Indian-origin teenager, Aanisha Sathik, goes missing in Australia
New South Wales (NSW) Police in Australia is asking for public help to find 18-year-old Aanisha Sathik. The Indian-origin teenager has gone missing from Auburn.
Aanisha was last seen on Park Road around 1 PM on June 23. Later, she may have been seen walking on Harrow Road and entering Norman Park around 3:15 PM that same day. The distance between the two locations is about 5 km.
Aanisha is of Indian/Sub-Continental appearance, about 180 cm tall, slim, with long black hair tied in a bun and brown eyes, as per the police statement.
She was wearing a black hooded jumper, black pants with cream pinstripes, white shoes and gold earrings.
Police believe she may be using public transport, possibly the rail network. Her family and the police are very worried about her well-being.
Officers from Auburn Police Area Command began searching for Aanisha after being informed on the day after she went missing, June 24.
NSW Police suggests travelling with others in public transport, especially at night, and waiting in well-lit areas. It also advises walking with fellow passengers after getting off.
If someone's stop is far from the destination, they are asked to take a taxi. People are advised to stay alert, confident and aware of their surroundings.
Auburn, a suburb in New South Wales, Australia, is ranked 15 out of 100 in terms of crime levels (0 means no crime). While some crime happens, most residents feel safe.
The most common crimes here include offences related to justice procedures, theft, and assault. In 2024, 563 cases were linked to justice procedure offences, making them the most reported type. Four murder-related cases were also reported.
Compared to 2023, overall crime in Auburn went up slightly in 2024 by 1.45%. Even with this increase, Auburn is still considered a fairly safe place to live.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
Indian Muslims are hiding their dowry practice in a Sharia loophole
And it doesn't stop at money changing hands. In 2022 alone, over 6,000 dowry-related deaths were officially registered, according to NCRB data. These aren't just statistics—they're women who have been burned, beaten, and silenced. Policymakers have tried to curb dowry through legislation, but most of those attempts have failed to bring real change. For example, researchers studied 40,000 marriages in rural India between 1960 and 2008, and found that dowry was paid in 95 per cent of them despite it being illegal since 1961. That's not a loophole, that's a system. A video where a woman is seen falling off the roof of a building is making the rounds on social media. The young woman, Aamina, from Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh, was reportedly thrown off a rooftop by her husband, Arif, and his family after being beaten like an animal. Her 'crime'? Her family couldn't meet the dowry demand of Rs 10 lakh. The news has been covered by local newspapers as well. But while we often talk about dowry in India and acknowledge that it cuts across all religious communities, the conversation rarely stops to look at Indian Muslims. As a Pasmanda Muslim, I've noticed this gap again and again—hardly any data, barely a whisper of discussion, and certainly no honest reckoning with how deeply dowry continues to harm women within our own community. Just like this case of Aamina—beaten, locked up, and allegedly thrown off a roof by her in-laws—there are countless others. We just don't want to talk about them. Remember Ayesha Banu? A 23-year-old woman from Ahmedabad, who took her own life four years ago, left behind a video that pointed to the dowry harassment she faced. Her face haunted many of us, but still, no serious change followed. Also read: The reel story of Indian weddings—how they are lavish, viral & broke Practice vs theory Whenever someone tries to talk about these issues within the community, the reaction is predictable. People get defensive and say, 'But dowry is a sin in Islam', 'It's impermissible, we don't support it.' As if just saying that somehow erases the reality of what's happening around us. It doesn't. Quoting scripture is not a solution when women are still being tortured, driven to suicide, or killed for dowry in our own homes. If anything, this response just helps build a culture of collective silence and negligence, where no one feels responsible. It's also important to understand where the practice of dowry among Indian Muslims really comes from. Islam talks about meher (dower), which is a mandatory, promised gift or money given by the groom to the bride. This is her right and not to be confused with dowry. But there is no such mandatory dowry concept mentioned. Islam gives women the right to inherit property. But in practice, that inheritance is often handed over at the time of marriage in the name of jahez or dowry. And once it enters the husband's household, it no longer remains hers. It becomes something everyone feels entitled to—in-laws, siblings, even distant relatives. Many try to justify it using the term jahez-e-Fatimi, referring to the modest items the Prophet is believed to have given his daughter Fatima. But let's be honest, what we see today is far from that. Lavish goods, expensive clothes, cash negotiated between families, and grand hospitality for the baraat—none of this is religious. It's social pressure, dressed in misplaced religious justification. The standard practice among Indian Muslims is to give daughters dowry in lieu of inheritance, and then expect them to never ask for anything else. I've seen cases where if a Muslim woman dares to ask for her rightful share in inheritance, she's immediately reminded of how much the family 'spent' on her marriage and how they gave her dowry, as if that cancels out her actual rights. She's warned, sometimes subtly, sometimes directly, that claiming what's hers means she'll lose all her relationships. It's one of the saddest things to witness. The same community, which cries hoarse about following Sharia law whenever there's any talk of reform for women's rights, won't blink twice when it comes to snatching away rights already given to women under Sharia. That's why I argue that the laws for Indian Muslim women should be based on social realities, not just an idealised version of Sharia. Because the lived experience is far removed from the textbook version. You can't build justice on theory when practice is so deeply broken. Enforcement is one challenge, but even getting to a point where society accepts the need for reform is a battle in itself. Amana Begam Ansari is a columnist, writer, and TV news panellist. She runs a weekly YouTube show called 'India This Week by Amana and Khalid'. She tweets @Amana_Ansari. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Deccan Herald
2 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
Urgent need to respect women's autonomy
It's been a slippery slope for Indian men trying to talk their way out of their misogyny.
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
Karnataka's new misinformation bill can penalise social media users for honest mistakes
The Karnataka government now proposes to criminalise such false speech and create a parallel regime to central laws for the targeted blocking of online content. The bill will be sent to various departments for consultations before being presented before the state cabinet. In this piece, we will delve into the structural and enforcement infirmities of the bill. Time and again, the Indian government takes up the task of regulating the menace of misinformation, which includes any information that is incorrect, and in most cases spread without the intention to deceive. By no stretch of imagination is this easy, but most policy interventions have focused on requiring social media intermediaries to restrict the sharing of false and/or superstitious content. You capture an image of a Myna bird perched on your window sill and immediately post it on your social media account with the caption 'One for bad luck'. Careful. Sharing this superstition online could land you in prison for up to seven years under the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill 2025. Structural infirmities The bill attempts to distinguish between 'fake news' and 'misinformation' and assigns penalties that range from five years for misinformation to seven years for fake news. It claims to differentiate between these two types of false speech, but the definitions reveal no difference as each describes speech that can influence the public through false or exaggerated information. Determining intent is a challenge when scrutinising online false speech. Legal scholars have repeatedly warned against using catch-all phrases like 'fake news' to describe any form of false speech, as this term is often used by politicians to delegitimise criticism levied at them in modern-day public squares. And it also remains too vague to accurately define under law. Social media users may end up being penalised for honest mistakes and trivialities and social media companies may themselves over-censor to avoid penalties. The bill criminalises speech that is factually incorrect and imposes unusually harsh penalties. Spreading fake news could get you the same prison time as that for kidnapping. Communication of misinformation to any user within Karnataka is prohibited under the bill. But geo-fencing online speech is technologically hard. Digital natives can easily circumvent detection using virtual private networks (VPNs) for instance, evading accurate geolocation via proxy servers distributed globally. This sets the stage for a digital cat-and-mouse game, with the Karnataka police chasing anonymous users across a geographically unbound internet. Also read: Internet can't be regulated like TV. Look at how UK, Australia are doing it Enforcement concerns The definition of 'communication' in the bill is wide enough to capture any other forms of communication, possibly extending to in-person communications, which is excessive. A prohibition on communication of misinformation also raises concerns about applicability to past communications or to situations where the recipient moves into the state post communication. Instances where the sender has no knowledge of the receiver's location will make compliance impossible. The bill also provides for a six-member social media regulatory authority to enforce provisions related to fake news under the proposed law. But the authority's enforcement powers stand on shaky ground. For instance, the authority has the power to trigger punitive action under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), yet 'fake news' as defined in the bill does not map onto any specific offence in the BNS. The authority's powers are confined to fake news, excluding misinformation, despite the significant conceptual overlap between the two. Penalties for misinformation can be enforced through a standard legal process of filing a First Information Report (FIR) and finally adjudication by a court, all without the involvement of the authority. This framework makes the identification of illegal content difficult in instances like when a piece of content qualifies both as fake news and misinformation. How will the authority keep itself from adjudicating on aspects of the content that is misinformation? The regulatory authority is also given a sweeping mandate to police a wide range of speech based on subjective standards. For instance, the authority is to monitor and pre-emptively block content deemed disrespectful to Sanatan Dharma, and which promotes superstition or is unscientific in nature. Imagine the enforcement burden on the six-member body to apply these standards to a deluge of complaints, especially given the speed of content circulation. Beyond its many conceptual issues, the drafting of the bill is inelegant in multiple places with key terms left undefined, scope of penalties unclear, and vague obligations for social media companies. Such drafting, in a legislation with criminal penalties, is unfortunately common in both central and state laws and complicates both compliance and enforcement efforts. The design challenges with the proposed law do not end at definitional and structural inconsistencies, but also extend to constitutional and philosophical problems which we will explore in the subsequent article. The authors work at Koan Advisory Group, a technology policy consulting firm. Views are personal. This article is part of ThePrint-Koan Advisory series that analyses emerging policies, laws and regulations in India's technology sector. Read all the articles here. (Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
