I came across a Telegram group that's actively engaged in hate speech and harassment targeting Hindus and Indian culture. Members in this group post racist abuse, make grape threats against Hindu women and mothers, and deliberately target Indian members to harass and demean them and their beliefs. This kind of coordinated harassment and hate speech has no place online. Every admin is of this group is either Pakistani or Egyptian... they abuse every Indians and support each other... I've allot of proofs against them chating with minor girls. Also the owner of this go is a 33y/o Pakistani but he is pretending to be a minor boy and sexting with minor girls (I've all proves) all I'm asking from you guys is to help me out in banning this whole group
DM ME TO JOIN

What will they achieve by trying to destabilize India? Nothing but their own eventual irrelevance and isolation.

India is not some fragile colonial outpost that can be carved up or derailed by external meddling, imported ideologies, or internal fault-lines exploited from afar. Every attempt to fan separatism, economic sabotage, or cultural erosion only reveals the envy and fear of those who cannot tolerate a rising, united Bharat reclaiming its civilizational destiny.

A strong, self-reliant, and culturally confident India threatens the old global order that preferred us divided, dependent, and apologetic. Their destabilization games—whether through proxies, propaganda, or policy interference—will ultimately fail because the soul of this nation has survived far greater assaults over millennia.It is time for nationalists like us to counter these forces not with emotion or recklessness, but with cold reason, unapologetic logic, and relentless nation-first action.

We must expose the hypocrisy of those who lecture us on democracy while funding disruption, strengthen our institutions and borders, build economic and technological sovereignty, and foster a shared national consciousness that rises above caste, creed, or region.

Patriotism is not blind; it is the clearest vision—one that puts India's security, prosperity, and cultural continuity above all else. The more they try to weaken us, the stronger and more vigilant we must become. Bharat will not be broken.

Tip - pirated movie sites domain name has been hide for some reason

Radhe Radhe

I'm a solo developer. I built Updesh because I wanted to read/listen the Gita on my phone without ads, paywalls, or distractions.

What's inside:

- All 700 verses across 18 chapters
- Sanskrit, transliteration, and English translation
- Daily verse you can return to
- No accounts, no subscriptions, no ads

It's free because the Gita shouldn't sit behind a paywall, in my view. If it helps you, that's enough.

Would genuinely value feedback from this community, especially on translation accuracy and anything that feels off.

Please support me by trying the app and leaving a feedback on the Appstore.

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/bhagavad-gita-updesh-daily/id6760954797

BANGALORE St. Joseph’s University is facing serious allegations regarding its campus environment, with students raising concerns over mandatory religious practices and targeted conversion tactics on campus. The issue has come to light following reports of a Hindu student’s conversion to Christianity, which his family alleges was the result of systematic institutional pressure.

Mandatory Sessions Raise Questions Over Secularism

According to accounts from students, the university allegedly introduced mandatory "confession sessions" for second-year students. While St. Joseph’s is a minority Christian institution, the mandatory nature of a deeply sacramental ritual has caused significant discomfort among non-Christian students, who view it as an infringement on their personal religious freedom.

Students speaking on the condition of anonymity state that these sessions are part of a broader, structured effort to introduce non-Christian students to faith-based spaces. Tactics reportedly include distributing copies of the Bible and systematically adding non-Christian students to campus-run Christian WhatsApp groups.

A Family Devastated by Sudden Conversion

The controversial environment has reportedly had a tangible impact on the student body. Sources close to the matter highlight the case of a Hindu student who, after sustained exposure to these campus groups and religious materials, converted to Christianity and was subsequently baptized.

The conversion came as a severe shock to the student’s family, who maintain that their son was subjected to undue institutional influence and psychological pressure by campus entities.

University Cites Adult Autonomy, Denies Responsibility

In response to the family’s formal grievances, the St. Joseph’s University administration reportedly dismissed the complaints entirely. University officials allegedly abdicated any responsibility for the incident, shifting the onus entirely onto the student.

According to sources, the administration informed the distressed family that because the student is a legal adult, he is free to make his own religious choices, and the institution bears no accountability for personal decisions made by its students.

Broader Implications for Higher Education

The incident has reignited a fierce debate surrounding the boundaries of religious influence within educational institutions in Bangalore. While legal adulthood grants individuals the constitutional right to choose their faith, critics and students argue there is a distinct line between personal freedom and targeted institutional grooming.

"This feels less like an independent choice and more like the result of calculated pressure on vulnerable young adults," noted a peer of the converted student.

As tension brews on campus, student groups are calling for greater transparency, a strict separation of academic mandates from religious rituals, and an investigation into whether the university is violating the secular expectations of higher education. St. Joseph's University administration has yet to issue an official public statement regarding the growing backlash.

I think Islam or the "Muslim world" and its stature today would be much bigger if it weren't for India, as it would have a continuous extension from Indonesia to edge of Africa.

Throughout the post-independence era, successive Congress-led administrations utilized constitutional, statutory, and regulatory legal mechanisms to shape, control, and manipulate the Indian media space. Rather than relying solely on arbitrary executive actions, the state repeatedly codified restrictive measures into law to establish systemic leverage over publishers, editors, and journalists.

The primary legal strategies utilized by Congress administrations to manipulate the media space from 1947 to 2014 include:

1. Constitutional Alteration to Limit Free Speech

When early judicial rulings protected the press from state overreach, the government altered the constitutional framework itself to broaden its regulatory powers:

• The First Amendment (1951): Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Romesh Thapar and Brij Bhushan, which struck down state-level bans and pre-censorship orders , Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill. This amendment altered Article 19(2) by introducing broad, subjective exceptions to free speech—specifically "public order," "friendly relations with foreign states," and "incitement to an offence"—enabling the legislature to bypass judicial checks and enact highly restrictive press laws.
• Emergency Amendments (1975–1977): Under Indira Gandhi, the state suspended the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22. The Forty-Second Amendment (1976) was subsequently enacted to strip the courts of their power of judicial review over constitutional changes, effectively eliminating legal remedies for jailed journalists and censored publications.

2. Direct Statutory "Gag" Laws and Censorship Legislation

The state enacted specific legislations designed to censor independent content and punish non-compliant media houses:

• Press (Objectionable Matter) Act, 1951: Enacted under Nehru, this law gave the state sweeping powers to penalize publications deemed to print "objectionable" content under the newly expanded Article 19(2) exceptions.
• The Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter Act, 1976: Passed during the Emergency, this draconian law allowed the executive to preemptively prohibit the publication of any newspaper for up to two months, demand financial security deposits from printing presses, and seize materials without allowing the affected parties recourse to judicial intervention.
• Repeal of Parliamentary Reporting Protections (1976): The Indira Gandhi administration repealed the Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act of 1956—famously known as the Feroze Gandhi Act. This legal change stripped journalists of their immunity from civil and criminal defamation lawsuits when reporting on debates and corruption allegations raised inside Parliament, forcing editors to self-censor.
• Abolition of Watchdogs: The state legally abolished the Press Council of India in 1976 to prevent independent oversight of press-related grievances.

3. Indirect Economic and Regulatory Strangulation

To avoid the public backlash of direct censorship, Congress-led governments used commercial and industrial regulations as indirect tools to control the press:

• The Newsprint Control Orders: Under the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73, the Indira Gandhi administration capped the maximum page count of major newspapers to 10 pages and restricted their circulation. This policy aimed to economically cripple large, critical English dailies under the guise of managing foreign exchange reserves, a tactic the Supreme Court eventually declared unconstitutional in Bennett Coleman v. Union of India (1973).
• Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act: The government misused the MRTP Act to regulate and restrict the number of copies a newspaper could print, artificially capping the audience reach of independent media conglomerates.

4. Draconian Penal Provisions and Anti-Defamation Bills

The executive introduced strict criminal penalties to discourage investigative journalism and suppress dissent, both in print and on digital platforms:

• The Defamation Bill of 1988: Prompted by the Bofors corruption scandal, the Rajiv Gandhi administration drafted an anti-defamation bill containing several highly punitive clauses. It expanded the definition of criminal defamation, inverted the legal principle of "presumption of innocence" by placing the burden of proof entirely on the accused journalist (Section 12), mandated personal court attendance for editors (Section 18), and enabled private, in-camera summary trials (Section 14). This bill was ultimately withdrawn following a nationwide strike.

• Section 66A of the IT Act (2009): Transitioning to the digital era, the UPA government introduced Section 66A, which criminalized the online transmission of "grossly offensive" or "annoying" information. Because the offense was cognizable, the police were legally empowered to arrest internet users, political cartoonists, and social media critics without a warrant, effectively censoring digital political speech until the law was struck down in 2015.

5. Bureaucratic Consolidation and Fiscal Manipulation

The state leveraged administrative authority and financial reliance to influence media operations:

• Weaponization of Government Advertisements: Through the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP), the central government classified newspapers into "friendly," "neutral," or "hostile" categories. It systematically withheld government advertisements—a vital source of revenue—from critical and independent publications to force them into financial compliance.

• Forced Mergers of News Agencies: In 1976, the government forced the merger of India's four major independent news agencies (PTI, UNI, Samachar Bharati, and Hindustan Samachar) into a single, state-run news monopoly called Samachar, giving the ruling party absolute control over the national news wire.

• Delay of Broadcasting Autonomy: The Congress party resisted granting independence to state-run electronic media. Although the Prasar Bharati Act was passed in 1990 to grant autonomy to Doordarshan and All India Radio, successive administrations delayed its implementation for seven years. It was only enacted in 1997, ensuring that the state maintained a direct monopoly over television and radio broadcasting for decades.

• The 2005 NDTV "Report Card" Incident

According to Baru—the former media advisor to Manmohan Singh—NDTV aired a "report card" episode in 2005 that evaluated the performance of Union Ministers, highlighting both the best and worst performers.

The Prime Minister's Anger: The broadcast reportedly angered Manmohan Singh, who was in Moscow at the time, as it featured Foreign Minister Natwar Singh negatively, potentially complicating Singh's efforts to push the Indo-US civil nuclear deal through parliament.

The Phone Call: Singh instructed Baru to call Dr. Prannoy Roy (who was incidentally an economic advisor to Singh in the 1990s). The PM took the phone himself and reprimanded Roy over the broadcast.

The Aftermath: Dr. Roy later told Baru that he had not been scolded like that since he was in school and that Singh had sounded "like a headmaster".

https://gemini.google.com/share/1776f65b3dce [ Full Report ]

Feel Free to go through.

Focus on your own internal politics and do not blindly flatter or support others. If you are going to show favoritism toward someone, please first study what the other side has done or is currently doing. Compare the two properly, and only then should you criticize or support.

No one has ever given Indian media houses an upper Hand in Freedom of Speech.