Latest news with #VinayNarwal
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
Pahalgam attack mastermind killed in Operation Mahadev; Father of Lt Narwal salutes forces
The father of Lt Vinay Narwal, a victim of the April Pahalgam terror attack, praised Indian forces on Monday after the mastermind behind the assault was gunned down alongside two other terrorists near Srinagar. read more Pahalgam terror attack victim Lt Vinay Narwal's father, Rajesh Narwal, on Monday said he salutes the defence forces after the mastermind of the ghastly attack was among three terrorists killed on the outskirts of Srinagar. 'I want to salute the Army, our paramilitary and J-K police jawans for their bravery,' Rajesh Narwal told reporters in Karnal. 'The way they did not care for their lives and hunted them down is not an easy task. I salute them for their bravery. They should be honoured for this,' he further said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He said that right from the start, he had been talking of Pakistan's hand in the attack. 'It is a big success for our forces…I had said this earlier too that our forces will hunt them down one day,' he said. In May, after Operation Sindoor, Rajesh Narwal had hailed India's response and said the Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has sent a strong message and now the perpetrators of the April 22 attack 'will think 100 times' before repeating such attacks in the future. Married just a few days before the Pahalgam attack, Indian Navy officer Vinay Narwal (26), accompanied by his wife Himanshi, was on a honeymoon in south Kashmir's Pahalgam town when terrorists shot him at point-blank range, an incident in which 25 others, mostly tourists, were also killed. In a major breakthrough, the Army's elite para commandos on Monday gunned down the alleged mastermind of the Pahalgam terror attack along with two of his associates in an encounter in a forest area on the outskirts of Srinagar in Kashmir. Officials said Sulieman alias Asif, who is believed to be the mastermind of the April 22 attack, was killed after the security forces launched a surprise action, codenamed 'Operation Mahadev', following a technical signal indicating the use of a satellite phone that was used by the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The other terrorists killed in the action have been identified as Jibran — who was allegedly involved in the Sonamarg Tunnel attack last year — and Hamza Afghani. As many as 26 persons — mostly tourists — were shot dead by terrorists at Baisaran meadows in Pahalgam, which prompted the armed forces to launch Operation Sindoor on May 7 against the terror infrastructure in Pakistan.
India.com
18-07-2025
- India.com
Munir Will Understand Pain When...: Pahalgam Attack Victim Vinay Narwal's Fathers BIG Take On Pakistan Army Chief
New Delhi: In a searing message directed at Pakistan's top military leadership, Rajesh Narwal, father of slain Indian Navy officer Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, has said that Pakistan Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir will never understand the pain of losing a son to terrorism until he experiences such a tragedy himself. The emotional outburst comes in the wake of the brutal Pahalgam terror attack, where Vinay, just a week into his marriage, was shot dead at point-blank range. 'He (Asim Munir) will only be able to understand my pain the day someone harms his son or daughter,' said Rajesh in an interview with NDTV. 'If I, an ordinary person, were given a gun to shoot and took his son or daughter, then he would know the pain.' Lieutenant Vinay Narwal got married on April 16. Just seven days later, on April 22, terrorists opened fire in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, killing 26 civilians, including the young officer, who was on his honeymoon with his wife. Rajesh said Vinay was gunned down from point-blank range when one of the attackers approached the couple in the hill town. The family has been devastated since, struggling to cope with the psychological and emotional trauma. 'I can't even cry in front of my family. My wife, my parents, they are all broken. But I must stay composed so they feel I am strong,' he said, adding, 'There is no peace of mind. It's been so many days, and we can't sleep. Our minds are in a complete blackout. No one can sleep for more than two or three hours.' The grieving father said no treatment can erase the pain they are living through. 'When we go to the psychiatrist, they prescribe medicines. But there is no cure for this. We develop other ailments. This is how we are,' he shared. 'Vinay is always on my mind, 24 hours a day. When I wake up in the morning, he is the first thing I see,' Rajesh Narwal added. Lieutenant Vinay Narwal was cremated with full military honours in Karnal, Haryana, on April 23. Selected through the Services Selection Board (SSB), he had joined the Indian Navy and rose to the rank of Lieutenant within just two years. Rajesh Narwal's remarks come at a time when Pakistan-based terror outfit The Resistance Front (TRF), which claimed responsibility for the attack, has been designated a global terrorist group by the United States. The TRF is widely considered a proxy of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba, allegedly operating with the backing of Pakistan's 'deep state'.
News18
18-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
'Munir Will Understand My Pain When...': Pahalgam Victim's Father After US Declared TRF Terror Group
The US designated TRF as a terrorist group on July 17. Vinay Narwal's father praised the move and called it the first step towards dismantling the terrorist infrastructure. 26-year-old Lieutenant Vinay Narwal was killed in the heinous terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam. He got married a week ago and was on his honeymoon when he was killed by the terrorists. Months after the attack, the US State Department has designated The Resistance Front (TRF), the group behind the Pahalgam terror attack, as a terrorist organisation. Reacting to the development, Vinay Narwal's father, Rajesh Narwal, spoke exclusively to CNN News 18 and said, 'He (Pakistan's Army General Asim Munir) will understand my pain when his son or daughter is harmed by someone." He further said that TRF being declared as a terrorist group is the first step towards dismantling the terrorist infrastructure. He also congratulated PM Modi and India's armed forces for the success of Operation Sindoor. 'This Generation Won't Forget Pahalgam Attack' Rajesh Narwal also said that Pahalgam attack will not be forgotten by this generation. 'TRF being declared as the terrorist group is the result of our PM and Foreign Minister's efforts," Narwal added. He further said, 'there is no peace in mind and we can't sleep at night as the mind is completely blank." TRF is declared a terrorist group by the Trump administration. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Trump administration has declared the TRF as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). This move shows President Trump's call for justice for the Pahalgam attack, said Rubio. The April 22 Pahalgam terror attack is etched deep in the hearts of every India and the country still remembers the picture of Vinay Narwal's grieving wife, Himanshi Narwal, sitting next to his body. 26 civilians were killed in this attack. The Indian military launched Operation Sindoor on May 7 and attacked on nine targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: July 18, 2025, 16:22 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Assam minister meets Vinay Narwal's family
Assam government's revenue minister Keshab Mahanta on Friday reached the residence of lieutenant Vinay Narwal, who was killed in the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, to pay his condolences and also handed over a cheque of ₹5 lakh to the family on behalf of the government. The minister said that the Assam government, under the leadership of chief minister Himanta Biswa Sharma, has decided to honour the victims of the Pahalgam attack. A minister and a senior IAS-level official will visit the grieving families to pay their tributes. They will also provide financial aid to the families. He said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is completely against terrorism, and has taken revenge through Operation Sindoor.
The Hindu
17-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why laws fall short in combating the surge in cyber-bullying cases
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Himanshi Narwal, the wife of slain Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, issued a heartfelt appeal for peace and firmly rejected the vilification of Muslims and Kashmiris. Soon after, the grieving newlywed became the target of a vicious trolling campaign on X (formerly Twitter). Anonymous accounts hurled slurs at her, questioned her loyalty to her late husband, and even called for the cancellation of her pension. However, Ms. Narwal was not alone in facing such online vitriol. Following Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri's announcement on May 10 that India and Pakistan had reached an understanding to halt military hostilities, his account on X was inundated with abusive comments, some of which targeted even his daughter. Mr. Misri was eventually compelled to lock his account, as several diplomats and politicians condemned the toxic trolling culture in unequivocal terms. Emboldened by the anonymity of the internet, faceless trolls have turned into virtual vigilantes, punishing those who dare to question dominant narratives. What regulatory reforms, then, are necessary to ensure that such depravity is no longer met with impunity? Regulatory loopholes A range of terms has emerged to describe contemporary forms of cybercrime, including cyberbullying, stalking, hate speech, and doxxing. Doxxing, short for 'dropping dox' (documents), involves the unauthorised online disclosure of private information, often with malicious intent. This may include home addresses, phone numbers, or sensitive images, leaving victims vulnerable to harassment and tangible real-world threats. Studies show that such abuse disproportionately targets women and minorities, suggesting that these attacks are often driven not just by cruelty or amusement but by organised political motives. The consequences can be severe, frequently escalating to rape and death threats. India lacks a dedicated law specifically aimed at tackling online hate speech and trolling. Instead, a limited number of provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2003, and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, cover certain aspects of cyberbullying. The BNS contains provisions applicable to electronic communications, such as Section 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 75 (sexual harassment), Section 351 (criminal intimidation), Section 356 (defamation), and Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups). The IT Act supplements these offences with provisions like Section 66C (identity theft), Section 66D (impersonation fraud) and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material electronically). 'The existing regulatory framework is functional but far from complete. No provision squarely criminalises sustained online abuse that does not qualify as 'obscene,' 'threatening,' or 'fraudulent.' Stalking under the BNS is gender-specific—limited to men targeting women—and hinges on intent to engage personally, failing to capture the collective harassment that defines much of online trolling. While cyberbullying may sometimes be shoehorned into offences like criminal intimidation or defamation, these require proof of threat or reputational harm and are ill-suited to counter the rapid, anonymous abuse unleashed by online mobs,' Apar Gupta, advocate and founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, told The Hindu. Moderation or censorship? Mounting domestic and international pressure to curb disinformation and hate speech has compelled social media giants to moderate and remove harmful content. While many advocate for 'self-regulation,' where platforms enforce their own community guidelines, this model has largely failed and faces growing scrutiny. Last year, Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov was arrested by French authorities for allegedly failing to moderate criminal activity on the platform, including the circulation of child sexual abuse material and fraudulent content. Telegram later amended its privacy policy to permit the disclosure of users' IP addresses and phone numbers to law enforcement upon receipt of 'valid legal requests.' Also Read: Should digital platform owners be held liable The challenge is further exacerbated by the gradual erosion of content moderation policies in favour of monetisation. In a damning report released earlier this month, the Centre for the Study of Organized Hate found that X had become a 'high-velocity distribution channel' for hate speech and conspiracy theories, particularly targeting British-Pakistani men as well as other South Asian and immigrant communities. An analysis of 1,365 posts generating more than 1.5 billion engagements revealed that the platform played a central role in weaponising the 'grooming gang' discourse to scapegoat Muslims in the U.K., despite police data showing that most offenders were white men. In India, Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the government to issue blocking orders on grounds aligned with constitutionally permissible restrictions on speech, such as national sovereignty, friendly relations with foreign States, and public order. Platforms that fail to comply risk losing safe harbour protection under Section 79, which ordinarily shields intermediaries from liability for user-generated content. However, experts have warned that these provisions are increasingly being used as tools for online censorship. In recent years, the Union Government has frequently taken down content without notifying affected users — a practice that contravenes the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. While the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A, it underscored that blocking orders must be accompanied by cogent reasons to enable judicial scrutiny. Following the Pahalgam attack, X disclosed that it had been directed to block more than 8,000 accounts in India, but said the government had not specified which posts violated the law in most cases. In March, the platform filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court challenging the government's reliance on Section 79(3)(b) to issue takedown orders, arguing that it bypasses the procedural safeguards under Section 69A. Unlike Section 69A, Section 79(3)(b) neither defines what constitutes an 'unlawful act' nor provides for any review mechanism. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting recently informed a Parliamentary Committee that it is reconsidering safe harbour protections for social media platforms in a bid to combat 'fake news.' X has received executive orders from the Indian government requiring X to block over 8,000 accounts in India, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company's local employees. The orders include demands to block access in India to… — Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) May 8, 2025 Judicial interventions In February last year, the Delhi High Court directed X to remove tweets revealing the personal and professional details of a woman who had reportedly posted a critical comment about Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The post triggered a wave of online harassment, with details of her workplace, residence, and photographs being widely circulated. Although these disclosures raised privacy concerns, Justice Prathiba Singh ruled that the incident did not constitute doxxing, as the information was already publicly available. However, the judge acknowledged that while doxxing is not yet a statutory offence in India, it poses a serious threat. She observed that it infringes upon the right to privacy and that, in the absence of specific legislation, courts could invoke tort law to offer redress. Accordingly, X was directed to disclose subscriber information associated with the offending posts. This case highlights the contested nature of what qualifies as public information. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, exempts from its scope personal data that is made 'publicly available', either through voluntary disclosure by the individual or by entities under a legal obligation. However, this exemption is riddled with ambiguity, as the law offers no clear definition for what qualifies as 'publicly available data.' This lack of clarity may facilitate cybercrimes such as doxxing, especially since fragmented data from multiple platforms can be easily aggregated and used for harassment or intimidation — ultimately undermining the law's intended objective. Challenges ahead Experts underscored that enforcement, or rather the lack of it, often determines whether victims can access remedies. 'All laws are only as effective as their enforcement. While posts and accounts are promptly removed when government directives are issued, the same urgency is rarely extended to ordinary users reporting harassment or abusive content,' Mishi Choudhary, technology lawyer and digital rights advocate, told The Hindu. She pointed out that for victims of gendered online abuse, legal recourse is typically a last resort. 'Survivors are often disbelieved or, worse, blamed for the abuse they face. The lack of awareness and institutional support has a profoundly detrimental impact, forcing many to navigate an uphill battle in their quest for justice,' she said. Mr. Gupta agreed, highlighting challenges such as perpetrator anonymity, cross-jurisdictional hurdles, and limited cybercrime training. 'While the BNS has modernised terminology and broadened the scope of online offences, gaps in legal clarity and enforcement persist. Merely creating new offences is insufficient and may even endanger journalists and rights defenders, especially given India's weak rule of law framework,' he cautioned.
