
'We can't go back': India's border residents fear returning home
The two nuclear-armed neighbours agreed to a ceasefire on Saturday but have since traded accusations of breaching the truce.
"I am desperate to go to my village because each day I don't open my shop I lose money," said Lal, a 50-year-old tailor.
His home lies in Kashmir, a mountainous Muslim-majority region divided between the two countries that is claimed in full by both.
"But the word on the street is that the war is not over," said Lal.
Many people who returned home, believing the worst was over, were forced to flee again following fresh drone sightings and, in some cases, renewed artillery fire.
"People had come back thinking it was safe now," said 31-year-old Pardeep Kumar from the Kashmir village of Kotmaira, which came under artillery fire just hours after the ceasefire was announced.
"But now we know better," he said.
'We are being cautious'
Indian authorities said they were discouraging people from returning to "sensitive" areas.
"We are being cautious about places within one to two kilometres (0.6 to 1.2 miles) of the border," said a senior official in Jammu, who asked to remain anonymous as they were not authorised to speak to the media.
Many displaced residents cited the lack of nearby bunkers as a key reason for not returning.
"We request the government to construct more bunkers because we don't feel safe otherwise," said Akshay Kumar from the border town of Naushera.
The 30-year-old, who has been sheltering in a Sikh temple 108 kilometres (67 miles) from his home, said he found it difficult to "trust Pakistan".
"Areas that were never targeted in the past have seen heavy shelling this time," he said. "We cannot go back until there's absolute certainty that we'll be safe."
The fighting -- the deadliest between the two South Asian rivals since 1999 -- followed an April 22 attack on tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir that killed 26 civilians.
India accused Pakistan of backing the "terrorists" it said were responsible for the Pahalgam attack -- a charge Islamabad denied -- and last week launched missiles at sites in Pakistan it said were hosting the militants.
The surprise ceasefire, which came on the brink of all-out war, offered some relief. But several reported violations have left many residents sceptical.
"We really want to go back, but it seems it is not the right time yet," said Usha Kumari, who is staying in a classroom at a government school. "Pakistani drones are still out there."
For others, there is little left to return to.
Nirta Kaur fled her home in the village of Mankote after a shell flattened three of its four rooms.
"Who knows what is left of it now?" said the 52-year-old from her dormitory room in a Sikh temple in Jammu. "But I will have to, one day or another."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Euronews
3 days ago
- Euronews
Fact check: Are most refugees in Europe of Muslim background?
ADVERTISEMENT A politician from the far-right Portuguese Chega party, which is known for its anti-immigration policies, alleged in a post shared on X that "85% of refugees are Muslim" on 1 August. Chega has previously faced accusations of Islamophobia, with the party's leader André Ventura having called for the "drastic reduction of the Islamic presence in the European Union.' Chega party's lawmaker Pedro Frazão also claimed that "instead of seeking asylum" in other Muslim countries, these individuals "choose to flee to the West." Both claims are difficult to back with data, as there is a lack of precise and up-to-date data cataloguing refugees' religious affiliation. However, it is evident that wars, economic crises and natural disasters impact the makeup of the global refugee population. While the United Nations produces a vast amount of data on refugees and forcibly displaced people worldwide, it is heavily reliant on government data. While some countries provide information on refugees' religious affiliations, others do not. Where did refugees come from in 2024? According to the UN refugee agency UNHCR, the global refugee population, including people in need of international protection, reached nearly 42.7 million in 2024. In addition, there were 73.5 million people displaced within the borders of their own countries (IDPs) and 8.4 million asylum-seekers. Within Europe, Germany was the European country which hosted the most refugees in 2024 — which has been the case since 2015. Research conducted by the German government published in 2021 revealed that between 2013 and 2019, 69.7% of the refugees it hosted were Muslim faithful. However, these figures predate Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, when millions of Ukrainians were forced to leave the country at war. The latest data from the UNHCR showed that in 2024, nearly seven out of 10 of all refugees and people in need of international protection originated from Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Venezuela and Ukraine. The main religion in Syria, Afghanistan and South Sudan is Islam, but in Ukraine and Venezuela, different branches of Christianity are the predominant belief. Given that Ukrainians and Venezuelans made up nearly one-third of all refugees and other people in need of international protection in 2024, it is "unlikely" that 85% of refugees are Muslim, a UN spokesperson told EuroVerify. Although a country may have a Muslim-majority population, this does not mean that all refugees who originate from there are Muslim, and vice versa. In addition, those who nominally belong to an ethnic group associated with Islam might not be actual believers. Muslim-majority nations top the list of host countries Contrary to the claim that refugees of Muslim background predominantly seek refuge in the West, Germany is the only European country which features among the seven countries which have hosted the most asylum seekers since 2015. Iran and Turkey are the two top countries where the most refugees sought asylum between 2015 and 2024. Meanwhile, four out of the seven nations which hosted the most asylum seekers in this period — Iran, Turkey, Chad and Pakistan — were Muslim-majority countries, which debunks the claim that refugees who identify as Muslim only seek refuge in the West.


AFP
4 days ago
- AFP
Posts falsely link old swastika photo to Zohran Mamdani campaign
"Hey Jews of New York, just in case you were wondering who Mamdani's Senior Advisor is…," says one August 9, 2025 post on X. Another adds: "Zohran Mamdani's senior advisor Linda Sarsour. But I'm sure he only hates Zionists not Jews." Image Screenshot from X taken August 12, 2025 Image Screenshot from X taken August 12, 2025 Similar posts spread across X and other platforms, including Instagram, more than a month after Mamdani officially became the Democratic candidate for mayor in New York City. The self-declared democratic socialist, a rising star on the left who would become the first Muslim to hold the office if elected, upset former New York governor Andrew Cuomo in a shock primary victory in June. The 33-year-old has staked his campaign on a message of lower rents, free daycare and buses, and other populist ideas. He has also been an outspoken critic of Israel, accusing the key US ally of committing a genocide in Gaza amid its war with Hamas. But there is no evidence that the photo spreading online shows Sarsour -- and the activist is not a member of Mamdani's team. "That person depicted in the photo is not me and I do not hold any official positions in the Mamdani campaign," Sarsour told AFP in an August 13 email. On Facebook, where Sarsour's profile features a "Zohran for New York City" cover photo, she further clarified that the claims were false. "Just figured out why i am getting an influx of some of the most despicable hate filled messages and emails," Sarsour wrote in the August 11 post (archived here). "The opposition is recirculating an old debunked photo. An outrageous image they purportedly say is me and it clear as day that IT IS NOT." Sarsour is a longtime and prominent Palestinian-American activist from New York who earned recognition from former president Barack Obama's administration as a "champion of change". Among other leadership positions, she was a founding member of the "Women's March" movement that spearheaded mass protests against President Donald Trump, before she stepped down in alongside two others amid accusations of . Image Linda Sarsour speaks the keynote speaker at the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health's inaugural commencement ceremony June 1, 2017 at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem, New York (AFP / TIMOTHY A. CLARY) While she publicly backed Mamdani, her support has not extended to an official campaign role (archived here). An August 13 New York Times analysis of Mamdani's "inner circle" lists two senior advisors but does not mention Sarsour (archived here). AFP contacted the Mamdani campaign for comment, but no response was forthcoming. Dubious origins Reverse image searches revealed the photo of a woman beside swastika graffiti has been online since at least 2012, when it was posted to a Polish internet forum with no accompanying information detailing where it was taken or who it depicted (archived here). Image Screenshot from taken August 13, 2025 In her Facebook post disavowing the picture, Sarsour blamed far-right activist Laura Loomer -- who has repeatedly promoted online disinformation and suggested the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job -- for linking it to her. Loomer included the image in a 2018 article attacking Sarsour on "Big League Politics," a conservative site AFP has also fact-checked. Reuben Moreton, a facial identification expert and director of Reli, examined the swastika image in comparison with photos Sarsour posted in 2011 and 2012 (archived here, here and here). The low resolution and compression of the swastika photo limits the conclusiveness of a facial examination, Moreton told AFP, but while the two women have "some general similarities" between their eyebrows and mouths, "there are also observable differences." He pointed to the morphology of their noses, the overall proportions of their faces, the fullness of their cheeks and other details. "These observations support the proposition that the images of the individual stood next to the swastika and the images of Ms. Sarsour depict different people," Moreton said in an August 14 email, adding that an automated facial-recognition algorithm also produced a score indicating . AFP has previously debunked other misinformation targeting Mamdani here, here and here.


Fashion Network
5 days ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.