India deports hundreds of Pakistani women after Kashmir attack
India has deported hundreds of Pakistani women from Kashmir in a sweeping operation that separated children from their mothers.
The decision caused alarm across the disputed region, which was plunged into crisis on April 22 when militants killed at least 26 tourists in Baisaran, Indian-administered Kashmir.
The attack, which no group claimed responsibility for, was the worst civilian assault in the country for nearly two decades, and pushed the two nations to the brink of conflict.
India accused Pakistan of backing cross-border terrorism and ordered a countrywide sweep to expel Pakistani citizens, including long-term residents. It closed the Attari-Wagah border crossing in Punjab on April 30.
Amit Shah, the Indian home minister, instructed chief ministers of all states on Friday to ensure that all Pakistanis living in India leave by the designated deadline.
The order was since amended and 'Pakistani nationals may be allowed to exit India till further orders, with due clearances'.
Those caught in the crosshairs include women who arrived in Kashmir more than a decade ago under a government-sponsored 2010 peace and rehabilitation policy, which aimed to allow former militants to return home with their families.
Having built lives there throughout the years, they were forced to leave without their families.
'We feel betrayed,' Mushtaq Ahmad Joo, 44, from Bandipora in northern Kashmir, told The Telegraph. 'They brought us here under the rehabilitation policy, and now they want to deport my wife.'
Nyla Mushtaq, Joo's wife, who was originally from Abbottabad, Pakistan, returned to Indian-controlled Kashmir in 2017 with her husband and two children via Nepal. Joo, a former militant, was ineligible for an Indian passport, while Nyla surrendered her Pakistani one but never received Indian documentation.
Many former militants crossed into Pakistan-administered Kashmir in the 1990s and early 2000s after accepting an offer of peaceful reintegration when they became disillusioned with armed struggle. However, the policy did not officially account for the Pakistani wives they brought back.
Despite the lack of clarity, they entered India through Nepal and settled in Indian-administered Kashmir with their families.
These women and their children have now faced deportation orders.
'Our home is here,' Saira Salim, one the women, said. 'Where else can we go?'
Relations between India and Pakistan rapidly deteriorated in the wake of the April 22 attack, which the US called an act of terrorism.
The government of Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, accused Pakistan of involvement and vowed to punish those responsible. Pakistan denied any links to the assault and warned of retaliation if India takes military action.
On Thursday, the US urged India and Pakistan to work together to de-escalate tensions and avoid an expected clash.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour faces embarrassing defeat over foreign state ownership of newspapers
The House of Lords is preparing to inflict an embarrassing defeat on Labour over its 'deeply problematic' plans to let foreign powers become part-owners of British newspapers. Peers including a former chancellor, a former director of public prosecutions and the current chairman of the press regulator are in open revolt over proposals by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, to relax an outright ban on foreign state shareholdings to allow passive stakes of up to 15pc. The basic principle was expected to be reluctantly accepted by Parliament, in part to end the destabilising uncertainty at The Telegraph caused by a blocked takeover bid bankrolled by the United Arab Emirates. However, a loophole that it is feared could allow foreign powers to team up to gain sway over Britain's free press has stoked a rebellion capable of defeating the Government. As proposed, the legislation would enable foreign states to own up to 15pc if they are not cooperating with each other. Lord Young, the journalist and founder of the Free Speech Union campaign group, has spearheaded an open letter to Ms Nandy demanding she tighten the proposed laws. It has dozens of signatures from Conservative peers of all stripes, including former Cabinet ministers Lord Lamont, Lord Baker and Lord Lilley, as well as crossbenchers including Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions. The letter to Ms Nandy said her proposals to allow multiple foreign powers to own shares in a single newspaper were 'deeply problematic'. It added: 'It has to be assumed that if different state actors are intent on exerting influence through their shareholding, then some may be prepared to do so covertly and in collusion with other states. 'To guard against this risk, the draft regulations should ensure that the cap in the percentage of shares that can be owned in a British newspaper enterprise is a total cap.' The letter was also signed by Lord Faulks, the chairman of the press regulator Ipso; Baroness Fleet, the former editor of The Evening Standard; and Lord Goodman, the former editor of the Conservative Home website. Other prominent backers included Lord Brady, the former chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers; Baroness Deech, the chairman of the House of Lords appointments commission; Lord Swire, the former Foreign Office minister; and Baroness Spielman, the former head of Ofsted. Lord Roberts, the Churchill biographer, has also signed and has written in The Telegraph that the legislation 'must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press'. The letter marks a significant escalation of opposition to the legislation in the Lords. Baroness Stowell, who last year played a critical role in forcing the Government to block the UAE bid for The Telegraph, was among the first to raise concerns over multiple state shareholdings in a letter to Ms Nandy last week. She did not sign Lord Young's letter, but warned the Government it faced defeat if it pressed ahead, even though the Conservative leadership in the Commons had signalled it did not oppose the proposed laws. The Liberal Democrats have tabled a rare 'fatal motion' to veto the statutory instrument which may become the focus of the Lords rebellion. Lady Stowell said: 'I really hope the Government reconsiders these proposals quickly. 'It would not be acceptable for multiple foreign states to own stakes of up to 15pc in the same newspaper, yet for reasons unclear, that is a scenario Lisa Nandy wants to allow. 'Unless she closes this obvious loophole, I can see peers swinging behind a fatal motion to block this legislation. It would be a rare step to take, but I know colleagues feel very strongly about this crucial matter of press independence.' The Conservatives are the biggest group in the Lords. Alongside the Liberal Democrats and some crossbenchers they could readily defeat the Government and spark a battle with the Commons. Lady Stowell is among the parliamentarians to have said she would accept a limit of 15pc with reservations, were it not for the risk of cumulative shareholdings. The figure is three times the limit proposed last year by Rishi Sunak's government. Ms Nandy decided to lift it following lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail. Both media moguls have sought sovereign wealth investment in the past. Lord Rothermere previously considered a takeover bid for The Telegraph with financial backing from the Gulf. Mr Murdoch relied on the support of a Saudi royal shareholder to fight off the investor rebellion sparked by the phone-hacking scandal. Lobbyists for Lord Rothermere and Mr Murdoch argued that a 5pc cap on foreign state investment would cut news publishers off from a significant source of potential investment in digital growth at a time of upheaval as print newspapers decline. The row over cumulative shareholdings threatens to further delay a conclusion to the two-year saga over ownership of The Telegraph. RedBird Capital, the US private equity firm that was the minority investor in the blocked UAE takeover, has agreed in principle to become controlling shareholder in a £500m deal. IMI, the media investment vehicle owned by UAE royal Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is expected to retain up to 15pc. However, the deal has not been finalised and is likely to require a settled legal position before it can face regulatory scrutiny. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport declined to comment. Lord Biggar Baroness Meyer Lord Moylan Lord Jackson of Peterborough Baroness Eaton Lord Brady Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Baroness Finn Baroness Fleet Baroness Noakes Baroness Bray of Coln Lord Strathcarron Baroness Lea of Lymm The Earl of Leicester Lord Borwick Lord Roberts of Belgravia Baroness Deech Lord Sherbourne Lord Mackinlay Lord Ashcombe Baroness Coffey Baroness Foster of Oxton Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Lord Evans of Rainow Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Buscombe Lord Sharpe of Epsom Lord Mancroft Lord Robathan Baroness Nicholson Lord Wrottesley Baroness Cash Lord Goodman Lord Shinkwin Baroness Altmann CBE Edward Faulks KC Lord Swire Baroness Fox of Buckley Baroness Spielman Lord Lamont Lord MacDonald of River Glaven Lord McInnes of Kilwinning Lord Hamilton of Epsom Lord Reay Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Lilley Lord Baker of Dorking Lord McLoughlin Baroness Morrissey Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will Senate Republicans block the climate law rollback?
This analysis and news roundup comes from the Canary Media Weekly newsletter. Sign up to get it every Friday. The Inflation Reduction Act has jump-started hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy and manufacturing development — and most of its benefits have gone to regions represented in Congress by Republicans. But House Republicans still chose to pass a budget bill two weeks ago that would crush the bustling clean energy sector by rapidly phasing out incentives for making energy-efficient home improvements, buying EVs, and building solar, wind, and battery projects. Now, it's the Republican-controlled Senate's turn to consider the bill. Early signs suggest that at least two GOP senators — John Curtis of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — are not on board with the aggressive cuts in the current version of the bill. Tillis represents a purple state where clean manufacturing and solar project development has boomed in recent years, Canary Media's Elizabeth Ouzts reported this week. He's since said that he wants to revise the House's cut to IRA production and investment tax credits, as well as a provision that bars companies with ties to China from accessing incentives. Tillis and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also said that the Senate is unlikely to stand by the House's provision that would require clean energy projects to start construction within 60 days of bill enactment or miss out on tax credits. Curtis meanwhile authored a Deseret News op-ed on Wednesday diving into the consequences of a total IRA repeal. While he agrees that some IRA provisions included 'frivolous spending,' he warned against treating 'good policy ideas as guilty by political association.' 'The simple truth is this: many of these credits are Republican policies that we fought to protect,' Curtis wrote. 'We must build a thoughtful, principled bill that doesn't pull the rug out from under American innovators.' Other Republican senators have expressed reservations too. Chuck Grassley, who represents wind turbine-dotted Iowa, suggested he'll try to find compromise on extending support for wind power. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana said he may look to change the House's proposed 60-day deadline for accessing tax credits. North Dakota's John Hoeven wants to preserve some incentives for geothermal; Shelley Moore Capito, from West Virginia, would like to keep hydrogen incentives alive. We still have yet to hear from Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, who in April penned a letter alongside Sens. Curtis, Murkowski, and Tillis defending IRA tax credits. These public statements in support of some aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act could be read as a signal that the House's 'backdoor repeal' of the landmark climate law will fail at the hands of the Senate. On the other hand, plenty of House Republicans spoke out before the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' passed, too. In fact, nearly two dozen signed a letter opposing IRA cuts in late March. But come time to vote in May, not a single one of those signatories voted against the bill. It passed the House 215-214. Trump's coal-boosting efforts don't make sense The Trump administration keeps trying to prop up fossil-fuel power plants. Experts and regulators say it's an uneconomical and unwise mission. President Donald Trump's coal-boosting endeavors kicked off last month with a slate of executive orders that would let the U.S. Energy Department order power plants to stay open and would exempt some coal plants from air-pollution regulations. Among those facilities targeted for reinstatement is the Cholla coal plant in Arizona, which shut down in March, and which a state energy regulator warned would cost utility customers nearly $2 billion to reopen. In recent weeks, the DOE has ordered a Michigan coal power plant and a Pennsylvania oil and gas facility to stay open just days before their planned retirements. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis examined the challenges of keeping the Michigan plant open, noting that its power prices were becoming increasingly uncompetitive and that its owner has already been working for years to replace its generation capacity with renewables and gas. And with coal companies laying off miners across Appalachia, keeping coal alive is only going to become more impractical. Bad news/good news for greener steel A potential deal between Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, backed by President Trump, would likely be bad news for efforts to clean up steelmaking. A week ago, Trump announced that Japan's Nippon Steel was set to acquire U.S. Steel in a deal whose details are yet to be disclosed. Nippon has previously pledged to extend the life of U.S. Steel's coal-burning furnaces, Alexander C. Kaufman reported for Canary Media this week, and to build a new electric arc furnace in the U.S. should the deal go through. Meanwhile, Massachusetts-based Boston Metal is honing a greener steelmaking process of its own. The start-up is developing a technique that uses electricity to remove contaminants from iron ore, the company told Canary Media's Sarah Shemkus. Refining iron ore is responsible for most of steelmaking's emissions, but in Boston Metal's process, the only greenhouse gas emissions created come from the electricity used to power it. Breakup of the year: President Trump and Elon Musk start a public fight over the congressional budget bill, leading Tesla shares to drop Friday morning and leaving the EV company with few political allies. (E&E News, Associated Press) Fading love for renewables: A Pew Research Center survey finds support for solar and wind power has dropped among both Democrats and Republicans over the past five years. (Floodlight) Can start-ups survive? Cleantech start-ups are 'stress testing' operations to see if they can still move forward after the Trump administration cuts funding for industrial decarbonization and other clean energy projects. (Wall Street Journal) Routing climate research: The White House's campaign to slash National Science Foundation grants has eliminated funding for more than 100 climate-related research projects, with Harvard University hit particularly hard, a new analysis finds. (MIT Technology Review) Data centers skip the line: Texas residents grow frustrated as data center developers begin planning and building their own gas-fired power plants instead of waiting to connect to the grid, affecting nearby neighborhoods and locking in reliance on fossil fuels for decades to come. (Texas Tribune/Inside Climate News) Gas' growing consequences: Gas leaks, which are common in states with aging infrastructure, release hazardous pollutants that can extend far beyond the homes or neighborhoods where they happen and reach neighboring states. (Inside Climate News) Regulatory switcheroo: President Trump nominates attorney Laura Swett to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who analysts say will likely champion gas infrastructure and fossil fuel projects, in line with the White House's priorities. (E&E News)
