AR foils ambush near India-Myanmar border, 1 insurgent dead
The encounter took place during a routine patrol between Khogla and Lyangche villages, when troops from the Wakka Company Operating Base, under the Khonsa Battalion, came under sudden and heavy fire from insurgents hiding in dense jungle terrain.
The paramilitary unit's swift response neutralised the threat, averting what could have been a deadly attack. A subsequent search of the area revealed a makeshift hideout and a significant stockpile of war-like stores.
The recovered items included five IEDs weighing 15kg, 34 detonators, three pistols (.22 and .32 calibre), 74 live rounds, one Chinese grenade, two walkie-talkies, Indian and Burmese currency, extortion notes, combat clothing, two SIM cards each from India and Myanmar, and other incriminating materials.
"The patrol came under sudden and heavy fire from a pre-set ambush deep in jungle terrain. Our troops launched an immediate and effective counter-assault, forcing the insurgents to flee and abandon their position.
The scale of the recovery shows a clear intent to carry out hostile activity," said a senior Assam Rifles official.
NSCN-KYA, a faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland, has long operated along the porous India-Myanmar border and remains a persistent security concern in the region. Longding, in southeastern Arunachal Pradesh, has seen several such encounters in recent years. Its dense forest cover and remote geography make it a favoured transit corridor for insurgent movement between the two countries.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Operation Sindoor: India used special technique to fool Pakistan, US fighter pilot makes stunning revelations
New Delhi: During Operation Sindoor, India deceived Pakistan in such a way that all its secrets were revealed. This operation brought out the advanced electronic warfare (EW) strategies of the Indian Air Force (IAF) to the world. Former American pilot Ryan Bodenheimer described the IAF's strategies as 'the best spoofing and deception ever'. He attributed this success to the X-Guard jamming decoy and SPECTRA EW suite of the Rafale jet, which deceived Pakistan's PL-15E missiles. Operation Sindoor Operation Sindoor began on 7 May 2025, when the Indian Air Force responded to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April 2025, in which 26 civilians were killed. In this operation, the IAF targeted nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Rafale, Sukhoi Su-30 MKI and Mirage 2000 jets carried out precision strikes using SCALP cruise missiles and Spice-2000 bombs, without leaving Indian airspace. Pakistan claimed that it shot down five Indian jets, including three Rafales. But Indian sources and international experts rejected these claims, saying that these were destroyed decoys (X-Guards) and not real Rafale jets. In this operation, the IAF's electronic warfare techniques completely confused the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). X-Guard Jamming Decoy: Technical Details X-Guard is an Israeli-made fiber-optic towed decoy, which is integrated with the SPECTRA electronic warfare suite of Rafale jets. This 30 kg device is pulled by a wire behind the Rafale jet. It is designed to deceive enemy radars and missiles. X-Guard sends jamming signals in a radius of 360 degrees, which confuses enemy radars and active seekers of missiles. It fakes the radar signature, making it look like a real jet. X-Guard uses artificial intelligence (AI), which copies the Doppler shift and signature of the radar signal. It keeps changing the signal in real-time to confuse enemy radars, causing missiles to target the decoy instead of the real jet. The X-Guard uses Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) technology, which records and manipulates enemy radar signals. It creates false targets, thereby misleading enemy radar and missile systems. The X-Guard protects against both air-to-air missiles (such as the PL-15E) and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). It keeps the Rafale out of the missiles' no-escape zone (where it is difficult to avoid the missile). The X-Guard weighs only 30 kg, making it lightweight and efficient. It is connected to the jet via a fibre-optic cable, which keeps it stable even at high speeds.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Jane Street to contest SEBI's manipulation charges: Reports
Jane Street rejects allegations Jane Street vs SEBI Live Events Pushback on exchange claims (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel Securities and Exchange Board ( SEBI ) has accused Jane Street , one of Wall Street's biggest trading firms, of running what it calls 'an intentional, well planned, and sinister scheme' to distort the country's markets. The Financial Times reported the regulator's findings on Monday. Reuters has not verified this Friday, SEBI barred Jane Street from trading in India and ordered it to return over 550 million dollars of what it describes as illegal profit. The ban follows allegations that Jane Street moved Indian bank stocks in ways that triggered large payouts on connected Street has told staff it will fight the ban. In a memo sent on Sunday to around 3,000 employees, senior management wrote they were 'beyond disappointed' by SEBI's 'extremely inflammatory' accusations.'It's deeply upsetting to see the firm mischaracterised this way,' said the memo, quoted by the Financial Times. 'We take pride in the role we serve in markets around the world, and it's painful to have our firm's reputation tarnished by a report based on so many erroneous or unsupported assertions.'Jane Street's trouble with SEBI links back to a lawsuit it filed last year against Millennium Management and two former traders who left for the hedge fund. In that case, Jane Street claimed the traders stole a valuable strategy that turned out to centre on Indian options. SEBI's probe zoomed in on Jane Street's trades linked to the BANKNIFTY index, which tracks India's major banking are now checking other parts of India's markets too. Jane Street has argued that the trades flagged by SEBI were nothing more than 'basic arbitrage trading', a normal practice in the order also says Jane Street ignored warnings from local stock exchanges. The firm disputes this point strongly. In the same memo to staff, Jane Street said the regulator used 'a metric for market impact and trading aggressiveness which seems disconnected from actual market dynamics'.The memo added that when exchanges first raised concerns, the firm 'immediately turned off its trading until we could better understand the exchanges' concerns' and later changed its approach to meet their 'preferences'.'Once again, we left this process feeling that we had reached an understanding of the concerns and reflected them in modifications to our trading behaviour,' the memo said. 'Since February, we have made ongoing efforts to communicate with SEBI and have been consistently rebuffed.'Jane Street has 21 days to object to SEBI's order and ask for a hearing. The firm says it is working on a detailed response and plans to fight the ban in the meantime, India's regulators say they may widen the investigation into other trades and instruments connected to the firm. Jane Street's future in one of Asia's biggest markets now hangs on how this fight plays out.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
1993 serial blasts: Bombay HC says Abu Salem's 25-year jail term prima facie not over yet
The Bombay High Court on Monday prima facie observed that gangster Abu Salem, who has been sentenced to life imprisonment in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, has not completed 25 years of incarceration to qualify for remission of his sentence. Salem has claimed that he has completed nearly 25 years in prison as per extradition treaty between India and Portugal and therefore he should be given a tentative date of release from jail. The HC admitted Salem's plea seeking remission and premature release from jail argued through senior advocate Rishi Malhotra and advocate Farhana Shah 'As per the Supreme Court judgment, it is recorded that the date of arrest is October 12, 2005. On completion of 25 years of incarceration, the central government is bound to exercise the powers of remission and release the applicant. Prima facie, it is clear that the 25 years of incarceration is yet to be completed,' a bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil observed and admitted the plea. Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh for Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sought dismissal of Salem's plea stating that honouring the 25-year period mentioned in assurance will arise only when the 25 years were to expire, which will happen on November 10, 2030. The MHA said that it would abide by the period of 25 years at an appropriate time subject to remedies, which may be available. Salem, who was transferred from Taloja Central Prison in Navi Mumbai to Nashik Central Prison last year, was extradited to India from Portugal on November 11, 2005. He was placed under arrest on November 24, 2005, and subsequently tried for the offences he had been charged with. In September 2017, Salem was convicted in the Mumbai serial blasts case. Two years earlier, in 2015, he had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1995 murder of Mumbai-based builder Pradeep Jain. On July 11, 2022, the Supreme Court observed that the central government was bound to advise the President to exercise his powers of remission to release Salem after he completes 25 years in prison, in accordance with the sovereign assurance given by the Indian government to Portugal at the time of his extradition. However, the court declined to extend any special privilege to commute or restrict the sentence imposed on him. In October last year, Salem argued before the special court designated under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) that he had neared 25-year term and same included time spent as an undertrial and later as a convict, along with nearly three years of remission he was entitled to under prison rules. In December, 2024, the special court rejected Salem's claim, after which he approached the High Court. The MHA's affidavit in response stated that the plea was 'entirely misconceived, baseless and is based on a misplaced understanding of law'. The Centre further said that the petitioner should approach the SC for further clarification as it would be the appropriate forum. The MHA said that the petitioner's calculation was 'not correct' and he has 'attempted to combine two separate conviction periods undergone in separate cases to arrive at a conclusion' that he completed a conviction period of 24 years and nine months on December 31, 2024. However, the MHA in its May, 2025 affidavit claimed that till March 31, 2025 he had served 19 years, 5 months and 21 days. The HC will hear the plea in due course.
