Revenue staffer from Visakhapatnam comes under police lens for terror link
VIZIANAGARM: Police, in coordination with the National Investigation Agency (NIA), and other central agencies, concluded the second day of interrogation of terror suspects Siraj and Sameer on Saturday. Investigators obtained crucial details about their social media activity, financial sources for making IEDs, and broader terror links.
Preliminary probe revealed that Siraj came under the radar of terrorist groups after posting a comment on a video featuring Hyderabad BJP MLA Raja Singh. He received online praise from an unknown individual for 'raising his voice' for Islam, and a person believed to be a Visakhapatnam revenue department employee. This interaction reportedly led to the formation of the AHIM group.
Vizianagaram police have now launched a probe to identify and question the said government employee.
NIA officials reportedly uncovered key information about the Al-Hind Ittehadul Muslimeen (AHIM) group, allegedly run by Siraj and Sameer. The duo is believed to have used social media to radicalise youth, urging them to sacrifice their lives in pursuit of jihad and convert India into an Islamic state. The investigation has widened to trace AHIM affiliates in Telangana, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I disagree: Not all speech is free
The constitutional right to free speech — a fundamental democratic principle — is often misinterpreted. The editorial ('Whose free speech?', IE, June 3) circumvents the context, intent and impact of free speech by defending Sharmistha Panoli's inflammatory social media post, targeting Islam and the Prophet, as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An important disclaimer: My disagreement with the editorial is not a defence or endorsement of the carceral state. Rather, beyond the over-simplistic binaries, the focus here is on recognising hate speech as a form of violence. While the editorial rightly criticises the overzealous police action in arresting the 22-year-old law student — she was later released on bail — it ignores the context that enabled Panoli's remarks and fails to acknowledge the target of her outburst. Panoli's words are far from being an act of reckless indiscretion; they feed into the volatile environment, increasingly marginalising, vilifying, and disproportionately targeting Muslims. The editorial, too, acknowledges that Panoli's post echoed 'some of the most hurtful anti-minority tropes in circulation'. However, more than the troubling content of Panoli's post, one should be wary of the political sentiments that consider Muslims to be demographic threats. Condemning arrests for online posts is crucial, but one must differentiate between freedom of expression and provocative speech that perpetuates targeted hatred against marginalised communities. The editorial failed to realise the essence of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). The judgment upholds freedom of speech but doesn't legitimise hate speech. On the contrary, the SC has clearly defined the boundaries between protected free expression and punishable hate speech. In Shreya Singhal, the court established a crucial framework by distinguishing three categories of speech: Discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that 'mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution', and is therefore protected. However, as the court noted, once such speech crosses the line into incitement — particularly incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder — Article 19(2) applies, and restrictions become constitutionally valid. By drawing this line, Shreya Singhal underscores a crucial principle: The right to free speech does not encompass a right to incite harm or hatred against others. Many judicial precedents affirm this critical distinction. Notably, in three rulings in 2018 — Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union of India, Kodungallur Film Society vs Union of India, and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, the SC went a step further, laying down guidelines to prevent and address hate speech and vigilante violence. However, these directives have largely remained on paper, with little to no meaningful implementation. The antidote to overzealous state action cannot be universal impunity. The editorial rightly points out that young Muslims have often been arrested for social media posts and labelled 'anti-national' or 'pro-Pakistan', often with little evidence of real harm. But to use that injustice to suggest that no one should be held accountable for incendiary speech is a fallacy. The discourse on free speech must be shaped by consistent legal principles, not by selective outrage and the use of legal machinery by those in power. The solution to the wicked problem of protecting free speech lies in equal and principled application of the law, not in abandoning accountability altogether. In a system that disproportionately targets minority voices while mostly excusing and sometimes even celebrating those who vilify them, the overwhelming defence from all political cadres for free expression is amusing. The double standard is made evident through the ruling party's sudden invocation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression, championing Panoli's right to free speech while silencing dissenting voices from marginalised communities — the latest, the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, is a case in point. Defending insidious speech on the grounds of constitutional liberty risks defending the right to hate, a right not promised by the Constitution. The writer teaches law at Jamia Hamdard
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
US to partially evacuate embassy in Iraq over regional security risks
The United States is all set to partially evacuate its embassy in Iraq's capital Baghdad and have asked all its non-essential US embassy staff and their dependents to leave the Middle East location over heightened regional security risks, US and Iraqi sources confirmed the development to Reuters on Wednesday. However, the report doesn't mention which type of risk was Washington talking about when it reportedly ordered its staff to leave the country but the reports have escalated the prices of oil by more than 4%. When asked about the partial evacuations of non-essential staff in the US embassy of Baghdad, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said 'The State Department regularly reviews American personnel abroad and this decision was made as a result of a recent review,' Reuters reported. US President Donald Trump is reportedly aware about the matter, a White House official confirmed. Adding to Iraq, a US official said that the State Department has also authorized voluntary departures from Bahrain and Kuwait. Though the US embassy in Kuwait, in a statement on Wednesday said it 'has not changed its staffing posture and remains fully operational.' The partial evacuation in Baghdad comes at a time when the Middle East region is already ravaged by the Israel-Gaza war over the last 18 months and Washington is unable to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. Detailing about Iran's nuclear programme, President Trump told a podcast on Wednesday that he was growing less confident that a deal would be signed with Tehran. The United States wants Iran to immediately cease its uranium enriching programme, which could eventually help the Islamic country in manufacturing nuclear weapons. In exchange, the US is ready to lift economic sanctions imposed on Tehran. Trump has repeatedly threatened to strike Iran if their talks over a nuclear deal fails. Iranian Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said on Wednesday that if Iran gets hit by strikes, it would retaliate and destroy US bases in the region.
The Hindu
10 hours ago
- The Hindu
Catholic Congress' hard line on courting fundamentalist votes unsettles LDF and UDF campaigns in Nilambur
The Catholic Congress, an influential non-ecclesiastical organisation within the Syro-Malabar Church, appears to have unsettled the Left Democratic Front (LDF) and opposing United Democratic Front (UDF) campaigns in the Nilambur Assembly by-election to some extent on Wednesday by striking a hard line position against the competing fronts soliciting the support of 'radical Islamist' political outfits in the high-stakes and no-holds-barred ballot box battle. In a strongly worded statement, the organisation, which claims to champion the socio-political interests of the Christian laity, has disavowed the LDF and the UDF's 'dalliance' with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP, chaired by 2008 Bangalore serial blast accused Abdul Nasar Madani) and the Welfare Party of India (WPI, an offshoot of the Jamaat-e-Islami) respectively. The Christian organisation, which has significant influence among the Christian settler-farmer community in Nilambur, a crucial electoral bloc, warned that enabling ultra-conservative Islamist groups to telegraph their so-called leverage in the bypoll would not bode well for the LDF and the UDF in future elections. Secular voters The Catholic Congress also took the line that secular voters would give a befitting reply to the UDF and the LDF's appeasement of 'terrorist forces and political Islam' in upcoming polls. The LDF and the UDF scrambled to decipher the electoral implications of the Catholic Congress' overt political positioning even as both fronts continued to slug it out over the touchy subject of 'myopically courting fundamentalist votes for short-term political expediency.' The UDF stated that the LDF had no qualms about seeking the Jamaat-e-Islami's support in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections and the 2011 Kerala Assembly elections. The LDF sought to differentiate between the respective political lines of the WPI and PDP by insisting that the latter eschewed radical Islamism and towed a secular democratic line. However, the Catholic Congress's hard line stance on the LDF and the UDF courting 'Islamist' forces appeared to give some comfort to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Current stance A senior BJP leader claimed that the Catholic Congress's current political stance dovetailed with that of the National Democratic Alliance and has buoyed the chances of the party's candidate, who hails from the Christian settler-farmer community in Nilambur.
