Dozens of Maoist Guerrillas Killed in Central India, Officials Say
The operation, in the forested Bijapur area in the state of Chhattisgarh, was carried out against the so-called Naxalite movement, and left 31 rebels dead, along with two members of the police forces, according to the area's police chief, Jitendra Kumar Yadav.
Chief Yadav said the authorities had also recovered a number of AK-47 assault weapons and several other automatic rifles after the clashes.
'We will completely eradicate Naxalism from the country, so that no citizen of the country has to lose his life because of it,' said Amit Shah, India's home minister, referring to the left-wing insurgency.
The Maoist insurgency began in eastern India in the 1960s and spread widely in central and southern parts of the country.
The violence peaked in 2010, when more than 600 civilians and over 250 security forces were killed in the conflict.
In recent years, civilian deaths have dwindled, after government operations shrunk the space for the insurgents to operate. The insurgency's leadership has also struggled, analysts say, in the face of targeted operations, old age and illness.
The Home Ministry told Parliament last year that the threat of leftist extremism had dropped significantly in recent years, in terms of the number of deaths as well as the amount of affected territory.
Deaths of civilians and security forces related to the insurgency in 2023 were 86 percent lower than at their peak in 2010, the ministry said, adding that the number of districts affected by the violence had shrunk to 38 from 126.
Niranjan Sahoo, who studies left-wing extremism at the Observer Research Foundation, an Indian think thank, said the Maoists were struggling to recruit members, among other problems.
He also said they were concentrated their activities in several districts around the Abujhmad forest, including Bijapur, after suffering losses over the years.
'The Maoists are at their weakest point, largely because they have lost a lot of their territory,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
How much universal credit will I be entitled to after the welfare bill changes?
A bill changing the amount of universal credit people are entitled to passed its second reading in parliament on Tuesday, 1 July. So what does this mean for your benefit payments? The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill — designed to change the amount people claiming these benefits are entitled to — has changed dramatically since it was first unveiled in March. Most notably, the planned reforms to personal independence payments (PIP) were shelved this week (meaning the bill has had to be renamed the Universal Credit Bill). So if you're still playing catch-up, here's what the bill could mean for your universal credit payments – and in turn, what you'll now be entitled to. For those claiming universal credit, the standard allowance — meaning the basic rate of universal credit before any other payments are added — will increase for new and existing claimants. The universal credit standard allowance rates will rise above inflation. However, it will take a while for these changes to come into effect. They are due to kick in in 2026/27, and rise year-on-year until 2029/30. For a single person over 25 claiming on their own, this will increase by £7 per week from £91pw in 2024/2025 to £98pw in 2026/2027. If you're interested in the maths behind the numbers, this the government's formula: taking the annual consumer price index inflation rate and adding an additional uplift (2.3% more in 2026/27, 3.1% more in 2027/28, 4.0% more in 2028/29, and 4.8% more in 2029/30). One of the biggest impacts of the bill is on universal credit claimants receiving the health component of the benefit. Called the limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA) component, the payment provides additional financial support and reduced work-related requirements for individuals whose health conditions or disabilities prevent them from working or preparing for work. Claimants can vary, and may have a terminal illness, cancer or be pregnant. The LCWRA rate will be frozen at £97 per week from April next year, and not increased in line with inflation until 2029/30. However, to push the bill through, work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall confirmed the universal credit health top-up payments will rise in line with inflation each financial year. This rate will vary - for example, last year's rate was 1.7%. After April 2026, the LCWRA rate will be halved for new claimants. The amount will be reduced to £50 per week in 2026/2027 for new claimants, totalling no more than £200 compared to current claimants, who receive £388 a month. Disability equality charity Scope say that under these changes, more than 700,000 future universal credit health claimants would receive on average £3,000 less support each year than claimants do now.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
The Real Meaning of Independence Day
It's the 249th birthday of the United States. And as Americans begin to prepare for our nation's grand semiquincentennial celebration next year, it is worth reengaging with the document whose enactment marks our national birthday: the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is sometimes championed by right-libertarians and left-liberals alike as a paean to individualism and a refutation of communitarianism of any kind. As one X user put it on Thursday: "The 4th of July represents the triumph of American individualism over the tribalistic collectivism of Europe." But this is anything but the case. We will turn to lead draftsman Thomas Jefferson's famous words about "self-evident" truths in a moment. But first consider the majority of the text of the Declaration: a stirring enumeration of specific grievances by the American colonists against the British crown. In the Declaration's own words: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." One might read these words in a vacuum and conclude that the Declaration indeed commenced a revolution in the true sense of the term: a seismic act of rebellion, however noble or righteous, to overthrow the established political order. And true enough, that may well have been the subjective intention of Jefferson, a political liberal and devotee of the European Enlightenment. But the Declaration also attracted many other signers. And some of those signers, such as the more conservative John Adams, took a more favorable view of the incipient America's inherited traditions and customs. These men thought that King George III had vitiated their rights as Englishmen under the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights that passed Parliament the following year. It is for this reason that Edmund Burke, the famed conservative British statesman best known for his strident opposition to the French Revolution, was known to be sympathetic to the colonists' cause. As my Edmund Burke Foundation colleague Ofir Haivry argued in a 2020 American Affairs essay, it is likely that these more conservative Declaration signers, such as Adams, shared Burke's own view that "the Americans had an established national character and political culture"; and "the Americans in 1776 rebelled in an attempt to defend and restore these traditions." An American flag waves in the wind at sunset. An American flag waves in the wind at American Founding is complex; the Founders themselves were intellectually heterodox. But suffice it to say the Founding was not a simplistic renouncement of the "tribalistic collectivism" of Britain. There is of course some truth to those who would emphasize the revolutionary nature of the minutemen and soldiers of George Washington's Continental Army. But the overall sounder historical conception is that 1776 commenced a process to restore and improve upon the colonists' inherited political order. The final result was the U.S. Constitution of 1787. Let's next consider the most famous line of the Declaration: the proclamation that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." We ought to take this claim at face value: Many of the Declaration's signers did hold such genuine, moral human equality to be "self-evident." But is such a claim self-evident to everyone—at all times, in all places, and within all cultures? The obvious answer is that it is not. Genuine, moral human equality is certainly not self-evident to Taliban-supporting Islamist goat herders in Afghanistan. It has not been self-evident to any number of sub-Saharan African tribal warlords of recent decades. Nor is it self-evident to the atheists of the Chinese Communist Party politburo, who brutally oppress non-Han Chinese ethnic minorities such as the Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang. Rather, the only reason that Jefferson—and John Locke in England a century prior—could confidently assert such moral "self-evidence" is because they were living and thinking within a certain overarching milieu. And that milieu is Western civilization's biblical inheritance—and, specifically, the world-transforming claim in Genesis 1:27, toward the very beginning of the Bible, that "God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him." It is very difficult—perhaps impossible—to see how the Declaration of 1776, the 14th Amendment of 1868, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any other American moral ode to or legal codification of equality, would have been possible absent the strong biblical undergird that has characterized our nation since the colonial era. Political and biblical inheritance are thus far more responsible for the modern-day United States than revolution, liberal rationalism, or hyper-individualism. Adams famously said that Independence Day "ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more." Indeed, each year we should all celebrate this great nation we are blessed to call home. But let's also not mistake what it is we are actually celebrating. Josh Hammer is Newsweek senior editor-at-large, host of "The Josh Hammer Show," senior counsel for the Article III Project, a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation, and author of the new book, Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West (Radius Book Group). Subscribe to "The Josh Hammer Report," a Newsweek newsletter. X: @josh_hammer. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
India backs Dalai Lama's position on successor, contradicting China
DHARAMSHALA, India (Reuters) -A senior Indian minister has said that only the Dalai Lama and the organization he has set up have the authority to identify his successor as the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism, in a rare comment contradicting rival China's long-held position. The Dalai Lama, who fled to India in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, said on Wednesday that upon his death he would be reincarnated as the next spiritual leader and that only the Gaden Phodrang Trust would be able to identify his successor. He previously said the person would be born outside China. Beijing says it has the right to approve the Dalai Lama's successor as a legacy from imperial times. Kiren Rijiju, India's minister of parliamentary and minority affairs, made a rare statement on the matter on Thursday, ahead of visiting the Dalai Lama's base in the northern Indian town of Dharamshala for the religious leader's 90th birthday on Sunday. "No one has the right to interfere or decide who the successor of His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be," Indian media quoted Rijiju as telling reporters. "Only he or his institution has the authority to make that decision. His followers believe that deeply. It's important for disciples across the world that he decides his succession." In response to the remarks, China's foreign ministry warned India on Friday against interfering in its domestic affairs at the expense of bilateral relations, urging it to be prudent in its words and actions. "We hope the Indian side will fully understand the highly sensitive nature of Tibet-related issues, recognise the anti-China separatist nature of the 14th Dalai Lama," spokesperson Mao Ning told a regular press conference. India's foreign ministry did not respond to a request for comment on the Dalai Lama's succession plan. Rijiju, a practising Buddhist, will be joined by other Indian officials at the birthday celebrations. India is estimated to be home to tens of thousands of Tibetan Buddhists who are free to study and work there. Many Indians revere the Dalai Lama, and international relations experts say his presence in India gives New Delhi a measure of leverage with China. Relations between India and China nosedived after a deadly border clash in 2020 but are slowly improving now.
