Category World News

New Delhi, India – Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s cabinet late Wednesday described the car explosion which jolted New Delhi earlier in the week as a “heinous terror incident, perpetrated by antinational forces”.

The Indian government’s words, two days after a slow-moving car blew up near the Red Fort, an iconic 17th-century monument in New Delhi, killing at least 13 people and wounding several, have since led to questions about how it might respond, raising concerns over the prospect of a new spike in regional tensions.

Earlier this year, in May, the Indian government had declared a new security doctrine: “Any act of terror will be treated as an act of war.”

That posture had come in the aftermath of an intense four-day air war between India and Pakistan, after India blamed Islamabad for an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 civilians.

Now, six months later, as India grapples with another attack – this time, in the heart of the national capital of the world’s most populous country – the Modi government has so far avoided blaming Pakistan.

Instead, say political analysts, New Delhi’s language suggests that it might be veering towards intensifying a crackdown on Kashmir, at a time when Islamophobia and anti-Kashmiri sentiments have skyrocketed across India in the aftermath of the car explosion.

A crackdown in Kashmir

Even before the blast in New Delhi, police teams from Indian-administered Kashmir had been carrying out raids across the national capital region, following a lead from Srinagar, which led to the seizure of a significant amount of explosives and arrests of nearly a dozen individuals.

Among the suspects are several Kashmiri doctors – including Umar Nabi, a junior doctor who is suspected of being the driver of the car that exploded – who were serving in hospitals in satellite towns outside New Delhi.

Since the explosion near the Red Fort, police in Indian-administered Kashmir have detained more than 650 people from across the Valley as they dig deeper into what sections of the Indian media are describing as a “white-collar terror module” that had gathered enough explosives for the biggest attack on India in decades, if members hadn’t been arrested.

Police teams have raided several locations, including the residences of members of banned sociopolitical outfits.

Indian forces on Thursday also demolished the home of Nabi, the alleged car driver. In recent years, Indian authorities have often demolished homes of individuals accused of crimes without any judicial order empowering them to do so, even though the Supreme Court has ordered an end to the practice. Rights groups have described the act of demolishing the homes of suspects as a form of collective punishment.

Students of medicine and practising doctors in Kashmir are also increasingly facing scrutiny – more than 50 have been questioned for hours, and some have had their devices seized for investigation.

“There is a sense of complete disbelief among all of us,” said a junior doctor at a government-run hospital in Srinagar, the capital of the federal territory of Indian-administered Kashmir.

The doctor requested anonymity to speak, fearing repercussions from the police.

The 34-year-old has seen conflict in Kashmir up close, treating injured protesters firsthand for weeks on end, during previous clashes with security forces. “But I never thought that we would be viewed with suspicion like this,” he said, adding that the explosion that killed 13 in New Delhi was “unfortunate and should be condemned”.

“It is unreal to us that a doctor can think of such an attack,” the doctor said. “But how does that malign our entire fraternity? If a professional defects and joins militants, does it mean that all professionals are terrorists?”

‘Away from Pakistan, towards an enemy within’

India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir since the nations were partitioned in 1947 as the British left the subcontinent. Today, India, Pakistan and China all control parts of Kashmir. India claims all of it, and Pakistan seeks control of all of Kashmir except the parts held by China, its ally.

After the April attack in the resort town of Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, India had launched missiles deep inside Pakistan. Modi claimed that the attacks killed more than 100 “terrorists”. Pakistan insisted that civilians and soldiers, not armed fighters, were killed. Pakistan, which had rejected Indian accusations of a role in the April killings in Pahalgam, hit back.

Over four days, the nuclear-armed neighbours fired missiles and drones across their contested border, striking each other’s military bases.

When the Modi government agreed to a ceasefire on May 10, it faced domestic criticism from the opposition – and some sections of its own supporters – for not continuing with attacks on Pakistan. The government then said Operation Sindoor is “only on pause, not over”.

Six months later, though, New Delhi has been significantly more cautious about who to blame for the Delhi blast.

“There is a lot of due outrage this time, but there is no mention of Pakistan,” said Anuradha Bhasin, a veteran editor in Kashmir and author of a book, A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After Article 370, about how the region changed under the Hindu majoritarian Modi government. The Kashmir administration has banned her book in the region.

“This time, it is not about a crackdown on Pakistan,” she told Al Jazeera. “The public anger is being directed away from Pakistan, towards ‘an enemy within’.”

She said the Modi government appeared to be aware that finger-pointing at Pakistan “would create pressure from the public to take [military] action” against the neighbour.

Instead, she said, “public anger can be assuaged by creating any enemy.”

‘Pandering to domestic gallery’

Analysts point to the Modi government’s use of the term “antinational forces” to describe the alleged perpetrators of the Delhi attack.

That’s a phrase the Modi government has previously used to describe academics, journalists and students who have criticised it, as well as other protesters and dissidents. Since Modi took office in 2014, India has continuously slid in multiple democracy indices for alleged persecution of minorities in the country and its crackdown on press freedom.

To Sumantra Bose, a political scientist whose work focuses on the intersection of nationalism and conflict in South Asia, the Indian cabinet resolution was significant in the way that it shied “away from naming and blaming Pakistan, which was a rather reflexive reaction for decades”.

After the fighting in May, the Indian government learned, the hard way, Bose said, that “there is no appetite and indeed no tolerance anywhere in the world for a military escalation in South Asia.”

Bose was referring to the lukewarm global support that India received after it bombed Pakistan without providing any public evidence of Islamabad’s links with the attackers in Pahalgam.

Instead, India was left disputing the repeated assertions of United States President Donald Trump that he had brokered the ceasefire between New Delhi and Islamabad, even as he hosted Pakistan’s army chief, praised him, and strengthened ties with India’s western neighbour. India has long held the position that all disputes with Pakistan must be resolved bilaterally, without intervention from any other country.

The contrast in New Delhi’s response to this week’s blast, so far, appears to have struck US State Secretary Marco Rubio, too.

Reacting to the Delhi blast, Rubio said “it clearly was a terrorist attack,” and “the Indians need to be commended. They’ve been very measured, cautious, and very professional on how they’re carrying out this investigation.”

India’s new security doctrine – that an act of terror is an act of war – “was a dangerous, slippery slope”, said Bose, who has also authored books on the conflict in Kashmir. His last work, Kashmir at the Crossroads: Inside a 21st-Century Conflict, published in 2021, is also banned in Kashmir.

The doctrine, he said, was aimed at pandering to Modi’s “domestic gallery” – a way of showing muscular strength, even at the risk of “serious military escalation” between India and Pakistan.

Now, by using terms like “white-collar terrorism”, analysts said Indian officials risked blurring the line between Kashmiri Muslims and armed rebels fighting Indian rule.

“The term doesn’t make sense to me, but it does put the needle of suspicion on young, educated Muslim professionals,” said Bose.

“The fact has been for decades that militants come from all sorts of social backgrounds in Kashmir – from rural farming families, working-class backgrounds, to educated professionals,” Bose argued. “If anything, it reflects the discontent that has been in the society across the groups.”

Bhasin, the editor from Kashmir, said the Indian government’s posture would lead to “adverse economic impact for Kashmiri Muslims and further ghettoisation, where they find it harder to get jobs or a place to rent”.

‘Everyone is so scared’

Kashmiris across India are already facing the brunt of hate and anger following the Delhi blast.

Since the bomb exploded on Monday in New Delhi, Indian social media platforms have been rife with rampant hate speech against Muslims.

Nasir Khuehami, the national convener of a Kashmiri student association, has spent four days fielding calls from Kashmiri Muslims.

“Across northern Indian states, Kashmiris are being asked to vacate their homes, there is active profiling going on, and everyone is so scared,” Khuehami told Al Jazeera, speaking from his home in Kashmir.

This is only the latest instance of this pattern playing out: An attack in Kashmir, or by a Kashmiri armed rebel, has often led to harassment and beating of Kashmiri Muslims – students, professionals, traders, or even labourers – living in India.

Khuehami said “to end this endless cycle of crises for Kashmiris” – where they are detained at home and abused outside – “the government needs to take confidence-building measures.”

Otherwise, Khuehami said, the Modi government was marginalising Kashmiris in India. By doing that, he said, India would be playing into the hands of the very country it accuses of wanting to grab Kashmir: Pakistan.

Kylian Mbappe hit a brace while Michael Olise and Hugo Ekitike also scored as France thrashed Ukraine 4-0 to secure World Cup qualification, after an evening marked by tributes to the victims of the 2015 Paris attacks.

Captain Mbappe coolly chipped in from the spot 10 minutes into the second half at the Parc des Princes on Thursday, and the impressive Olise doubled France’s lead on 76 minutes.

Mbappe then struck again and Ekitike swept in a first goal for his country, as France got the win they required to clinch their spot at the 2026 finals in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

A minute’s silence was impeccably observed before kickoff by the 41,000 spectators as France marked the 10th anniversary of the attacks in and around Paris on November 13, 2015.

Most of the 130 victims of the attacks were killed at the Bataclan concert hall in the capital, where they were attending a concert.

One person also died near the Stade de France in the northern Paris suburb of Saint-Denis, where multiple explosions took place as suicide bombers attempted to enter the ground during a friendly between Les Bleus and Germany.

Didier Deschamps was the coach then and remains in charge now, with the approaching World Cup to be his final tournament before stepping down.

With one game still to come in Azerbaijan on Sunday, France have an unassailable six-point lead over both Iceland and Ukraine at the top of European qualifying Group D.

Winners of the World Cup in 2018 and runners-up in 2022, France maintain their record of having made it to every edition of the tournament since missing out on a place in the US in 1994.

While they can look forward to the draw for the finals, which takes place in Washington, DC, on December 5, Ukraine and Iceland meet each other on Sunday in a showdown to decide who continues into the playoffs next March.

France’s only slip-up in qualifying came in a draw in Iceland last month, although they have rarely found their fluid best during a low-key campaign.

Mbappe and Olise were in fine fettle here at Paris Saint-Germain’s home ground, though, while Bradley Barcola came closest to scoring in the first half with a curling effort from outside the area that was tipped onto the woodwork and behind for a corner.

Real Madrid superstar Mbappe, the France captain, then chipped in from the spot to open the scoring early in the second half after Olise had been fouled inside the area.

Olise, of Bayern Munich, really came into his own after being shifted from the right to a more central role.

It was shortly after setting up Ekitike to hit the post that Olise turned and fired in France’s second goal, and Ukraine caved in towards the end.

Mbappe scored from close range in the 83rd minute after Ekitike had been denied, taking him to 55 goals for his country and to within two of all-time top marksman Olivier Giroud’s tally of 57.

Liverpool’s Ekitike then rounded off a fine move to wrap up the victory with his first senior international goal.

Deschamps said the performance was professional rather than spectacular, but enough to complete the mission.

“Always appreciate the good moments, even if it seems logical and natural for the France team to qualify. The objective was to qualify here tonight in a heavy, weighty context. The first half was difficult against a low block,” he said.

“I enjoy it, even if it’s not the first time – the France team has to be there at every major tournament.”

Elsewhere, Portugal star Cristiano Ronaldo was sent off for elbowing Ireland defender Dara O’Shea in the second half of a shock 2-0 defeat at Ireland.

Ronaldo now risks a two-game ban, which would see him missing the first match of the World Cup tournament if Portugal qualifies.

Portugal will host last-place Armenia in the final qualifying game on Sunday, when Hungary hosts Ireland at the same time. Portugal top Group F with 10 points, two ahead of Hungary. Ireland is third with seven points.

Earlier, Erling Haaland scored twice as Norway moved even closer to qualifying for the World Cup for the first time since 1998 by beating Estonia 4-1 in Oslo. The win virtually secures a spot for the high-scoring Norwegians in next year’s tournament.

Already-qualified England beat Serbia 2-0 at Wembley Stadium to keep a perfect record in Group K and are yet to concede a goal.

The United States has called on the United Nations Security Council to officially back its draft resolution aimed at bolstering President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan, warning that Palestinians could suffer “grave consequences” if it does not.

The call came as Russia presented the council with its own “counter-proposal” on Gaza, challenging Washington’s draft, according to a copy seen by the Reuters news agency.

A spokesperson for the US mission to the UN said in a Thursday statement that “attempts to sow discord” around Washington’s resolution would only result in “grave, tangible, and entirely avoidable consequences” for Palestinians in Gaza should the ceasefire break down and Israel resume its assault.

The US mission formally circulated its draft resolution to the 15 UNSC members last week for negotiations on the wording and substance of the text.

According to a draft of the text seen by the AFP news agency, it would authorise a two-year mandate running until the end of 2027 for a transitional governance body in Gaza – known as the “Board of Peace” – that Trump would chair.

It would also authorise member states to form a “temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF)” that would work on the “permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups” in Gaza, protect civilians and secure humanitarian aid corridors.

The ISF would also work with Israel, Egypt, and newly trained Palestinian police to help secure border areas and demilitarise the enclave.

Trump has ruled out sending US troops into Gaza as part of the proposed 20,000-strong force.

Washington says discussions have been held with Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Qatar, Turkiye and Azerbaijan about contributing to the force, but reservations remain about sending soldiers due to fears they could come into direct conflict with Hamas.

Unlike previous drafts, the latest iteration also references a possible future Palestinian state, saying “conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood” once the Palestinian Authority (PA) has carried out the requested reforms.

“The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous coexistence,” the resolution adds.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday he was optimistic the resolution would be adopted, saying “good progress” was being made on negotiations around its language.

But despite broad support for a “Board of Peace” among UNSC members, serious questions remain regarding the lack of any mention in the text of any oversight mechanism for the body, the PA’s future role, or concrete details about the ISF’s mandate, AFP reports.

With these significant question marks still hanging over the US proposal, Russia presented its own counter-resolution to the UNSC on Thursday.

“The objective of our draft is to enable the Security Council to develop a balanced, acceptable, and unified approach toward achieving a sustainable cessation of hostilities,” the note said.

On October 8, Trump announced that Israel and Hamas had agreed to the first phase of his much-touted 20-point peace plan for Gaza, pausing the two-year conflict which has seen Israeli forces kill at least 69,179 people in the enclave.

The deal has also facilitated the exchange of Israeli captives held in the enclave – alive and deceased – for Palestinian prisoners, as well as the partial withdrawal of Israeli troops and the entry of some humanitarian aid.

While the ceasefire remains in place, Israel has repeatedly violated the agreement with near-daily attacks that have killed hundreds of Palestinians.

Pointing to this “fragile” ceasefire in its Thursday note to the UNSC, the US mission urged the body to “unite and move forward to secure the peace that is desperately needed” by backing Washington’s resolution.

Israeli forces continue to carry out attacks despite the ceasefire in Gaza, where hundreds of people have been killed since a deal was agreed. Here’s what the numbers tell us.

A newly released batch of correspondence involving disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has prompted new speculation about ties between the deceased financier and United States President Donald Trump, but experts say its significance stretches beyond the White House.

The never-before-seen emails have added to pressure on the Trump administration to release files about Epstein in the US government’s possession, with a vote in Congress now expected as early as next week. Trump has rejected suggestions that he has anything to hide, and insists that while he knew Epstein, they broke ties in the early 2000s.

But the newly released emails also raise ethical questions about the role played by acclaimed author Michael Wolff as he appeared to provide advice to Epstein on how to handle his dealings with Trump.

In the exchanges published by the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, Wolff – best known for his bestselling books on the first Trump presidency – appeared to share confidential information before a presidential debate on CNN in December 2015 with Epstein, advising him on how to exploit his connection with Trump.

“I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you – either on air or in scrum afterwards,” Wolff wrote.

“If we were to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?” Epstein replied.

“I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency,” Wolff told Epstein.

“You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime,” Wolff added, in his response to Epstein.

Al Jazeera reached out to Wolff for comment, but has not received a response.

In a conversation on a podcast with the news outlet The Daily Beast, Wolff said he was seeking to build a relationship with Epstein at the time to better understand Trump, but acknowledged that in “hindsight”, his comments could be seen as “embarrassing”.

Wolff, 72, is best known for his four books exposing the inner workings of the first Trump presidency, including Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

Jane Kirtley, professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said any judgement on whether behaviour like Wolff’s with Epstein was appropriate would depend on how the writer’s role is understood.

“Some people are reporters, some are commentators, and some are book authors, and there are some differences in the way that those different people operate,” Kirtley told Al Jazeera.

“If you want to be a public relations person, or if you want to be an agent, those are perfectly valid career choices. But I think that they are unfortunately incompatible with journalism because the public has a right to assume and to believe that you are acting independently,” she continued.

“You can’t serve two masters, as the saying goes, and your interest has to either be the public interest or serving some other interests.”

Insider reporting

Experts note that reporters often face ethical and professional dilemmas while cultivating relationships with sources, especially in areas where insider information is highly sought after, such as Wolff’s research on relations between various figures in the first Trump administration.

But the prerogative to build rapport with sources, especially those with influence, can also raise difficult questions about a reporter’s proximity to the very centres of power they are supposed to be scrutinising.

Edward Wasserman, a professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, said such relationships have to maintain certain boundaries and be balanced with the usefulness of the information being brought to the public’s attention.

“I think that the public has the right to be sceptical of this kind of cosy relationship with sources,” Wasserman told Al Jazeera. “But the answer the journalist has is that this is in the interest of the public, that there’s a redemptive dimension to this. It enables the kind of relationships that will allow people to confide in a reporter, who can then share that information with the public.”

Still, such relationships can also have a troubling inversion, where a journalist might be tempted to offer a source preferential treatment if they believe they might be rewarded with information.

Another journalist who corresponded with Epstein in emails released on Wednesday, a former New York Times finance reporter named Landon Thomas Jr, also appeared to have a close relationship with the convicted sex offender, whom he informed about a writer named John Connelly who was researching him.

“Keep getting calls from that guy doing a book on you – John Connolly. He seems very interested in your relationship with the news media. I told him you were a hell of a guy :)” Thomas Jr said in an email dated June 1, 2016.

“He is digging around again,” Thomas Jr said in another email to Epstein on September 27, 2017. “I think he is doing some Trump-related digging too. Anyway, for what it’s worth…” he added.

The public broadcaster NPR reported that Thomas Jr was no longer working for the Times by January 2019, and it had come to light that the reporter had asked Epstein for a $30,000 donation to a cultural centre in New York City. The New York Times has previously stated that the behaviour was a clear violation of its ethics policies and that it took action as soon as it learned of the incident.

In the case of Wolff, Wasserman also noted that his direct participation in matters relating to Trump, Epstein, and the media raised doubts about the writer’s ability to credibly report on those issues. Those questions may be especially poignant in a scandal that, for many people in the US, has become a symbol of close relationships among figures at the highest levels of power.

“The problem is that Wolff was offering advice on how to engineer, how to play this situation, in a way that’s advantageous to Epstein. And the problem that I have with that is that he then would presumably preserve the right to report on the consequences,” he said.

It also remains unclear whether Wolff’s relationship with Epstein resulted in the kind of public revelations that journalists typically point to when justifying close ties with sources.

“It occurs to me as important that in this exchange, Wolff doesn’t do anything to illuminate the core mystery, which is whether Trump was a sexual participant in what was going on with Epstein and these young women,” said Wasserman.