&w=3840&q=100)
Congo Church Massacre: At least 21 killed by Islamic State-backed rebels
In yet another brutal assault in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, more than 21 people were killed on Sunday when Islamic State-linked rebels attacked a Catholic church complex in Komanda, torching homes and shops and leaving behind scenes of devastation.
The pre-dawn raid, carried out by members of the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), unfolded around 1 a.m. and left multiple bodies both inside and outside the church. Local civil society leader Dieudonné Duranthabo reported that three of the victims were found burnt, and warned that the death toll could rise as search efforts continue.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The ADF, which has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group, has repeatedly targeted civilians across the border regions of Uganda and Congo. Just weeks ago, the group was responsible for a massacre in Ituri province, prompting the UN to describe the violence as a 'bloodbath.'
Military officials confirmed the Komanda incident. 'At least 10 people were killed in a machete attack on a church near the town,' said Lt. Jules Ngongo, army spokesperson for Ituri province. Shops nearby were also set on fire, he added.
The ADF, originally formed in Uganda in the 1990s, moved into Congo in 2002 after facing military pressure at home. Since then, it has launched a prolonged campaign of violence, killing thousands of civilians. The group's leadership envisions an Islamic state in the region.
Duranthabo criticised the lack of effective security in Komanda despite the presence of government forces. He said some residents were now fleeing toward Bunia, fearing further violence. 'We need immediate military support — the enemy is still close,' he said.
As Congo's army continues its battle against the ADF, it is also contending with fresh clashes involving the M23 rebel group, which Kinshasa accuses of receiving support from Rwanda.
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
India's Crude Oil Imports From U.S. Jump 51% Since Donald Trump's Return To White House
India has sharply increased crude oil imports from the US during President Donald Trump's second term, marking a major energy policy shift. In the first half of 2025, US crude imports rose over 50% year-on-year, reaching 0.271 million barrels per day. The April–June quarter saw a 114% surge, with the value rising from $1.73 billion to $3.7 billion. In July, imports rose 23% over June, increasing the US share in India's oil mix from 3% to 8%. LNG imports nearly doubled to $2.46 billion, and LPG imports also grew. Talks are ongoing for a long-term LNG deal. Despite growing energy ties, a setback emerged as Trump announced 25% tariffs on Indian goods, effective August 7, citing trade barriers, imbalances, and India's ties with Russia. He posted strong criticism of India on Truth Social, dismissing its economic relationship with the US and calling for separation from Russia-linked economies.#crudeoil #indiaustrade #trumptariffs #energytrade #indiarussia #lng #lpg #truthtalk #geopolitics #internationalrelations #toi #toibharat Read More
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Why India must shift to strategic offence to secure Kashmir
The strategic verdict is clear: deterrence alone is no longer enough read more An Indian Army soldier looks out from an armoured vehicle on a highway leading to south Kashmir's Pahalgam, in Marhama village, in Kashmir. File image/ Reuters On April 22, 2025, Baisaran, a higher valley above Pahalgam, echoed not with the laughter of visiting tourists but with gunfire. Armed terrorists emerged from the pine forest, forcing tourists to line up and demanding they recite Islamic verses. Those who faltered were executed on the spot. Twenty-six civilians, including a Nepali national and several newlyweds, were murdered in what was no random killing but a calculated Hindu massacre. Among the dead was Manjunath, visiting Kashmir with his wife, Pallavi, and son, who survived only because a terrorist chillingly told Pallavi, 'I won't kill you. Go and tell Modi.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Intelligence inputs revealed that the perpetrators were foreign terrorists, affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a UN-proscribed terror outfit headquartered in Muridke, Pakistan. Forensic teams later confirmed that terrorists used Chinese AK-47s and American M4 carbine assault rifles. The men were trained killers, infiltrated via Pakistan-Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK), supported by Pakistan's military, and facilitated by its intelligence agency, the ISI. As grief engulfed the nation, action followed. Within hours, Union Home Minister Amit Shah was on the ground in Srinagar. Prime Minister Narendra Modi cut short his Saudi state visit and convened the Cabinet Committee on Security meeting just off the tarmac at Delhi Airport the next day. By then Intelligence had identified the terrorists: Suleiman, Jibran, and Hamza 'Afghani', all Pakistani nationals trained in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). Armed with solid evidence directly implicating Pakistan, PM Modi swiftly ordered immediate diplomatic and economic countermeasures against Islamabad. Citing material breach, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, with Modi asserting that 'blood and water cannot flow together'. Pakistan's diplomats were expelled, and all visas were cancelled. Simultaneously, India's security establishment swiftly mobilised to deliver its own decisive response. The reply came on May 7 when a deep-penetration multi-strike into PoJK and Pakistan's Punjab province codenamed 'Operation Sindoor' obliterated nurseries of terror across the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Border. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD PM Modi named the operation 'Sindoor', a word that connotes both sanctity and bereavement: many of the Baisaran victims were newly married Hindu couples, their crimson vermilion barely set before widowhood descended. Guided by satellite reconnaissance and advanced targeting technologies, Indian Armed Forces executed a series of exquisitely calibrated strikes against nine terrorist redoubts: Lashkar-e-Taiba's Sawai Nala and Bilal camps in Muzaffarabad; Jaish-e-Mohammed's Gulpur and Abbas facilities in Kotli; and, most infamously, the sprawling Markaz Taiba at Muridke, the very academy that trained the gunmen who ravaged Mumbai in 2008. The barrage then shifted southwest to Bahawalpur, where Markaz Subhanallah, the headquarters of Jaish-e-Mohammed and its founder, Masood Azhar, was reduced to rubble. These were no indiscriminate strikes but the surgical excision of Pakistan's radical jihadist terror infrastructure: more than one hundred terrorists, including senior trainers and recruiters, were eliminated. Islamabad's protestations of civilian casualties and religious infrastructure swiftly unravelled when leaked images revealed state funerals for UN-proscribed, now-dead terrorists, coffins draped in the Pakistani national flag, borne by officers of the ISI, local police, and the Pakistan Army. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Pakistan's riposte to the Indian strikes on terror was a blunt show of asymmetric force; swarms of Turkish-made Songar and STM Kargu and Chinese-supplied drones targeted Indian civilians in cities such as Amritsar, Jammu, Srinagar, and Surat, while heavy artillery raked the LoC along Samba, Poonch, Rajouri, and more, indiscriminately hitting Gurdwaras, churches, and temples along the LoC. India's layered, largely indigenous air defence web, fronted by made-in-India S-400 batteries at Adampur and backed by Akash and Barak-8 interceptors, shot down almost all of those unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and loitering ammo, an effectiveness the world witnessed in awe and defence equipment companies scrambled to comprehend. Recognising that Pakistan had decided to hit its civilians, New Delhi swiftly switched from defence to punishment: in a 22-minute blitz, cued by space-based Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and AI-fused targeting, India crippled Pakistan's air infrastructure, flattening drone hubs at Murid, gutting fighter pens at Rafiqui and Chunian, shattering Sukkur's runway, and knocking Nur Khan's AWACS shelters offline. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With radar screens dark and sortie rates collapsed, Pakistan's Director-General of Military Operations rang his Indian counterpart to plead for an immediate 'stoppage of firing'. PM Modi informed Parliament that India accepted, without a hint of external mediation, its objective achieved and its message unmistakably clear. While Islamabad scrambled to tender repairs for its obliterated airbases, New Delhi redoubled the hunt on home soil. Operation Mahadev, an integrated sweep by the Army, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and Jammu and Kashmir Police, shadowed the Baisaran terrorists through dense woodland for fourteen weeks until, on July 28, 2025, the Baisaran terrorist trio was surrounded and neutralised in a Dachigam forest block outside Srinagar, under the brooding silhouette of Mount Mahadev. Among the items recovered were the very AK-47s used in the Baisaran Hindu massacre, Pakistani voter-identity cards, and chocolate bars stamped 'Made in Lahore'. When India's Home Minister, Amit Shah, rose in Parliament to confirm the terrorists deaths, his statement was met with thunderous applause. More than 1,000 local residents had been interviewed, those who harboured them were arrested, and the bodies were identified by courageous citizens. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Building on the precedent set by the 2016 surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot airstrike, Operation Sindoor established an entirely new threshold. Henceforth, any terrorist assault upon Indian soil will be treated as an act of war; New Delhi will draw no distinction between the terrorists and the state that shelters them; and Pakistan's habitual nuclear blackmail will no longer afford it protection. Above all, Operation Sindoor remains unfinished business. The era of 'strategic restraint' was laid to rest and replaced by 'offensive defence', the doctrine championed by National Security Adviser Ajit Doval. The policy shift is historical. However, for several decades Islamabad's proxy war has been personified by a succession of Pakistani nationals who slipped across the LoC, wrought carnage, and, in most cases, died on Indian soil. Mast Gul set the grim template in 1995 when, leading Harkat-ul-Ansar terrorists, he torched the revered Charar-e-Sharief and escaped to a hero's welcome in PoJK. A generation later Lashkar-e-Taiba's Abu Qasim masterminded the August 5, 2015, Udhampur highway ambush that killed Border Security Force troopers, only to fall in a Kulgam encounter that October. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD His mantle passed to Abu Dujana, whose video-broadcast bravado masked a record of hit-and-run assaults on Pampore and other army posts until he was gunned down in Pulwama in August 2017. That same year, LeT gunman Abu Ismail planned the Amarnath Yatra bus attack, murdering eight Hindu pilgrims; he lasted barely two months before being cornered on Srinagar's outskirts. The most notorious of the lot, Naveed Jatt, escaped police custody from Srinagar's SMHS Hospital in 2018, assassinated senior Kashmiri journalist Shujaat Bukhari, and was himself neutralised by the Indian Security forces that November in Budgam. Each terrorist enjoyed ISI facilitation, specialised in high-profile ambushes designed for maximum communal shock, and left behind a trail of civilian and security-force deaths that highlight how PoJK's occupation has resulted in its curation as a factory for cross-border terror. While the amendment of Article 370 of the Indian constitution in 2019 changed the ground reality. With local terrorist recruitment drying up, Pakistan turned increasingly to foreign fighters. The target killing of Hindus, labourers in Kashmir under the false pretext of domicile recipients, the Reasi terror attack in 2024, and the Baisaran Hindu massacre in 2025 are proof of Pakistani desperation, and India's reply is proof of capability. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Ultimately, enduring security in the Himalayas hinges on reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Jammu & Kashmir and the Pakistan-occupied Territories of Ladakh (PoTL), illegally occupied in 1947 and methodically fashioned into a crucible of jihad. Muzaffarabad's training grids and the Neelum Valley's shadowed ravines continue to disgorge terrorists and hateful indoctrination across the Line of Control; so long as these launchpads and extremist ideologues persist, peace will remain elusive. Now, grief has hardened into resolve: from Srinagar's streets to Rameshwaram's shores, Indians of every shade stand united behind decisive action. The strategic verdict is clear: deterrence alone is no longer enough. Hence, India's strategy must now include not just 'offensive defence' but reclamation. Rahul Pawa is an international criminal lawyer and director of research at New Delhi based think tank Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
‘Strong suspicion, no legal proof': Why all 7 accused in the 2008 Malegoan bomb blast case walked free
A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court on Thursday (July 31, 2025) acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, including Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Pragya Singh Thakur and serving Army Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit. In a detailed 1,036-page judgment that was delivered on July 31 and made available on August 1 evening, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti observed that although the occurrence of the bomb blast was indisputable, the prosecution had failed to produce credible and admissible evidence establishing the accused's involvement in the crime. 'I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter,' the Judge underscored. However, he directed the State Government to pay compensation of ₹2 lakh to the families of the deceased and ₹50,000 to those injured in the blast. Editorial | By evidence alone: on the 2008 Malegaon blast trial What was the Malegaon blast case? On September 29, 2008, during the holy month of Ramzan, a powerful bomb blast ripped through Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra. Around 9:35 p.m., an explosive device concealed in an LML Freedom motorcycle with a fake number plate (MH-15-P-4572) detonated near Shakeel Goods Transport Company, between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk. The explosion killed six people, injured 95 others, and caused significant damage to surrounding property. An FIR was promptly registered, and the investigation was initially undertaken by the Nashik Rural Police and Mumbai's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), then headed by Hemant Karkare, who was later killed in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. In 2011, the case was transferred to the NIA as part of a wider probe into alleged Hindutva-linked terror cases. Of the 14 individuals arrested in connection with the blast, charges against seven were eventually dropped. The remaining seven, Pragya Singh Thakur, Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, and Sudhakar Chaturvedi, were put on trial. They were prosecuted for murder and criminal conspiracy under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. According to the ATS, conspiracy meetings had taken place across various locations allegedly under Ms. Thakur's leadership. The agency also claimed that the two absconding accused, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, had assembled the explosive device and placed it in the boot of a motorcycle registered to Ms. Thakur. However, several witnesses, including serving Army officers, later retracted their statements in court, alleging that their earlier testimonies had been coerced. Many of the accused also claimed that their confessions were extracted under torture. The NIA appeared to accept parts of these allegations in its final chargesheet, which the defence used to bolster its case. The case also attracted widespread attention following the resignation of NIA special public prosecutor Rohini Salian, who alleged that she had been instructed to 'go soft' on the accused and that the agency was deliberately weakening the case against the so-called 'Hindu terror' network. After her departure, special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over and conducted the trial to its conclusion. Why were the accused acquitted by the court? Here are some of the key findings: Thakur was not in 'conscious possession' of motorcycle The court held that Ms. Thakur was not in 'conscious possession' of the LML Freedom motorcycle in which the explosive device was allegedly planted. Citing her renunciation of the material world at least two years before the blast, Judge Lahoti observed, 'Prosecution had not led any evidence on record to show that she was in conscious possession of the said motorcycle even after renouncement of the material world. Nobody has seen her with the said motorcycle, or it was with her at Jabalpur Aashram even after taking the Sanyas.' The Judge further observed that there was neither eyewitness testimony nor circumstantial evidence to suggest that Ms. Thakur had handed over the motorcycle to the co-accused or was involved in assembling the explosive device. Instead, he noted that the explosive could have been hung, placed, or kept near the motorcycle, rather than fitted inside it. 'Mere, blast on the site and damaged condition of the motorcycle are not conclusive proof of fitting explosives inside the dikki, i.e., beneath the seat of said motorcycle,' the Judge observed, adding that expert testimony did not rule out the possibility of the device being attached externally or placed nearby. As for allegations of torture by the ATS, the court noted that Ms. Thakur had not raised any such complaint when she was produced before a magistrate on October 24, 2008, following her arrest. Citing an earlier Supreme Court order, the Judge pointed out that she neither made any allegations of ill-treatment at the time nor challenged the magistrate's remand order. No official sanction for Purohit's association with Abhinav Bharat The ATS alleged that the explosive used in the blast was RDX, claiming it had been procured by Colonel Purohit during his posting in Jammu & Kashmir. However, the court found no evidence establishing the source of the explosive or how it was procured or transported. It also noted the absence of any proof regarding who had parked the motorcycle at the blast site or when, particularly since the area had been cordoned off for Ramzan. However, Judge Lahoti rejected Mr. Purohit's claim that his association with fringe organisations like Abhinav Bharat was part of his official duties as an intelligence officer. He noted that documentary evidence clearly established Mr. Purohit's role as a trustee of the Abhinav Bharat Trust. However, there was no material on record to suggest that his superiors had authorised him to join the trust or to collect and utilise its funds. 'As per the ethos of the Military Intelligence, the commanding officer or the Discipline & Vigilance Branch used to protect the interests of officers and sources. But after the arrest of A-9 (Mr. Purohit), no steps were taken to protect their officer. If he had really discharged the duty under the colour of his office, there would have been protection for him,' the Judge reasoned. Absence of forensic evidence Judge Lahoti observed that the forensic expert who examined the motorcycle, on which the explosive device was allegedly planted, had admitted that it was merely his 'guesswork' that led him to conclude the bomb was placed in the vehicle's boot. No scientific test had been conducted to verify the placement of the explosive. Accordingly, the Judge held that in the absence of any primary forensic analysis, the expert's testimony failed to inspire confidence. 'The present matter is [a] serious case of bomb-blast. In such a case, mere guess work is not enough. Neither it is expected from expert when he is specifically called on the spot to collect the articles, to assist and to guide the Investigating Agency by carrying out some scientific tests. In such situation, there must be some scientific test to be carried out by an expert on the spot to arrive at certain conclusion,' the Judge emphasised. Procedural lapses in the invocation of MCOCA and UAPA The ATS, which initially investigated the blast, based its case primarily on the accused having participated in conspiracy meetings related to the planning and execution of the attack. Its key evidence comprised confessional statements recorded under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999. However, these confessions were rendered inadmissible after MCOCA was dropped from the case in 2016, when the NIA took over the investigation and flagged procedural lapses in the Act's invocation. The court concurred, noting that the sanction to invoke MCOCA had been granted without 'application of judicial mind.' A similar procedural lapse was found in the invocation of the UAPA. Judge Lahoti noted that the then Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, Mumbai, Chitkala Zutshi, had failed to consult the investigating officer before granting sanction under the UAPA. As a result, the statutory presumptions under the Act, such as the reverse burden of proof, could not be invoked against the accused, the court held. No merit in claim that ATS directed arrest of RSS chief The court rejected the claim made by former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar that he had been instructed to arrest RSS chief Mr. Mohan Bhagwat in connection with the case. Judge Lahoti found no merit in the argument advanced by the lawyer for the accused, Mr. Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, who had relied on Mr. Mujawar's statements before a Solapur court. Mr. Mujawar had alleged that senior ATS officers directed him to arrest Mr. Bhagwat to frame the case as one of 'saffron terror,' but said he refused, having found no evidence linking Mr. Bhagwat to the alleged crime. However, the Judge relied on the testimony of Mr. Mohan Kulkarni, the then chief investigating officer, who stated that Mr. Mujawar was only tasked with tracing the absconding accused, Mr. Ramji Kalsangra and Mr. Sandeep Dange, and was never instructed to arrest any RSS leader. The court also noted that Mr. Mujawar was neither listed nor examined as a witness by either side. Accordingly, it concluded that the statements submitted were part of Mr. Mujawar's defence in another case and held no evidentiary value in the present trial. What happens next? Advocate Shahid Nadeem, representing Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayyed Bilal, who lost his son in the blast, told the media that the case reflected 'significant failures' on the part of the NIA. He added that the victims' families intend to explore legal remedies by filing an independent appeal in the Bombay High Court after reviewing the full judgment. Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting on the Maharashtra Government to file its own appeal, as it did following the acquittals in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. Twelve Muslim men were acquitted after spending 19 years in prison, with the High Court issuing scathing observations on the use of torture during the investigation. The State had moved the Supreme Court the very next day, prompting the apex court to clarify that the High Court's observations could not serve as precedent in other similar cases. In the present case, however, Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal, appearing for the NIA, said a decision on whether to file an appeal would be made only after a detailed study of the judgment.
