Two out of three LeT terrorists identified in Shopian encounter linked to past attacks
Three of the terrorists were killed in the Shukroo forest area of Keller in the Shopian district.
According to sources, one of the terrorists was identified as Shahid Kuttay, son of Mohd Yousuf Kuttay and a resident of Chotipora Heerpora in Shopian.
He was a Category A, LeT operative who was involved in the firing incident at the Danish Resort in Srinagar on April 8, 2024, in which two German tourists and one driver were injured. He joined the terror outfit on March 8, 2023.
Kuttay was involved in the killing of a BJP Sarpanch at Heerpora on May 18, 2024 and was suspect involved in the killing of Territorial Army Personnel at Behibagh in Kulgam on February 3, 2025.
The other identified terrorist was Adnan Shafi Dar, son of Mohd Shafi Dar, who was a resident of Wanduna Melhora in Shopian. He joined the terror outfit on October 18, 2024 and was a category C LeT operative. He was involved in the killing of non-local labourers at Wachi in Shopian on October 18, 2024.
However, the identity of the last terrorist is yet to be confirmed.
According to the source, the terrorists were encountered around 8:00 am today following specific intelligence related to terrorists hiding in the Shukroo forest area of Keller.
This came following a massive cordon-and-search operation launched in the forests of Kellar after receiving specific input about the presence of some terrorists in the region, as per a top police official.
Meanwhile, posters were seen in different parts of Pulwama District, announcing Rs 20 lakh reward for information on terrorists involved in the Pahalgam terror attack.
Earlier, the Jammu and Kashmir Police released sketches and identities of three terrorists said to be involved in the terror attack in Pahalgam.
All three terrorists are affiliated with the Lashkar-e-Taiba and a bounty of Rs 20 lakh for each of the three terrorists was announced by the Police.
The terror operatives were identified as Hussain Thoker, a native of Anantnag; Ali Bhai, also known as Talha Bhai; and Hasim Musa, also known as Suleiman. Of the three LeT operatives, Musa and Talha are suspected to be Pakistani terrorists, while Thokar is a Kashmiri local.
The operation comes on the heels of India achieving stupendous success in Operation Sindoor, where precision strikes saw the elimination of nearly 100 terror operatives at key bases in Pakistan. Among the targets were Bhawalpur, the Headquarters of the Jaish and Muridke, a key training base of the Lashkar. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
10 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Prada's Kolhapuri sandal copies show that law alone can't protect India's cultural capital
Earlier this month, Italian fashion house Prada sparked an uproar in India when its newest collection at the Milan Fashion Week featured open-toe leather sandals that strongly resembled the iconic Kolhapuri chappal. Priced at Rs 1.2 lakh per pair, nearly 300 times their value in Kolhapur, these sandals were showcased by Prada without any mention of their cultural origins or the communities in the subcontinent that have sustained the industry around them. Since 2019, the Kolhapuri chappal has had geographical indication status – meaning that it is protected by an intellectual property rights regime that acknowledges that goods originating from a specific region possess a reputation and distinctive qualities or characteristics inherently linked to that location. A GI tag is a legal stamp that protects the cultural and economic identity of products from a certain place, such as champagne from France or Darjeeling tea from India. The Prada incident put the focus on the limitations of India's GI regime in enforcing the protection of its heritage when it was co-opted on the global stage. For decades, India's intellectual property trajectory in the cultural sector has been one of seeking recognition: mapping traditional knowledge systems, celebrating heritage crafts and filing for geographical indications with the hope that a legal tag would be enough to protect them. But recognition is not the same as enforcement. GI status legally identifies a product as originating from a specific region, and grants exclusive rights to local artisans, manufacturers, or registered associations in that region to use its name. It stops others from misusing the region-based name and lets authentic producers benefit from both cultural identity and direct income. The backlash in India against Prada's sandals accused the firm of cultural appropriation and theft of intellectual property. Yet, legally, the anger went nowhere. A public interest litigation before the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction against Prada was dismissed, largely on procedural grounds: the petitioners were not the registered GI proprietors and public interest was not adequately demonstrated. This signals the limitations of enforcing India's GI regime. Until now, GI registration has been celebrated as an end in itself, as a badge of honour that marks cultural uniqueness. But what happens when that uniqueness is exploited abroad, stripped of context and sold back to the world as high fashion? The case of the Kolhapuri chappal may be the first real test of how GI protection needs to evolve beyond domestic pride. GI tags In India, GIs are governed by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which came into force in 2003 following India's commitments under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement. GI protection allows local artisans, manufacturers, and registered associations to register traditional products and prevent others from using the GI name without authorisation. Since the inception of the GI regime, over 400 Indian products have been registered: from Banarasi and Pochampally ikat saris and Mysore silk, to Nagaland's Naga mircha chilli, Kullu shawls and Aranmula Kannadi metal mirrors from Kerala. These registrations confer exclusive rights to artisans, manufacturers, artisans and officially recognised producer associations based in those regions to produce, market, and financially benefit from the GI-labelled goods. For instance, Basmati rice, one of India's leading GI products, generated export earnings of approximately Rs 38,000 crore in the financial year 2022-'23, showcasing the immense commercial potential of GI recognition. Core flaw Under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, enforcement hinges on the use of the GI name itself or instances of consumer confusion. Prada did neither. It did not market its sandals as Kolhapuris nor did it mislead its customer base about the product's origin. The company sidestepped the law's textual boundaries, while arguably trampling on its spirit. That highlights a core flaw in India's GI law: it was not framed to address subtle, stylised forms of imitation in transnational fashion circuits. This is not the first time Indian culture has been borrowed without acknowledgement. In 2018, for instance, Indian design studio People Tree said French fashion house Christian Dior had copied one of its prints. Similarly, H&M's 'Wanderlust' collection, created in collaboration with Indian designer Sabyasachi Mukherjee, was claimed to have used GI-tagged hand-block prints without involving or compensating the artisan communities responsible for them. But two elements make the Kolhapuri chappal episode stand out. First, it comes at a time when Indian policymakers are actively promoting GIs as tools of rural empowerment and soft power diplomacy. Second, its unusual aftermath: Prada, after facing public backlash, agreed to a collaborative, artisan-driven 'Made in India' collection. What the law could not compel, public pressure did. This unintended consequence, where a luxury brand voluntarily enters into a fair-trade collaboration, is worth reflecting on. It suggests that while legal enforcement may have failed, ethical compliance may still be a possibility. However, such goodwill cannot be the cornerstone of a country's intellectual property regime. There is an urgent need to reimagine GI protection through the lens of global commerce. This could include bilateral agreements that create binding obligations on GI, mandatory disclosure of origin clauses in fashion exports and soft law instruments under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and or the World Intellectual Property Organization that link heritage usage to benefit-sharing norms. The Prada controversy exposes another persistent weakness in India's GI law: the limited capacity of registered proprietors to monitor and act. In this case, the two state-run corporations that jointly hold the GI – Maharashtra's Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd and Karnataka's Dr Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd – were silent spectators. It took the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, a trade body with no legal ownership of the GI tag, to intervene and negotiate with Prada. This asymmetry in enforcement resources, where smaller artisan groups rely on third parties or media outrage to defend their rights, must be corrected if India is serious about giving its GIs teeth. But perhaps the most valuable lesson is this: the future of GI protection cannot lie in legalese alone. It will require a cultural and strategic repositioning of India's artisan economy, not just as heritage to be preserved, but as intellectual capital to be globally commercialised on fair terms. Prada's eventual collaboration may offer a working model. It came too late to be legally meaningful but early enough to change the narrative. It brought the artisan into the boardroom. The challenge now is to ensure that this becomes the norm, not the exception. India's GI regime must stop being just about recognition and start being about clear enforcement of rights. Debargha Roy is a practising advocate and managing trustee at Project Saathi. Tejaswini Kaushal is a researcher at Project Saathi and writes on IP. Views are personal.
India Today
10 minutes ago
- India Today
Man claims worm found in food, Rameshwaram Cafe calls it staged extortion attempt
A customer who bought pongal from the Rameshwaram Cafe at its Bengaluru airport outlet, claimed he found a worm in the food. However, the popular restaurant chain has strongly denied the allegation, filing a police complaint alleging blackmail and to the cafe, a group of 5-7 people staged the incident on the morning of July 24, falsely alleging that an insect was found in a serving of pongal. The cafe claims the group created a public scene and then threatened to circulate the video on social media unless they were paid Rs 25 lakh in cafe Bengaluru division head, Sumanth, has lodged an FIR at the Airport Police Station, alleging an attempt to malign the brand. The complaint states that the demand for money was made via a phone call and that the caller instructed that the cash be delivered to Brigade Road. In a press note, Divya Raghav, founder of The Rameshwaram Cafe, categorically denied the allegation of food contamination. 'The safety and hygiene of our food preparation are non-negotiable. We operate under the strictest quality protocols, especially at sensitive locations like airports,' she cafe further alleged that this was not an isolated attempt. 'There have been similar instances in the past where individuals were caught red-handed trying to plant insects or stones in food,' Divya restaurant has submitted call records, screenshots, and other evidence to support its complaint and says it is cooperating fully with incident first came to light after a customer named Lokanath claimed he found an insect in his food. He shared a video showing the insect in a plate of pongal and said the staff folded their hands and are now investigating both the blackmail complaint and the viral video incident.- Ends
New Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
ED attaches Rs 7 crore in cyber investment scam involving tech firms in Bengaluru
BENGALURU: The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Bengaluru, has provisionally attached around Rs 7.02 crore in a tech-enabled cyber investment scam conducted by the accused through Cotata Technology Pvt Ltd and other entities. In an official release on Thursday, the ED stated that 'the amount being attached under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, was lying in the form of bank balance in 29 bank accounts of various entities'. 'The fraudulent scheme was operated via the 'ShareHash' mobile app, which lured hundreds of gullible investors with promises of lucrative returns through crypto currency mining -- only to misappropriate funds across a web of shell companies and laundering channels,' the ED added. The agency stated that the 'funds collected from unsuspecting individuals were initially returned in small portions to build trust -- a classic Ponzi tactic -- before communication ceased and the app was delisted from the app store'. ED initiated investigation based on an FIR registered by the cybercrime police, Bengaluru, under various sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act 2019, and IPC, 1860, against various companies and individuals associated with the investment companies. 'The probe revealed that primary investment entities are Cotata Technology Pvt Ltd, Siraleen Tech Solutions Pvt Ltd, Crampington Technology Pvt Ltd, Nileen Infotech Pvt Ltd and Moltres Exim Pvt Ltd. These companies were allegedly formed using impersonated KYCs from unemployed youth and job-seekers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Their registered addresses were found to be non-functional or fictitious. The funds deposited into primary entities were siphoned using payment gateways. These funds were then routed into secondary shell entities and used for cash withdrawals, gold purchase etc,' added the ED.
