Posts

In a landmark ruling issued by the Supreme Court of India, significant guidelines were implemented, which emphasized the need for courts to demonstrate empathy and conduct themselves in a queer-sensitive manner when examining habeas corpus petitions along with police protection requests submitted by LGBTQ+ couples, and interfaith or intercaste couples. These guidelines explicitly condemned the practice of forced counseling and strongly advocated for respecting individual autonomy.A few years ago, a significant judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court of India in a habeas corpus petition along with a plea for police protection. These petitions were filed by couples who were exercising their rights to seek judicial intervention. The reason for these petitions was that the couples faced social stigma and the fear of life from their families while dealing with a specific matter, including a petition filed by women against a Kerala High Court order concerning the habeas corpus. The High Court directed the lesbian partner to undergo counseling in the context of this case. However, the Supreme Court found this direction to be torturous, citing its potential to have a deterrent effect on the members of the lesbian, bisexual, transgender, plus community. Then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra issued directions that the court shall be required to follow while dealing with such cases. That means the court issued some directives that are to be followed by the courts, mainly the High Courts, while dealing with such cases. The bands emphasized that having an empathetic approach while hearing a habeas corpus petition is essential. The guidelines gave special emphasis on the need for queer-sensitive conduct of the court and the judge. When habeas corpus petitions are moved by members belonging to that LGBTQ+ plus community, the guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court. The bands mainly dealt with theles while dealing with the pre of police protection in habeus corpus and grant them interim relief .I am quoting the supreme court's judgement therefore a court while dealing with a petition for police protection by intimate partners on the ground that they belongs to the same gender, transgender, interfaith , interfaith,intercaste couple must grant an at interim measures, such as immediately granting police protection to the petitioners before establishing the threshold requirement of being at grave risk of violence and abuse so Iam going to mention that brief fact of that case of course the kerala high court decided that case read petition for habeus corpus was moved by a woman to the Kerala High Court in regard to her lesbian partner ,it was alleged that the read petition I mean in the Writ petition that the partner was being forcibly kept by her parents in their custody on january 13 2023 ,at the stage of admission the Kerala High Court ordered the secretary of the jurisdictional district legal service authority to visit the parents of the partners allegedly forcibly kept in custody, and record her statement to ascertain if she was under illegal detention the high court further directed that in the event that woman is in illegal detention the station house office of the jurisdictional police station must ensure that the woman is produced before the secretary of dlsa the district legal service authority we all know that that was created under that legal service authorities act 1987 to facilitate an interaction withThe High Court directed the production of the woman allegedly in force custody before the Secretary of DLSA on February 2nd, 2023, to facilitate an interaction with the High Court. After an introduction with the woman, the High Court directed the said women to undergo counseling sessions with psychologists attached to the Counseling Center on February 6, 2023. The Supreme Court had issued a notice against the aforesaid order of the Kerala High Court, so the Kerala High Court actually asked the women to go for medical treatment with a psychologist instead of giving any relief. The Supreme Court also banned the order of the Kerala High Court and issued an interim direction requiring for the parents to produce the women allegedly forced to be in their custody before the Family Court at Kollam on February 8, 2023. The Supreme Court appointed Miss Selena V. Nayar, a member of the Committee of the Supreme Court. Miss Nayar is in judicial service of the State of Kerala. The Supreme Court had directed a friend interview to be arranged with the woman and counseling with the Principal Judge of the Family Court, as provided by the Supreme Court. The report regarding the modalities followed in the case was submitted by the Principal Judge of the Family Court. In addition to this, Miss Selena Nayar also submitted a comprehensive report regarding her interaction with women. As per the report provided by Miss Nayar, sufficient time was granted to the women to express their intent and desire. The Supreme Court emphasized that women alleged to be forcefully detained by their parents are a major issue. She has completed her post-graduation in arts. It was also provided by the said woman that she is in possession of a mobile phone and is free to move wherever she desires. It was also highlighted by the bands that during her interaction the woman had stated that she is living with her parents out of her own volition. It was additionally provided that while the woman has stated that the appellant is an intimate friend, she expressed her wish not to marry any person or live with any other person for the time being. There was no reason for the court to disbelieve the report which has been prepared by the senior judicial officer after duly ascertaining the wishes of the woman in view of the statement made by the woman alleged to be in force custody of her parents and the reports filed before the court. The bench was not inclined to entertain the special leave petition on the ultimate outcome before the court. The Supreme Court observed that when couples from the queer community approach the court for judicial intervention, it was brought to the court's attention that the High Courts have been passing similar orders directing counseling for queer persons. In this regard, the Supreme Court stated that the High Courts must duly bear this fact in mind. Ascertaining the wishes of the person is one thing, but it would be completely inappropriate to attempt to overcome the identity and sexual orientation of an individual by a process of purported counseling. Judges must reject the tendency to substitute their own subjective values for the values protected by the Constitution. This is the most important line the judges must adhere to. Judges must reject the tendency to substitute their own subjective values with the values and signs enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court emphasized the detrimental impact such directions for counseling or parental guidance .The special considerations that must be taken into account are the violence that members of the LGBTQ+ community might face from their own natal families. As the court has rightly pointed out, the concept of family is not strictly limited to the biological family; it encompasses a person's chosen family as well, something that is true for everyone. However, for members of the LGBTQ+ community, this heightened importance becomes particularly pronounced due to the very real violence and lack of safety that they often experience at the hands of their natal families. In such challenging circumstances, people often turn towards their partners and friends, who become their crucial support system, a lifeline in their fight against humiliation, indignity, and even direct physical harm.Setting aside the directions for counseling made by the Kerala High Court, the Supreme Court bench said that often the courts wittingly or unwittingly become allies to the natal families who do not respect the person's choices and freedoms. In this judgment, the Supreme Court stated the importance of a support system, something lost to the traditional assumption that the natal family is respectful of a person's choices and freedoms. The court must not wittingly or unwittingly become allies in this misunderstanding, more so in cases involving habeas corpus petitions. Among all the petitions filed in court, petitions for protection or Habeas corpus petitions, those filed by partners, friends, and family members who deserve to be given the absolute highest priority in terms of listing for hearing. This is of paramount importance because these petitions deal directly with fundamental human rights. As such, these petitions should never be adjourned without proper justification. The court must prioritize evaluating the credibility of the relationship between the petitioner and the person they are seeking protection from, thereby upholding the principle of due process. In conducting this evaluation, the court must exercise caution and avoid intrusive inquiries into the specifics of the relationship. Instead, their focus should be on fostering a supportive and conducive environment conducive to a free and open dialogue, aimed at determining the wishes of the individual involved in the corpus. Furthermore, the court has a duty to ensure the physical presence of theer party the court must ensure that the wishes of the detained person is not unduly influenced by the court or police or natal family during the course of the proceeding upon securing the environment and inviting the detained or missing person in chambers the court must make active efforts to put the detained or missing person at ease the preferred name and pronouns of the detained or missing person may be asked the person must be given a comfortable sitting access to drinking water and washroom they must be allowed to take periodic break to collect themselves a court while dealing with the detained or missing person may ascertain the age of the detained or missing person the judges must showcase your sincere empathy and compassion for the case of the detained or missing person social morality laden with homophobic or transphobic views or any personal pre-deliction of a judge or a sympathy for the natal family must be issued if the detained or missing person express their wishes wish to not go back to the ls detainer or natal family then the person must be released immediately without any further order the courts must acknowledge that some intiIn the case of an intimate partner who faces social stigma and the legal neutrality of the situation, the Court is tasked with safeguarding their fundamental rights. Therefore, when dealing with petitions seeking police protection for same-sex, transgender, or intercaste couples, the Court must take decisive action by granting interim relief. Furthermore, the Court shall refrain from issuing directions aimed at counseling or ensuring proper parental care, as this can be detrimental to fundamental rights. The Supreme Court bench has again reiterated the importance of adhering to its previously established guidelines. As per the Court, these guidelines will serve as mandatory minimum measures designed to effectively secure the fundamental rights and dignity of intimate partners, members of the LGBTQ+ community who are illegally detained in custody. During its interactions with the corpus to ascertain their views, the judge must exercise extreme caution not to attempt, or even influence.

Post a Comment
Read more

The Supreme Court questioned the detention of activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, focusing on medical concerns, interpretations of speeches, and the provision of evidence.the detention of activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act 1980 while his wife's corpus petition challenging his detention was pending before the Supreme Court of India. During the hearing, the court raised several questions to the Union government regarding the circumstances surrounding Wangchuk's preventive detention. Wangchuk had been detained by the late district magistrate on September 26, 2025 following protests in Ladakh demanding statehood that allegedly turned violent.The detention order alleged that he was indulging in activities prejudicial to national security. After his detention, he was shifted to Jodhpur Central Jail.His wife, Dr. Gitanjali moved the Supreme Court on October 3rd seeking a writ of corpus and challenging the legality of the detention. The court issued notice to the center on October 6th, 2025. The matter was heard on multiple dates. The case was scheduled to be heard on March 17th by a bench of Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice PB Varale. However, before the hearing could take place, the center revoked the detention order with immediate effect, noting that Wangchuk had already undergone nearly half of the maximum detention period permitted under the NSA. We examine some of the key questions posed by the court during the hearing.Court urged center to consider release on medical grounds.An application was made to have Wangchuk examined by a specialist physician after he complained of stomach ache, reportedly due to water contamination, allowing for an examination.The court had asked for the medical report to be submitted. After perusing the report, the court on February 4th urged the center to review Wangchuk's detention since his health was not in good condition. The request was made by Justice Varale who had said, give it a thought as the officer of the court. The detention order was passed on the 26th of September 2025, nearly five months, considering more particularly his health and condition of the detainee, which is certainly not very good. Even the report which we saw on the earlier occasion, it shows that his health is not that good and there are certainly other factors age related. Is there any possibility for the government to rethink? However, the center refused to allow his release on medical grounds, claiming that Wangchuk's health was fine and he was getting the best of the treatment. The additional solicitor general went to the extent of saying that it was only because of his detention that he was getting a better treatment at AIMS Jodhpur, as in Ladakh, there would have been nothing. Later, the center conveyed its decision that Wangchuk can't be released on medical grounds as it can't make an exception in a preventive detention matter.Center reading too much into speeches.Throughout the hearing, the center alleged that Wangchuk wanted to break an Arab spring like uprising to overthrow the government and incited tea. He used to self-immolate as had happened during the uprising.It was also said that Wangchuk instigated youth to create riot like situations as happened in Nepal, protest in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka. It was alleged that the reference to Gandian non violence was just a facade. Further, Wangchuk was alleged to have called for a plebiscite in Kashmir and said that Tibet under China and Bstan under Pakistan enjoy more autonomy than what Ladakh enjoys.According to the center, he incited Ladakhs not to help the Indian army during wartime.Wangchuk denied that he supported an Arab uprising or self-immolation as a form of protest.It was explained that someone had asked Wangchuk what Ladakhs could do if sixth schedule demands are not met.In response to this, Wangchuk had given an example of the Arab spring and self-immolation and the recent movements in Nepal and Bangladesh, which people around the world have followed and suggested that we should form a Gandian form of non-violent protest.That is how they agreed on a hunger strike. It was also that Wangchuk was told during the interview that someone had expressed that Kargil should go with Kashmir. In response, Wangchuk said that any region should go where it is happy. He asserted that he never asked the Ladakhs not to help the Indian army during war and had, in fact, said that political issues should not be mixed with nationalism.The court repeatedly asked how all these speeches have a nexus with what happened on September 24th and how Wangchuk instigated all this.When it was argued that Wangchuk incited youth towards violent methods of protest under the facade of Gandian ways of protest, Justice Kumar remarked that the center is reading too much into his speeches. Justice Varale said that Wangchuk had in fact shown concern that young people are abandoning the Gandian ways of protest.Justice Kumar also told the SG at one point during the hearing, if you say we don't ask any questions, we won't ask any questions.Questions over four videos.Since the very beginning, Wangchuk maintained that he was supplied with incomplete grounds of detention on September 29th. Four videos dated September 10th, 11th and 24th referred in the detention order were supplied to him after 28 days only on October 23rd and the hearing of the advisory board was the next day. It was also submitted that Wangchuk had made various representations to the authorities asking for the four videos to be furnished, but he was not given any response. The affidavit filed by the late district magistrate stated that Wangchuk was supplied with grounds of detention on September 29th within the five days specified under section 8 of the NSA. It was vehemently claimed that it is an afterthought to claim that four videos were not supplied to him as Dig had personally gone to meet him and showed him the contents of the detention order. The whole exercise was videographed.Later, it also pointed to that there is an acknowledgement by Wangchuk as well that he has seen those four videos. Subsequent to this, Wangchuk had submitted that indeed it was videographed, but the video had no audio and Wangchuk was only shown the thumbnails of the folders which apparently contained those videos. It was mentioned that Wangchuk did not raise this issue then because he was under the impression that he would be able to see it later and challenge it. Wangchuk was given a laptop on October 5th and when he checked the pen drive, the four videos were not there. It was also mentioned that a day before on October 4th, the advisory board had already confirmed his detention. The court questioned whether there was an endorsement by Wangchuk that he had seen those four videos. Justice Varale asked if there was any specific evidence on record to show that Wangchuk had seen those videos, considering he had written four to five letters asking for those videos and there was no response.It ordered that the pen drive furnished to Wangchuk on September 29th be placed in a sealed cover before the court. Justice Varale asked whether such endorsement was obtained that videos are being shown to the detainee and the detainee has seen the video. This endorsement only refers to that he has received documents in a pen drive. It is not disclosed in the endorsement that he had occasion to see the videos. If you have shown the video, you could have drawn a statement to that effect and obtained his signature.Justice Kumar also questioned why no reply was given to the queries regarding this by Wangchuk.Justice Kumar said, SG Natraj, he only said he received documents as per the above index, but he does not say he has seen the contents of those videos. Justice Kumar told Natraj, Mr. Natraj, assuming for a moment, say, we accept your contention, then when he gave this representation, you could have just denied it. Have you done it?More particularly, when the matter was seized by this matter, this is the 13th of October, by which time we were hearing the matter.Let us give that video.Court flags inaccuracy with translations of speeches. Wangchuk had raised the issue of the translation of speeches in the arguments and during rejoinder. It was argued that the speeches were deliberately misinterpreted and his speech appealing for peace was not placed before the detaining authority. The court orally questioned the accuracy of the translation given by the Union and remarked that there should not be any malice in the context that if Wangchuk's original speeches of three to four minutes, the translation should not be of 10 minutes. The bench then asked for a true translation of all speeches along with the original records. Justice Kumar stated that in the era of artificial intelligence, the accuracy is about 98% in translation. Justice Kumar said, even in the tabular column you have given chart by additional solicitor General KM Natraj, this does not find a place at all. That day does not find a place in the detention order. If this is the basis on which you formed your opinion order for detaining him, it should find a place.Justice Varale orally remarked, there should be at least the correct transcript of what he states.You may have your reasons, assuming you are supporting the order, saying that it was for the detaining authority in what way the speech was given and whether it had the impact or effect. At least whatever he stated in the speeches, we expect the true translation.There should not be any malice or it should not be that what he said is two to three minutes and your translation goes for seven to eight minutes, 10 minutes. Whereas the speeches of three minutes, saying that I condemn this.Let us stop this. Perhaps we started, but as the violence is there, let us stop this.That is only three minutes and your translation goes to 10 minutes, then there is certainly a big variance in that.In response to the questions raised by the court, the center said it wanted to say something substantial on this, but no effective hearing took place after that and the matter got a journ on the next few dates. Last week, the matter was a journ till March 17th due to the ill health of the solicitor general.

Post a Comment
Read more

The Digital Data Protection Act 2023 is a game-changing privacy law that recognizes and enforces the digital privacy rights of Indian citizens.The Digital Data Protection Act 2023: A Complete Legal Analysis of This Game-Changing Privacy Law. The Digital Data Protection Act, shortly the DP Act 2023, is definitely a watershed moment in India's legal and constitutional evolution. This Act is an epoch-making law that recognises and enforces the digital privacy right. So, according to me, the digital privacy right – I mean, protection of the digital privacy right – is one of the most important legal topics in the world, especially in the Indian context. Such a law is not only important, but such a law is a condition precedent to protect the privacy of Indian citizens. This is the first legislation that marks a comprehensive statutory framework that is dedicated exclusively to personal data protection in the digital world. Now, we all know that the world is governed by a digital revolution. The digital revolution that effectively came into India in 2016, after that 4G, and now 5G. Perhaps we are moving towards 6G. In such a case, we require such a law urgently. We all know that in a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court pronounced a landmark judgement in *Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India* that was decided in the year 2017, and that case recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Mainly, in that case, the Supreme Court gave us some abstract principles on data protection as well as the right to privacy, and this Act is the concrete step towards achieving that goal. This legislation emerged at a critical time when there are more than 86 million Indians using the internet daily, and the Parliament was compelled to establish a robust mechanism to safeguard personal data against unauthorised access, misuse, and exploitation. For the first time in Indian history, this Act introduces very important concepts like data fiduciaries and data principals, which establish stringent obligations for entities processing personal data, and which creates a regulatory architecture to impose penalties that may reach up to 250 crore for violations. Unlike its previous framework that relied primarily on sectoral regulation under the Information Technology Act 2000, this Act provides a unified, purpose-driven approach to data governance, which balances innovation with protection, economic growth with individual autonomy, and technological advancement with fundamental rights. The journey towards a comprehensive data protection law began with the historic judgement of the Supreme Court, as already being stated, in the famous case of *Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India*, where a nine-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court unanimously declared that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution. Then Judge D.Y. Chandrachud, who later became Chief Justice of India, in his seminal opinion emphasised that privacy includes the right to informational self-determination and recognised that individuals must have control over the dissemination of personal information. This judgement overruled and altered the legal landscape which was decided in the famous case of *M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra*, which was decided in 1954, and also *Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, decided in 1963, which had declined to recognise privacy as a constitutional right. In this respect, I am also mentioning that in *Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, then a famous judge, K. Subbarao, delivered one of the best dissenting judgements of his time, where he held that the right to privacy was a fundamental right. The *Puttaswamy* judgement specifically addressed concerns surrounding the Aadhaar project and WhatsApp data sharing policies. Again, in that Aadhaar case, Justice Chandrachud delivered another dissenting judgement. Consequently, the Government of India constituted the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee, which submitted its report in July 2018, ultimately leading to the formulation and passage of the Digital Data Protection Act in 2023. This Act represents the legislative crystallisation of the constitutional vision which was articulated in the famous *Puttaswamy* case. Of course, that judgement only formulated and gave us some abstract principles, and it transformed privacy from a judicially recognised right to a legally recognised right. The DP Act demonstrates an expansive jurisdictional approach that is applying to the processing of digital personal data within the territory of India, whether such data is collected in both online and offline modes. Critically, Section 2 extends the application extra-territorially to entities outside India if they are processing data in connection with offering goods or services to data principals within India, or profiling such individuals. This extra-territorial provision mirrors the approach adopted by the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, ensuring that Indian citizens' data remains protected regardless of where the processing entities are physically located. Of course, data in the 21st century cannot be a subject matter of state jurisdiction; rather, we require international cooperation. This Act introduces fundamental definitional frameworks that structure the entire regulatory architecture. A data fiduciary refers to any person who, alone or in conjunction with others, determines the purpose and means of processing personal data. The data principal, defined under Section 2(j), is the individual to whom personal data relates, thereby positioning the individual as the central stakeholder. The Act innovatively introduces the concept of a consent manager under Section 2(g) registered with the Data Protection Board of India. Sector 2 of this Act, comprising Sections 4 through 9, establishes comprehensive obligations that data fiduciaries must observe when processing personal data. So, I am not going to discuss elaborately the sections, but rather I have given a glimpse of this Act. In this respect, I am also mentioning some important judgements, like the first judgement is *K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India* that was decided in 2017. Again, *K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India* that was decided in 2019. It is known as the Aadhaar Judgement. Next, *M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra*, decided in 1954. Next, *Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, decided in 1963. Last but not least, *WhatsApp LLC v. Union of India*, decided in 2017.

Post a Comment
Read more

The sinking of the Iris Dena by the American submarine incident serves as a stark reminder and a clear warning to India. A significant number of influential security experts, including numerous former army generals, believe that the Americans sent a very direct message to India, urging India to exercise restraint and avoid demonstrating an excessive level of ambition within the Indian Ocean region. As a prominent guest of our program, Iris Dena, who recently returned from India, stressed that the incident in question posed no genuine threat to the United States. The vessel was destroyed in international waters, and this constitutes a blatant violation of international law. If the incident had occurred significantly closer to the American shore, the situation would undoubtedly be far more serious. However, since the incident transpired several thousand kilometers away from the American mainland, that indicates that American submarines, satellites, and spy ships were closely monitoring the activities of that particular naval exercise.Indian navy is frequently exercising in the Indian Ocean region,and our news channels talk about Chinese threat or assertive Chinese presence.In the highly improbable scenario of a hypothetical war against the United States, American supercarriers and submarines could effectively obliterate the military infrastructure of India through their barrage of missile strikes from the Indian Ocean. Our assets are strategically located to be prepared to engage adversaries like China or Pakistan.Currently, India is obligated to develop its missile technology specifically for the purpose of targeting the American supercarriers. To accomplish this, they require the assistance of Russia. Moreover, the American submarines present a significant threat due to their considerable destructive capabilities, capable of targeting any target within India's territory.It is simply not something that we can reasonably conclude that a war with America is highly improbable, especially considering the rapid and unpredictable nature of contemporary geopolitical developments. Anything can happen.

Post a Comment
Read more

The Iranian experience has demonstrated that there is no logical sense in spending billions of dollars acquiring some Western jets, particularly if they are supposed to be 5th-generation aircraft. While Iran currently operates an air force largely composed of older, vintage jets, they possess a highly formidable arsenal of supersonic, hypersonic missiles, coupled with a sophisticated network of drones. The strategic assets possessed by Iran have undoubtedly demonstrated their military capabilities, significantly influencing the entire Middle East region. The necessity for jets comes from their need to fire missiles in order to defend the sky and effectively target high-value targets by employing cruise missiles. Additionally, Iran operates both air-to-ground and air-to-air missiles. Despite their limited air defense capability, largely consisting of outdated Russian S300 and Chinese HQ9 systems, which have failed to effectively protect Iranian airspace, Iran managed to inflict substantial damage upon American military bases. Moreover, despite their formidable four-layered air defense system, Israel has consistently failed to effectively intercept Iranian missiles, demonstrating the significant challenge they pose. Furthermore, the lethal nature of Iran's cheap drones has prompted the United States to seek assistance from Ukraine, whom they plan to utilize in intercepting these Iranian Shaheed drones due to their deployment against Russia.I wouldn't say that Americans have a truly well-defined objective for this war. If their intention was to replace the Iranian regime, how would they go about it, and would the Iranians actually accept their chosen replacement.

Post a Comment
Read more

Iranian tactics are the classic examples of Persian military strategy; Iran is reported to possess the world's largest fleet of such kamikaze cheap drones, and these drones are entirely domestically manufactured. Remarkably, each drone costs only around $35,000, yet it's capable of carrying a substantial payload of 50 kilograms and can operate over an impressive range of 2,500 kilometers. However, these drones are relatively slow, and both the Israelis and the Americans find themselves having to fire Patriot missiles, which, despite their effectiveness, cost roughly $3.7 million per shot. Iran's current approach is to unleash hundreds of these drones simultaneously in order to overwhelm the enemy's defensive capabilities. Due to this situation, Americans are now reportedly turning to deploying laser guns, seemingly as a desperate measure in their attempt to shoot them down. Meanwhile, Iran is reported to be firing subsonic and supersonic ballistic missiles with the intention of targeting several American bases located in the Middle East. Iran has developed a strategy where they first employ subsonic missiles in order to effectively neutralize enemy defenses. Subsequently, they rely heavily on supersonic missiles, renowned for their remarkable precision. Now, it's been reported that Iran is also firing hypersonic missiles, along with cluster munitions, directly at Israel.Russians are providing Iranians the accurate intelligence of American's location,a hotel in Kuwait was hit by such Kamikazi ,Baghdad was also hit.In the present circumstances, Americans are being compelled to rely on the utilization of B52, B1, and B2 bombers, while a third supercarrier has finally reached the Arabian Sea. As a direct consequence of this, the Iranians find themselves now engaged in a conflict characterized by an asymmetric approach.Given the significant disparities in military strength and resources between Iran and the United States, is it realistically feasible for the Iranian military to put up a comparable fight to what Afghan or Vietnamese forces successfully managed against the American forces in past conflicts?

Post a Comment
Read more

Russia holds a prominent position on the world stage as a major producer of oil, and its colossal size is contrasted by its comparatively modest population of less than 15 crores. Given these circumstances, it is safe to say that Russia is undoubtedly an exceptionally remarkable country. Consequently, the domestic demand for oil in Russia tends to be significantly lower and less extensive. In comparison, countries like India and China, with a combined population of 2.9 billion people, are severely dependent on oil imports, primarily drawn from the Gulf nations and Russia itself. In fact, China emerges as the largest customer for Russian oil and energy, with India not far behind. Furthermore, given the extremely convenient proximity of their borders, which stretch out over a considerable distance of more than one thousand kilometers, transporting and delivering Russian oil supplies to China becomes significantly easier. However, when it comes to the supply of oil to India, it's crucial to note a distinct difference. Russian oil tankers first need to navigate through the Bosphorus Strait, which connects the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. Once they have reached the Mediterranean, they then have to continue their journey across the Suez Canal, a waterway under the control of Egypt, in order to reach the Red Sea.A US aircraft carrier supercarrier is currently stationed and actively patrolling the waters of the Red Sea. The presence of this carrier is largely due to the concern that Iran's proxy group known as the Houthi, a Shia radical armed faction, poses a potential threat to oil tankers traveling in the region. However, it's important to note that the Houthis have demonstrably avoided targeting Russian tankers. Following its operation in the Red Sea, the tankers then proceeds to enter the Arabian Sea, ultimately reaching its destination ports in the state of Gujarat.Russian tankers are now sailing with 9.5 million barrels of oil with a distance over 8700 nautical miles , nearly 17000 kilometres.But distance from Hormuz strait to Gujrat 1800 kilometres approximately,so Hormuz is vital for our survival.

Post a Comment
Read more