capabilities to the Pakistani forces. Even civilian assets such as the Chinese fishing fleet were reportedly leveraged to monitor Indian naval deployments, while Pakistan's Navy remained coastal-bound. China's BeiDou satellite navigation system played a critical role, including in missile guidance for the PL-15, reaffirming the direct integration of Chinese systems into Pakistani battlefield operations. Reports also indicate the fusion of the Swedish Saab 2000 Erieye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platform alongside Chinese systems to down Indian aircraft, reflecting a sophisticated convergence of multi-origin platforms, many of which are enabled or integrated by Chinese technologies. This evolving situation compels several conclusions. First, the significant role of Chinese hardware, ISR, and battlefield advisory inputs have radically complicated India's deterrence framework. China's ability to provide real-time support without overt military engagement allows it to play a long strategic game. It can test India's red lines while avoiding direct escalation. Second, a 'new normal' is emerging wherein India finds greater latitude for conventional operations against Pakistan despite the nuclear overhang. China and Pakistan are, in parallel, constructing their own 'new normal' of battlefield coordination. This includes stepped-up defence procurements: Pakistan's announcement on June 6 of China offering it its fifth-generation J-35 stealth fighters, the KJ-500 AEW&C aircraft, and the HQ-19 ballistic missile defence system reinforces its position as the foremost recipient of Chinese frontline military hardware. Third, Operation Sindoor may have inadvertently served as a 'live-fire demonstration' for China's defence industry, validating its platforms and collecting performance data in real combat against western systems. This success offers China greater leverage in global arms markets and incentivises continued grey-zone tactics, probing India's thresholds without initiating open hostilities. Fourth, India now faces live borders with both China and Pakistan. Despite the October 2024 disengagement in Eastern Ladakh, forces remain heavily deployed along the northern frontier. Simultaneously, the ceasefire along the Line of Control and the international boundary with Pakistan — restored in 2021 — has effectively collapsed. This dual-front deployment forces India to spread its resources: troops, ISR assets, logistical chains, and conventional platforms must be available simultaneously on both flanks. The demand is not just for preparedness but for sustained deterrence. Also Read | China, Pakistan, Afghanistan meet in Beijing, decide to expand CPEC Preparing for the future India is entering a period where sub-conventional conflict and conventional operations blur across a composite threat from China and Pakistan. This 'one-front reinforced' challenge demands strategic imagination, conventional build-up, institutional coordination, and diplomatic clarity. In light of this altered reality, India must reassess its diplomatic calibration vis-à-vis China. Beijing's strategic enabling of Pakistan in battlefield conditions must carry costs. If 'terror and talks' cannot coexist in India's Pakistan policy, then strategic collusion by China with Pakistan cannot be decoupled from its bilateral engagement with India. India may need to signal consequences, both through diplomatic messaging and strategic policy shifts. An obvious corollary to India's 'new normal' of expanded scope of punitive conventional operations below the nuclear threshold is a significant expansion in conventional capabilities. This includes network centric warfare, non-legacy platforms such as drones, and ISR capabilities to counter Chinese assets. The decline in defence spending, from 17.1% of central expenditure in 2014-15 to 13% in 2025-26, must be revisited if India is to meet the demands of an increasingly complex battlespace. India must maintain a degree of unpredictability in its response to provocations from Pakistan, avoiding knee-jerk kinetic actions. If India predictably opts for punitive military strike, it could fall in a trap that would be exploited by Pakistan and China acting collusively. Instead, it must also explore alternative forms of retaliatory actions. The abrogation of the Indus Waters Treaty could be one such option, but there are other levers available which can be deployed without publicity. Battlefield collusion is no longer a theoretical concern; it is a lived experience. Operation Sindoor should not only serve as a lesson in tactical innovation but also as a wake-up call for rethinking India's defence posture, force modernisation, and strategic signalling. The sooner this reality is integrated into India's strategic planning, the better prepared India will be for a future shaped not by isolated provocations but by a collusive China-Pakistan challenge across a contested battlespace. Ashok K. Kantha is a former Ambassador to China, now involved with think-tanks
