India strikes Pakistan: what next? Today in Focus Extra
In the early hours of Wednesday, India launched a series of strikes on Pakistan that killed at least 26 people – a serious escalation of the decades-long dispute between the two nuclear-armed countries over Kashmir.
As the Guardian's south Asia correspondent, Hannah Ellis-Petersen, reports, the onslaught was in response to a terrorist attack in Kashmir two weeks ago that left 26 dead. India claims the group responsible is backed by its neighbour – an accusation Pakistan denies.
Now, as Michael Safi hears, India is braced for Pakistan's response. Could this spiral into a full-scale war?
Photograph: Rahat Dar/EPA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
DoJ urged to investigate US group accused of working as Modi-backed ‘foreign agent'
One of the largest Sikh houses of worship in the US is calling on the Trump administration to investigate a non-profit it has alleged is working as a 'foreign agent' on behalf of the the Indian government and prime minister Narendra Modi. The Fremont Gurdwara Sahib, which said it draws 5,000 Sikh worshippers every week and is a 'fulcrum' of the Sikh community in the US and around the world, has asked the Department of Justice to launch a national security investigation into the Hindu American Foundation, to determine whether the Pennsylvania-based non-profit should be required to file as an Indian foreign agent. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, any such determination by the DoJ would require the HAF to publicly disclose details of its activities, including meetings with lawmakers, and any contracts and financial arrangements it has with the Indian government. 'The HAF has facilitated meetings between foreign principals and US lawmakers, platformed foreign principals at their own events, and consistently and unequivocally advocated for the interests of the BJP on both domestic and foreign policy matters,' a representative for the Gurdwara wrote in a letter last week to Pam Bondi, the US attorney general. The HAF denied the claims. In a statement the group said it was a non-partisan tax-exempt charity that is wholly independent and American and has 'absolutely no affiliation or ties to any organization or political parties in the US or abroad'. It also hit out against what it called 'coordinated campaigns' against the HAF by the Khalistan separatist movement, which is seeking to establish an independent Sikh state. 'To discuss these dangerous and false accusations against us from activists supporting transnational violent separatist movements focused on India, [the] HAF welcomes the opportunity to meet with attorney general Pam Bondi, FBI director Kash Patel, director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, as well as all homeland security officials,' the HAF said. The allegations and counter-claims come at a tense time between Sikhs who support an independent state and the Indian government. Individuals connected to the Indian government have been accused in both Canada and the US of waging a campaign of transnational repression against Sikhs outside of India after the 2023 assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian advocate for Khalistan. The Canadian government has said there were 'credible allegations' that 'agents of the Indian government' were behind Nijjar's death. In the US, prosecutors have alleged that at agent of the Indian government directed the attempted assassination of an American citizen who is also a Sikh activist. A recent investigation by Al Jazeera, the news outlet, reported that when the HAF emerged two decades ago it was a voice for the Hindu community in the US, and not a 'champion' of the Indian government. That, Al Jazeera reported, changed since Modi became prime minister in 2014, when HAF is alleged to have 'ramped up its political activities in favour of the Indian government'. The HAF has not faced accusations that it is involved in violent campaigns against Sikhs. In its letter to Bondi, the Gurdwara said the HAF 'has facilitated meetings between foreign principals and US lawmakers, platformed foreign principals at their own events, and consistently and unequivocally advocated for the interests of the Bharatiya Janata party on both domestic and foreign policy matters'. Any determination by the DoJ that the HAF was in fact working on behalf of the Indian government would require the HAF to publicly disclose details of its activities, including meetings with lawmakers, and any contracts with the Indian government. The Indian embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.
The Independent
10 hours ago
- The Independent
‘This is not justice': Father laments after court acquits 12 men accused of killing his sons during Delhi riots
In the dimly lit ground floor of his small house in northeast Delhi 's Mustafabad, Babu Khan sits hunched in a plastic chair as the air fills with the rhythmic clicking of sewing machines operated by his wife and daughter. Together, on a good day, they earn up to Rs500 (£4.25) but on some days, nothing. The family's monthly income rarely touches Rs7,000 (£60.50). It's daytime but sunlight barely filters in, making it hard to tell day from night indoors. The main door is the sole source of natural light in the room, which opens into a narrow, 500m alleyway no wider than three feet. This is the world left behind by Aamir Ali and his brother Hashim Ali whose bodies were found in a drain near Bhagirathi Vihar on 27 February 2020 following riots in the national capital. In a set of rulings related to one of the deadliest episodes of religious violence in India, a Delhi court recently acquitted 18 people accused of killing Muslim men, including the Ali brothers, during the riots. For the family of Aamir and Hashim, the ruling is the latest blow in their long quest for justice – a wait they now fear may never end. Over three days of bloodshed, at least 53 people, mostly Muslims, were killed and more than 200 injured as mobs laid siege to Muslim neighbourhoods, burning homes, shops and mosques in what survivors and rights groups have since called a pogrom. The trigger for the riots was a citizenship law introduced in 2019 that critics say marginalises India's Muslim minority. Clashes broke out between those opposing the citizenship law and those supporting it with Hindus and Muslims both blaming each other for starting the riots. Five years later, a court has thrown out murder charges in three of the cases, citing insufficient or inconsistent evidence, including WhatsApp group chats that investigators presented as confessions but the presiding judge dismissed as boastful rather than factual in a series of orders delivered in mid-May. Those acquitted included 12 men charged with killing Aamir, and another Muslim man named Akil Ahmed, whose body was recovered from the same drain. These 12 men were previously acquitted in April in the murder of Hashim and in March of two other Muslim men in separate orders wherein same WhatsApp chats were presented as evidence, reported the Indian Express. 'I learnt about the judgment only on 13 May,' Khan, 60, says, his voice hollowed by grief. 'We are still fighting the fight. But everyone knows what a crime has been committed against us. We have not received justice.' 'This is not justice,' he emphasises to The Independent. 'We will appeal in the high court.' On 26 February, at around 9.15pm, Aamir had called his father to say that they were near the Gokalpuri neighbourhood and coming home. Minutes later, their phones were unreachable. 'We looked for them all night,' Khan says. 'Next morning, we went to the police. They called us to identify three bodies. Two of them were my sons.' Postmortem reports revealed Aamir had sustained 25 injuries, including severe burns, and died from shock induced by head trauma. 'My life has been miserable since that night,' Khan says, staring at the wall. 'I have been fighting death every day. I can't even walk up to the road. Who should I share my grief with? And what's the point?' The police initially filed a murder and rioting case at the capital's Gokalpuri station, later transferring it to the Crime Branch's Special Investigation Team. The prosecution alleged that a Hindu mob – chanting religious slogans and armed with rods, swords and stones – had caught hold of the two brothers, confirmed they were Muslim, beaten them, and thrown them into the drain. Twelve men – Lokesh Kumar Solanki alias Rajput, Sumit Chaudhary alias Badshah, Prince alias DJ Walla, Rishabh Chaudhary alias Tapash, Pankaj Sharma, Jatin Sharma alias Rohit, Vivek Panchal alias Nandu, Sahil alias Babu, Sandeep alias Mogli, Ankit Chaudhary alias Fauzi, Himanshu Thakur, and Tinku Arora – were initially charged with murder, conspiracy and rioting. Two other accused – Pawan Kumar alias Lokesh and Lalit Kumar alias Rahul Chaudhary – were booked for destroying evidence and receiving stolen property. In late May, however, judge Pulastya Pramachala threw out the murder case saying there was no 'conclusive evidence' connecting the accused to the crime or establishing the presence of a riotous mob at the scene. The prosecution leaned heavily on digital data and chats from a WhatsApp group which had been created a few days before the carnage. One message allegedly sent by one of the accused, Lokesh Kumar Solanki, read, in Hindi: 'Your brother (referring to himself) killed two Muslims near Bhagirathi Vihar around 9pm and threw them in the drain.' The judge deemed the message boastful and not evidentiary. 'Such messages may have been to impress or boast among group members rather than serve as factual confessions,' he observed, stressing that extrajudicial confessions required corroboration. The judge concluded that while Aamir and Hashim were likely killed and their bodies dumped in the drain, but there was no 'incriminating evidence' to link the 12 accused to the crime. 'It can be inferred from the circumstances that it was a case of culpable homicide,' Pramachala ruled. He quoted multiple Supreme Court precedents emphasising that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain excluding all other possibilities to justify conviction. In this instance, the judge ruled the evidence fell short. In a related ruling, Judge Pramachala convicted Solanki of promoting enmity and inciting communal violence through the WhatsApp group. He held that while no direct connection to the murders was proven, his messages fomented communal discord. For Khan and his family, the ruling offers no relief. 'We now know there is nothing like justice,' Khan says. 'But hope is all we have. And God will definitely listen someday.' His wife, he says, is chronically unwell. Aamir worked for ride-hailing apps and also dealt in scrap. His younger brother sold jeans. Between them, they carried the weight of the household. 'What did my children ever do to anyone?' he asks. 'You get joy from helping others, from feeding someone. What kind of people get joy from killing?' His voice breaks. 'They were worse than animals.' Judge Pramachala, acquitting the 12 men in the murder trial of Akil Ahmed, said the prosecution had failed to establish how, when or by whom the Muslim man was killed. His postmortem had confirmed Akil died from blunt force trauma. The prosecution alleged that he had been killed during a targeted attack on Muslims by a Hindu mob. As in Aamir's case, the police relied for evidence on WhatsApp chats from the WhatsApp group which they claimed the accused men had used to coordinate attacks on Muslims. In this case as well, the court found the prosecution's case entirely circumstantial. 'There is no evidence to even show as to when, where and how Akil was killed,' Pramachala ruled. Key prosecution witnesses either failed to identify the accused or denied having seen the killing. One witness said he saw a mob chasing two bikers and one man being beaten and thrown into a drain but could not confirm the victim's identity. This testimony, the judge said, 'on its face value, establishes that two persons and a bike were thrown into the drain' but 'is totally silent in respect of alleged incident with deceased herein'. The prosecution also relied on statements from police personnel and WhatsApp chats attributed to accused Lokesh Solanki. The judge said these chats did not name any specific victim or mention Akil and dismissed them as inadequate to establish guilt. Testimony from a policeman who claimed to have overheard rioters naming some of the accused was also rejected as hearsay. The court further ruled on the charge of receiving stolen property. Accused Munesh Kumar had in his possession a mobile phone previously used by Akil. Prosecutors alleged it had been stolen after the murder. However, Pramachala said that no effort had been made to trace the phone's purchase or prove Kumar knew it was stolen. "Mere possession of stolen property does not establish guilt,' the judge said. In another judgment related to the 2020 carnage, Pramachala acquitted six men accused of murdering a young Muslim man named Shahbaz. He ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the men were part of the mob that beat and burned Shahbaz alive. Shahbaz, 22, was last heard from on the afternoon of 25 February 2020, when he phoned his brother, Matloob, from Karawal Nagar in northeast Delhi. The area was engulfed in violence, sparked by protests over the controversial law introduced by prime minister Narendra Modi's government. When Matloob tried calling back at 3pm, the phone was switched off. Shahbaz never reached home. His charred remains – only his skull and pelvic bones could be identified– were discovered by police officer Naveen Kumar near a rubbish dump on Pusta Road. His identity was later confirmed by DNA testing. One witness said he saw a Muslim boy being attacked and set on fire by a group of Hindu men near the dump yard. Another said he had seen a mob and the burned body in the same location. But the court found no evidence that tied the six accused – Aman, Vikram alias Vicky, Rahul Sharma, Ravi Sharma, Dinesh Sharma and Ranjeet Rana – to the mob responsible. The prosecution's key witnesses either failed to identify the accused or retracted their earlier statements. Two individuals cited as having heard extrajudicial confessions also turned hostile. Aamir has left behind three daughters, the youngest of whom was born after his death. 'What do we tell them?' Khan asks. 'We used to console them for a long time but now they know the truth – their father was murdered.'
The Guardian
10 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump's EPA set to claim power-plant emissions ‘not significant' – but study says otherwise
Donald Trump's administration is set to claim planet-heating pollution spewing from US power plants is so globally insignificant it should be spared any sort of climate regulation. But, in fact, the volume of these emissions is stark – if the US power sector were a country, it would be the sixth largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reportedly drafted a plan to delete all restrictions on greenhouse gases coming from coal and gas-fired power plants in the US because they 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' and are a tiny and shrinking share of the overall global emissions that are driving the climate crisis. However, a new analysis shows that the emissions from American fossil-fuel plants are prominent on a global scale, having contributed 5% of all planet-heating pollution since 1990. If it were a country, the US power sector would be the sixth largest emitter in the world, eclipsing the annual emissions from all sources in Japan, Brazil, the United Kingdom and Canada, among other nations. 'That seems rather significant to me,' said Jason Schwartz, co-author of the report from New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity. 'If this administration wants to argue only China has significant emissions they can try to do that, but a court will review that, and under any reasonable interpretation will find that US power plant emissions are significant too.' Fossil fuel-derived electricity is responsible for the second largest source of emissions in the US, behind transportation. No country in history has caused more carbon pollution than America, and while its power sector's emissions have declined somewhat in recent years, largely through a market-based decline in heavily-polluting coal, it remains a major driver of the climate crisis. The cocktail of toxins emitted by power plants have a range of impacts, the NYU analysis points out. A single year of emissions in 2022 will cause 5,300 deaths in the US from air pollution over many decades, along with climate impacts that will result in global damages of $370bn, including $225bn in global health damages and $75bn in lost labor productivity. 'We were surprised when we ran the numbers just how quickly these deaths start tallying up,' said Schwartz. 'All of these harms stack up on top of each other. Climate change will be the most important public health issue this century and we can't just ignore the US power sector's contribution to that public health crisis.' The Trump administration, though, is looking to dismantle a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The move comes as part of a wider deregulatory blitz upon a wide range of rules aimed at protecting clean air and water; on Thursday, the EPA also confirmed a plan to delay the implementation of Clean Air Act protections against methane and other harmful pollutants from fossil fuel production. Removing these protections will prove not only dangerous, but also costly, said Christopher Frey, who was a science advisor to Joe Biden and led a clean air EPA committee under Barack Obama. 'A 'do nothing' policy to rollback greenhouse gas emission standards is not really a policy to do nothing,' said Frey, now an associate dean at North Carolina State University's college of engineering. 'It is a policy to force us to have to do more later to compensate for not taking preventive action sooner. It is a policy to knowingly cause more damage for folks in the not so distant future to contend with.' The power plant plan has endured a tortuous history, having been first put forward by Barack Obama's administration, only to be halted by the first Trump administration and also the supreme court. Joe Biden's administration last year rolled out a more limited version of the plan aimed at satisfying the supreme court's ruling. This version is now targeted for repeal by the Trump administration, expected in the coming weeks ahead of a public comment period and further expected legal challenges. Despite pointing to declining power plant emissions in its justification, the Trump administration has simultaneously attempted to increase these emissions by demanding a revival of the coal industry, boosting oil and gas drilling and axing incentives for cleaner energy. 'President Trump promised to kill the clean power plan in his first term, and we continue to build on that progress now,' said Lee Zeldin, administrator of the EPA. 'In reconsidering the Biden-Harris rule that ran afoul of supreme court case law, we are seeking to ensure that the agency follows the rule of law while providing all Americans with access to reliable and affordable energy.' Trump has long claimed that the US should not engage in international climate talks because its emissions footprint is negligible, noted Judith Enck, who served as an EPA regional administrator under Obama. Meanwhile, his administration has cracked down on states' ability to regulate emissions, she said. 'Apparently there is no level of governance where we can have these regulations,' Enck said. 'It's a completely illogical argument: There's not a lot of emissions so don't worry, but yet it we have to block every attempt to control them at the state, federal, international levels?' Experts have questioned whether pollution needs to be deemed 'significant' in order to be subjected to the Clean Air Act, which has been used to regulate even proportionally small levels of environmental toxins. 'There is absolutely no legal basis for them to propose a pollutant like CO2 has to meet some sort of significance, they are making this up, this is make-believe law,' said Joseph Goffman, who led the EPA's office of air and radiation during Biden's term. 'This is a sort of cheat code to try to neutralize any tool they fear might be used to reduce greenhouse gases.' The climate crisis is a global problem of the shared commons that experts say requires all countries, particularly the largest emitters, to remedy. Goffman said the Trump administration is attempting to reject this basic tenet. 'They are trying to write one of the biggest historical emitters in the world a get-out-of-jail-free card,' he said.
