- 2 hours ago
The Supreme Court's attempt to encourage an out-of-court settlement in three temple-mosque disputes has failed as both Hindu and Muslim parties have rejected the mediation proposal.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, you're watching India First. I'm Gaurav Savan. Big story coming in on the 2020 Delhi riots.
00:08A Delhi court has convicted, suspended, armed army party leader and then councillor Tahir Hussain.
00:17He's been convicted on charges of murder, promoting enmity between different religions,
00:24writing and assault and use of criminal force intentionally to dishonor a person in connection with the murder of intelligence
00:35bureau staffer Ankit Sharma,
00:39that man you see on your television screen. The court, however, acquitted Tahir on charges of criminal conspiracy.
00:47The court also convicted four other accused, Nazim, Kazim, Javed and Anas.
00:57They were convicted on charges of rioting, riots that shook Delhi in 2020.
01:05Additional sessions, Judge Praveen Singh went on to acquit six other accused in this case.
01:11Tahir Hussain, the man you see on your television screen, he was the armed army party's councillor in East Delhi.
01:20He broke down in court the moment that verdict was pronounced.
01:25Ankit Sharma, an officer of the intelligence bureau, was killed during communal riots that engulfed North East Delhi in February
01:332020.
01:34Now, the police claimed that these riots were engineered in the city in the name of Citizenship Amendment Act.
01:43The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Ankit Sharma's father, who went on in his complaint to write that
01:53Tahir Hussain,
01:54the armed army party's then councillor and his associates were responsible for his son's murder.
02:01According to prosecution, Ankit Sharma left his home around 5pm on the 25th of February 2020 to buy groceries and
02:12other household items.
02:14But he did not return home.
02:16His family initially had filed a missing persons complaint.
02:21Remember, this was the time when riots were being engineered in Delhi,
02:27when communal passions were running high, when people were being misled into believing that Muslims would lose their citizenship or
02:36their voting rights
02:37because CEA was being introduced to help Hindus in the neighbouring area,
02:43persecuted minorities, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Christians in India's neighbourhood to get citizenship of India.
02:51And rumours were spread.
02:53In fact, a systematic campaign was carried out to claim that Muslims here would lose their citizenship and this led
03:00to riots.
03:01In fact, dadis came on the streets in Shaheen Bagh and agitation was engineered.
03:08But coming back to the story, Ankit Sharma's body was recovered from a drain near Chand Bagh Pulya
03:14and he was declared brought dead to the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital in North East Delhi.
03:20A post-mortem was conducted and the findings of that post-mortem were horrifying.
03:26The post-mortem report went on to say that Ankit Sharma was hit 51 times.
03:35There were 51 injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons and blunt weapons.
03:42So he was badgered.
03:44He was repeatedly stabbed and he was badgered in the name of CEA rights.
03:50In March 2023, the trial court had framed charges against then-armed Admi Party councillor Tahir Hussain
03:58and 10 other accused in this case, that time under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code,
04:03including murder, rioting, promoting enmity between groups, kidnapping, criminal conspiracy and unlawful assembly.
04:10In February 2020, there were protests that were engineered in the name of Citizenship Amendment Act
04:17and they intensified around Delhi.
04:19Delhi was engulfed not merely by political dissent, but also targeted communal riots.
04:262020, North East Delhi riots were among the deadliest communal clashes in the national capital's history.
04:3353 people were killed.
04:35Hundreds were injured.
04:36Clashes had spread across several areas, including Jhafrabad, Mojpur, Chanbagh, Shivvihar.
04:43The investigating agencies, they went into the bottom of this case.
04:47How did riots suddenly get triggered?
04:50They claimed, the investigating agencies,
04:53they claimed that riots in Delhi were part of a much larger conspiracy.
04:57Some of the accused actually helped organize and escalate the clashes.
05:03After Tahir Hussain's conviction, BJP Minister Kapil Mishra has said that he's been saying this all along specifically about Tahir
05:11Hussain.
05:12Listen in.
05:22Tahir Hussain's conviction, he was prisoned.
05:27. . . . .
06:00I quickly want to cut across to India today Srishti Ojha who has been tracking developments in the story very
06:06closely. She was tracking this case in court and this verdict. Bring us the highlights of this verdict. What does
06:12it say specifically about the role of then Aamadmi Party Councilor Tahir Hussain and the wider conspiracy in this case,
06:19Srishti?
06:21Well, more of a detailed judgment in this case, of course, as far as today's verdict is concerned, is still
06:27awaited. So, details about what exactly made the court convict Tahir Hussain is something that remains to be seen. What
06:34exactly has the court said about his role as far as the Delhi Rats case is concerned?
06:39And also in terms of this particular case of the murder of this IB officer is concerned and something that
06:44we know in detail once the judgment copy is out. But as far as the order today that was passed
06:50by the court is concerned, the court has very, very clearly convicted six accused, five accused in this case, has
06:57acquitted the six others.
06:59Now, these five accused, including Tahir Hussain, now stand convicted of several provisions for several offenses, including murder. Along with
07:09murder, they also now stand convicted for offenses regarding promoting enmity before different religions, rioting, assault, use of criminal force
07:20to dishonor a person.
07:22And all these offenses are in relation to the murder of IB officer during the Delhi riots in 2020. Now,
07:29as we know, the probe and the investigation into the riots has been going on.
07:33There are several cases which are going on. This was one of them. The main case regarding the Delhi riots
07:39is still pending before a Delhi court where charges are yet to be framed against several accused, many of whom
07:46are now out on bail.
07:47But two of them, Umar Khalid and Sharjee Limam, continue to remain behind bars. If we talk about this particular
07:54case, other than the conviction, the court, other than these five, the court, other than Tahir Hussain, the court has
08:01also convicted four more accused in this case under different provisions, including murder and different sections of rioting.
08:07Six accused have definitely been acquitted. In this case, we also saw Tahir Hussain, who was present in court when
08:16the judgment was pronounced, also cry after the judgment was pronounced and the court did convict him in this case.
08:25It's definitely a big order. Because remember, we were talking about the charge of murder here.
08:31The punishment for murder, if we see under the law, under IPC, is either death, a death sentence or life
08:38imprisonment along with fine.
08:40So, it's definitely not an order Tahir Hussain or any of the other accused would have wanted.
08:45Fair enough. Srishti, keep tracking that story. I will come back to you for more.
08:48Srishti Hoja, for the moment, many thanks. I now want to show focus to the other big story we're tracking
08:54here on India today.
08:56No to mediation. Three historic religious sites, three disputes, but no mediation.
09:03The Supreme Court's attempt for resolution in several cases, and we'll talk about three where parties were invited for Samadhan
09:12Samarohu 2026.
09:14This is the Supreme Court's mediation initiative under Samadhan Samarohu.
09:19It covered the Gyanwapi dispute in Varansi, the Sri Krishna Jan Bhoomi in Mathura, and the Shahi Jama Masjid issue
09:29in Sambhal.
09:31Both sides have said no to mediation because the Hindu side insists that it is the Harihar Mandir at Sambhal.
09:40The message, both from the Hindu and the Muslim side, in all cases is clear.
09:44They want courts to decide title as per law. Decide case on merits as per law. No mediation.
09:53In the Gyanwapi case, the Anjuman in Tizamiya Masjid Committee refused even to participate, saying there was no invitation.
10:00The invitation was not binding on them.
10:02The decision has actually triggered a stronger reaction.
10:05The Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti, which questioned the possibility of resolving these disputes through mediation.
10:12In midst of all this, the Sadhus, the sons of the Akhara Parishad, they've actually given a clarion call,
10:19Mathura Chalo, to perform Karseva at the Sri Krishna Jan Bhoomi in August, on the 8th of August.
10:26And this has led to political temperatures soaring in Uttar Pradesh that will see elections in 2027.
10:42The Supreme Court's attempt to encourage an out-of-court settlement in three of the country's most sensitive temple mosque
10:50disputes has failed.
10:54The proposal covered the Gyanwapi Mosque dispute in Varanasi, the Sri Krishna Jan Bhoomi Shahi Idgarh dispute in Mathura, and
11:03the Shahi Jawa Masjid case in Sambhal.
11:07The top court's administration had invited all parties to consider mediation under its nationwide Samadhan Samaro 2026 initiative,
11:18which will be held at the Supreme Court premises from August 21st to 23rd.
11:23The initiative aims to facilitate dialogue and negotiate resolution of pending cases ahead of a special loka dalat.
11:31However, participation is entirely voluntary and any settlement would depend on the consent of all parties.
11:39But both Hindu and Muslim parties in all three cases have rejected the proposal and opted for court adjudication over
11:47mediation.
11:48Both sides have argued such issues should be decided by courts and not through loka dalats.
11:55The Anjuman Intizamia Masjid Committee, which manages the mosque, has said that participation in the mediation initiative is voluntary
12:04and that it will not be taking part at any level.
12:08The Achillesh Bharatya San Samithi has referred to the earlier mediation process in the Ram Jan Mabhumi case
12:14and said that Muslims do not want a resolution through mediation.
12:19The Supreme Court, the mediation centre, the Hindu and Muslim people,
12:38This comes at a time when some BJP leaders have vowed the liberation of Kashi and Matra ahead of the
12:462027 Assembly election in Uttar Pradesh.
13:11Three different disputes over places of worship in pole-bound Uttar Pradesh with no sight of resolution.
13:18With mediation off the table, are these disputes now headed for long court battles?
13:24Bureau Report, India Today.
13:48That say, why should anyone in today's India have an objection to Hindus wanting to reclaim their place of civilizational
13:57importance and significance?
13:59And why should some in India continue to oppose it?
14:03Aurangzeb did something wrong.
14:05Why should that wrong continue even in 2026?
14:08Joining me on India first is Karthik Chopra, spokesperson for the Nirmohi Akhara.
14:14Saira Shah Haleem is a respected author and activist, as is Advaita Kala, author and political analyst.
14:19Satyakur Rahman is an Islamic scholar.
14:22Advocate Vineet Jindal is an advocate and political analyst.
14:25Joins us on the show.
14:27Welcome.
14:27Saira Shah Haleem, can these matters be resolved amicably through mediation?
14:33As the Supreme Court had suggested, as per Supreme Court action for mediated adjudication and dispute harmonization across nations.
14:43The Samadhan Samaroh 2026.
14:45Because Saira, there are many who say Hindus are waiting for justice forever.
14:51Aurangzeb did something wrong.
14:53So, no justice during Mughals, no justice during British, no justice post-independence, no justice even today.
15:01I think this whole issue is being raked up to simply deflect from the Ram Janam Bhumi theft.
15:07Because here we have seen that the missing amount ranges from 7 crores to 200 crores.
15:13And the people who are part of the trust were members of the RSS and the VHP.
15:20And here, because it's very clear that even the BJP has distanced itself from this entire dispute.
15:27So, I feel right now there's elections in 2027 around the corner.
15:32And the current government is just trying to deflect attention by raking up this entire issue.
15:38Because here, my friends on the right keep raking up the Ayodhya issue, you know, to justify these surveys and
15:45Gyan Bapi and Mathura and all of that.
15:48However, let me remind my friends on the right that Ayodhya was an explicit exception, which fell in the 1991,
15:59it was, you know, what you call, taken out from the 1991 Worship Act, because that specific case was already
16:07active.
16:07And if they're going to rake up Gyan Bapi and all the other places of worship, then no place of
16:14worship is safe in India.
16:17People can just rake up 3000 years ago, 400 years ago and cite anything and say, no, we need to
16:23have some kind of excavation.
16:25We need to have a survey and see what existed, whether there was a chicken or whether the egg.
16:30So, I think this kind of a debate is completely futile.
16:35For any other religion, fair enough, let me get Advaita Kala to respond.
16:40Advaita Kala, this is just diversionary tactics when it comes to the Ayodhya issue.
16:46And respond to Sairasha Haleem who says, how is this even important?
16:50What came first, chicken or egg?
16:52Why should these surveys be carried out?
16:55I think that's been a standard practice of trivializing anything that is of Hindu concern.
17:00I think that that's something that's very common, unfortunately, in our so-called secular democracy.
17:06If something is of Hindu concern, then it's trivialized as unimportant, as a deflection, as being sort of regressive in
17:15its attempt to drag the country back, etc., etc.
17:24Okay, give me a moment.
17:25I'll try and reestablish that link with you, Advaita.
17:27See, I have...
17:29Go on.
17:33Go on, Advaita, we can hear you.
17:35Can you hear me now, Dharan?
17:37Yes, go on.
17:38Yeah, okay.
17:39So, I think, you know, I mean, religions across the world have places of worship tied to location, tied to
17:45identity, tied to civilization,
17:47which exist and have been existing forever.
17:50I mean, there was being fought over these places.
17:52So, let's not be, you know, unrealistic about just what importance it carries for people of a certain faith.
17:59And to trivialize it and to diminish the demand, the hurt, really, quite frankly,
18:05if religious places of any other faith were demolished like this,
18:09then I don't think there would be quite so much of a laid-back attitude to it.
18:13But because it's happened with somebody else's faith, it's very easy to say,
18:18oh, this is all nonsense and chicken and egg, etc., etc.
18:21But the bottom line is that these are civilizational wounds which are still festering.
18:27And if we have to move forward, we have to find a way of resolving them.
18:31It's as simple as that.
18:32The civilizational wounds that are still festering is what Advaita Kala says.
18:37Give me a moment.
18:38Atikur Rahman, for Hindus, if I were to talk about Mathura, for example,
18:44it is the Janam Bhoomi of Yogeshwar Sri Krishna.
18:48He was born at that particular place.
18:51It is a place of civilizational importance for Hindus.
18:54What is the civilizational importance of a mosque in that place for Muslims?
19:01If a mosque was built by destroying a Hindu temple on orders of Aurangzeb,
19:06is there any civilizational importance for Muslims?
19:09And yet this resistance, why?
19:12It's a civilizational wound, says Advaita Kala.
19:16Well, Gaurav, I would have agreed with your civilizational aspect argument
19:21if there would have been a historian on our panel.
19:25Anyway, this is not a matter of Kashi and Mathura only.
19:29Gaurav, when Ayodhya dispute was going on in the Supreme Court,
19:33the same issues came up of mediation.
19:36People declined towards the mediation.
19:39At that time, it was pointed out that this is the only thing.
19:43But the fringe elements always came out with the argument that
19:48this is a Jhaki and Kashi Mathura is what?
19:50And for your kind information, Gaurav, there are 40,000 mocks on the list of the RSS, BJP and the
20:01rightists.
20:0240,000. Can you believe this?
20:04One Ram Mandir and they have noted it as if Mahmood of Gagna has come from outside.
20:13And they need 40,000 to live in plunder.
20:15So, this is a new year.
20:18Mahmood of Gagna coming in the BJP, RSS and the right fingers in India.
20:24As if one temple is not sufficient for them.
20:28They are claiming 40,000 mocks.
20:39No, courts have to agree.
20:41You know, you must keep one thing in mind.
20:43Nobody has a veto on Hindus reclaiming their place of civilizational worship.
20:47And this must be very clear to everybody in India.
20:51Nobody has a veto on a civilizational place of worship.
20:54Courts will decide.
20:55But Karthik Chopra, why are you saying no?
20:57The matter is in court.
20:59Why is the Akhara Parishad issuing a Mathura Chalo call for Karsewa?
21:04What is this Karsewa, sir?
21:06Okay, first of all, I'd like to say hello to everyone here on the panel.
21:09Including my friend Vineet Jindal and Atikur Rahman-Sahab.
21:13Nice to see you all.
21:14See, when it comes to Gyanwapi, the case is very different as compared to Ayodhya.
21:19In Ayodhya, there was always the question is of giving us proof.
21:22Because the proof was under the ground, so the ASI reports were relied on.
21:25When it comes to Gyanwapi, all the, let's say, archaeological evidence is already above ground.
21:31It's clear for everyone to see.
21:33When it comes to Matra, Matra is a case where a Seva Samiti,
21:38which has no right over the ownership of the land,
21:41signs away the land to the Muslim side.
21:44The trust itself has a Seva Samiti.
21:46The trust doesn't sign the land away.
21:48The Seva Samiti signs it away.
21:49It's clearly a case of hijacking somebody else's land.
21:53So, what we are trying to say is that as far as these two structures are concerned,
21:57after the Ram Janamomi case, where we, where as everyone knows,
22:02the Nirmohi Akhada fought since 1866 in court.
22:05We fought for over 491 years.
22:07We went through all kinds of evidence.
22:09And finally, the case was, the suit was, the case was decided under Article 142.
22:15What does that show?
22:17That if there is a situation that we can sit across the table and come to a resolution,
22:22let us do it.
22:23The entire country was, one second, Gaurav, one second.
22:26The entire country was gifted this great gift of the Special Places of Worship Act 1991
22:32that completely alienated the rights of all Hindus.
22:35It said that apart from Ram Janam Bhoomi, every other temple, mosque structure,
22:40they referred to it as monuments.
22:42A temple never dies.
22:43A temple can never be a monument.
22:46In our beliefs, this term, a temple, once a temple, forever a temple.
22:50So, how did the Congress come and decide to alienate the rights of Hindus in 1991?
22:56Through this act.
22:57So, it was the Parliament that did so, as you rightly pointed out,
23:00Place of Worship Act 1991.
23:01But I want to get Atiku Rahman to quickly respond to this.
23:06I want to get Atiku Rahman to quickly respond to this.
23:09And come to a fair decision in Parliament as to whether that act or law should stand today or not.
23:14Fair enough.
23:15So, that is for our lawmakers to decide.
23:17But Atiku Rahman, the simple point is,
23:21do Muslims have any civilizational significance or importance attached to that Eidgah at Mathura,
23:29which the Hindus insist is Shri Krishna Jan Bhoomi?
23:32If no, then why this contest?
23:35Why no?
23:36Why no?
23:37But I will...
23:38I've asked you if no.
23:40Yes.
23:40I've asked you a question.
23:41What is the civilizational importance for Muslims?
23:45What is the civilizational importance for Muslims when it comes to Mathura?
23:50The civilizational importance of Muslims are from 1857 onwards in this India.
23:57So, this is pre-1857?
23:59You know, but that does not mean you do it.
24:00This is pre-1857.
24:02You are there from time immemorial.
24:04You cannot...
24:06Please look at Justice Benkar Chalaiya's judgment of 1994.
24:10That judgment very clearly says...
24:11One by one.
24:12One by one.
24:13Let Atiku Rahman make his point.
24:14Mr. Chopra, I'll come to you.
24:15Let Atiku Rahman make his point.
24:17Only a historian can tell you, Gaurav, what is the civilizational importance of Muslims to these places.
24:25I am not a historian.
24:27But you don't know of any civilizational importance that a mosque that was constructed on Aurangzeb's orders through that farman
24:36after demolishing the Shri Krishna Jan Bhoomi,
24:39even today Muslims will fight for it.
24:41Saira Shah Haleem.
24:42You are asking a wrong question.
24:44See, I'll be very clear.
24:46I'll be very clear.
24:47This entire preoccupation with medieval structures, a massive diversion from the material struggles of, you know, living Indian citizens.
24:56You know, elections around the corner, bring in, you know, Mathura, bring in Kashi.
25:00And here, let me be very clear that it's about holding the Indian judiciary accountable this time to its own
25:08constitutional mandates.
25:09And we need to rely on hearing on merit.
25:12That means strictly the rule of law has to prevail rather than populist sentiments.
25:19To dictate, to dictate, to dictate, you know, this outcome of a populist sentiment, of a populist sentiment, which matters
25:27to be the majority of his sentiment.
25:29Important point.
25:30Mr. Chopra, stay with me.
25:31Let me bring in advocate Vineet Jindal for a legal position on this.
25:35Is it just about Mathura or Kashi or through courts of law will title be decided?
25:40Is it, for example, Sambhal?
25:43Is it Harihar Mandir or is there a masjid?
25:46Because Muslims, both the panelists here, they're very clearly saying these are diversionary tactics.
25:52Elections are coming.
25:52You don't want to talk about bread and butter issues.
25:55That is why you're raising this.
25:56And it's a violation of Places of Worship Act.
25:59This is a very shameful statement which is made by the Muslim scholar here because it is a matter which
26:05is pending before the Supreme Court.
26:06And the Supreme Court, which is a constitutional authority, has directed the parties to come and mediate.
26:11It is not about the political party.
26:13And if they are saying that this is something, political tactics by the Supreme Court, then this is a very
26:18shameful statement.
26:20This is unacceptable.
26:21The Supreme Court is trying to resolve this issue and they will take a better, the best step to going
26:27to any kind of, no, the further issues and the further.
26:32We have seen the gravity of the issues.
26:34It is not only about the place and the land.
26:38It is also about the sentiments for both the parties.
26:41So I'm not, no, going upon that aspect.
26:43But definitely one more aspect.
26:45If we are talking about these particular places with this thing, the three mandirs, basically I say mandir because there
26:53are evidences already been there that this has been built up after destroying the mandirs.
26:59So definitely if someone place this property, this mandir has been belongs to Hindus, then definitely it will go to
27:06Hindu.
27:06But again, they are ready to file for it for the legal process.
27:11Karthik Chopra wants to comment before I bring in Atikur Rahman and Advaita.
27:15Karthik Chopra, why do you want to respond?
27:17One, Gaurav revisit the Ram Janambhumi case.
27:20It was very clearly held that the title of the deity has always been indisputable.
27:25As far as the trust is concerned in Mathra, the entire land belongs to the deity, not to the trust.
27:30So the trust is there to manage the land of the deity.
27:33Then you have a servant organization of the trust which decides to hand over the land to the Muslims.
27:38Now tomorrow, if Atik Saab's servant hands over his house to be, is that acceptable in law?
27:43One.
27:44Two, when you come to Kashi, all the evidences which we were asked in Ram Janambhumi to prove where we
27:49had to go through the diggings, the ASI diggings in 2002.
27:53The ASI reports over which there were multiple days which of valuable time that was spent in the Supreme Court.
27:58The ASI reports were also considered.
28:00Here you don't need a report of what is underground.
28:02You can see, even a common man can see that that wall over there in Gyanwapi, which they call a
28:08masjid and we call our temple, is absolutely ancient Hindu in nature, as far as it looks.
28:16I mean, what do you want me to say?
28:17Do you want me to call a shivling something else?
28:20Do you want me to call a...
28:21I'll get Saira Shah Haleem to respond because Saira Shah Haleem, what may seem trivial to you...
28:26I call myself a Hindu in my own country?
28:28Raman sir, what may seem trivial to you, as Advaita Kala points out, is of civilizational significance to her.
28:36Bara, I'll make it very short.
28:38Because right now, the road ahead depends on how the courts interpret a religious character of this site, as it
28:44stood on August 15, 1947.
28:46That is a very, very...
28:48That comes from speculation of worsted act, which was taken out by the Congress party.
28:52Mr. Chopra, kindly let Saira complete her point, sir.
28:55Right from Hindus.
28:56That's my point.
28:58Okay, only Saira Shah Haleem, ma'am kindly complete your point.
29:00It is my turn.
29:01Can we mute the gentleman, please?
29:02Let me finish.
29:03Let me emphasize once again that the road ahead depends entirely on how the courts interpret the religious character of
29:10this site, as it stood on August 15, 1957.
29:13And I feel that allowing files and surveys to bypass the 1991 Act, it opens a Pandora's box, right?
29:23And there'll be infinite historical revisionism going on.
29:27Anything can be opened, anything.
29:29And which threatens hundreds of historical sites across the country, across religious places of worship.
29:36So you say Hindus have no right to civilizational justice?
29:41Is that what you're saying, Advaita?
29:42Is that what you're saying, Saira?
29:44Opening a Pandora's box.
29:46That India's consent passed all the misconstrued...
29:50Mr. Chopra, just let the lady complete her point.
29:52I'll come back to you, sir.
29:52How can you refer to my ancient Hindu birthrights as a Pandora's box?
29:56That means you're calling my entire Sanatan faith a Pandora's box?
30:00Or the deity's title is indisputable since time immemorial.
30:05In Gyanwapi, you can clearly see, what do I call a murti or a devi?
30:09Do you in Islam worship idols?
30:12Is idol worship permitted?
30:14If idol worship is not permitted, how can you claim a wall?
30:17A wall which has idols on it as that being done over a mosque?
30:20And the 1991 Act, Places of Worship Act, it's very, very clear that...
30:27Mr. Chopra, you made your point, only Saira Shahin now, please.
30:31Please do not cite Ayodhya.
30:33That was an exception, not the rule.
30:35And it is very clear, the law is very clear.
30:38And again, this whole case depends on how the courts interpret the religious character
30:44as it stood again on August 15, 1947.
30:46And again, I am saying that India's syncretic past should not be misconstrued as historical
30:54vandalism.
30:55So, Danga, Jamili, Tehzeeb for you is a one-way street.
30:59Hindus are not entitled to civilizational justice in this country, not under Mughals, not under
31:05British, not earlier and not today because of Places of Worship Act post-1991.
31:19This syncretic past of India, etc., etc., it all sounds really good, but let's see what
31:24the syncreticism was based on.
31:26It was achieved at the tip of a sword.
31:29And that's the reality.
31:30And as much as Aurangzeb may be celebrated by some people, he was a bigot, who was somebody
31:37who was doing a political stunt.
31:40It was basically a matter of conquest and a matter of establishing his imprint across
31:46India.
31:47This was not anything garbed in any sort of piety, wherein he destroyed temples and then
31:53decided that there would be a mosque there.
31:55This was entirely political.
31:58And that's what we are responding to because these places do have a certain relevance when
32:05it comes to thousands of years, not just like the next last 10 years or even a century.
32:12Thousands of years of reverence.
32:14And I think that needs to be acknowledged.
32:16And let's not act like, you know, people are going after Muslim places.
32:20I mean, I passed Deoban practically two or three times.
32:25Okay.
32:27You want to respond to that?
32:29You want to quickly respond to that?
32:30Over decades.
32:32And I've only seen it expand.
32:34I've only seen it become the biggest economy.
32:35I think there is a political analyst in the world.
32:39Nobody is coming for that.
32:40So I think let's be realistic.
32:41Are you a historian or a political analyst?
32:44Are you a historian or a political analyst?
32:48Atweta.
32:49Because under your name, it is coming political analyst.
32:52But you are talking about history.
32:54You are misquoting history.
32:56You are not an historian.
32:57How is history being misquoted?
32:58How is history being misquoted?
33:01It doesn't matter to me what label there.
33:03A TV channel gives me.
33:05It doesn't matter.
33:06There are many labels I wear.
33:07But the bottom line is that you cannot dismiss these claims.
33:12You cannot trivialize them.
33:13If you want to move towards a more peaceful future.
33:18It's as simple as that.
33:20You are a historian.
33:21You say you are a historian.
33:22Advocate Jindal, the Ram Janma Bhumi dispute took over 60 years.
33:28Over 60 years.
33:29So you have the Nirmohi Akhara's 1959 title suit
33:34to the Supreme Court verdict that ultimately came in 2019.
33:38Does this indicate that whether it's the Gyan Vapi issue
33:42or the Mathura Shri Krishna Jan Bhoomi
33:44or the Harihar Mandir at Sambhal,
33:46it may have a similarly long timeline,
33:49especially with the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act 1991
33:53now under challenge?
33:55Gaurab, give me an appropriate time
33:58because there are two questions of yours.
34:00One is whether it will take a longer time
34:02as the Ayodhya Jan Bhoomi has been taken so much life and a long time.
34:06I don't think it is so
34:07because there are so many evidence already on record
34:10before the court itself
34:11with no stand as per the Evidence Act
34:15which shows that they are a Hindu bandit.
34:18So it has been destroyed and rebuilt in the form of a masjid.
34:22So evidences are there.
34:24I don't think it will take that much of time.
34:26Then definitely some more time has been taken.
34:29But I don't think it will take 60 years.
34:31It will be a matter of, I think, 5 or 6 years.
34:34It will not take longer time.
34:36Apart from this, everybody is talking about Places of Worship Act 1991.
34:40But nobody is talking about the exemptions given in Section 5 of Places of Worship Act
34:47which has been, which has specifically talking about the ancient properties,
34:52the ancient mandirs, the ancient sites,
34:54which comes under the archaeological surveys.
34:58Yes, right.
34:58There are no places which have been taken over
35:03before 1947 or after 1947.
35:05There are so many exemptions.
35:07So nobody is talking about it.
35:09And this suit has been taken care of by Section 5 itself.
35:12So don't misinterpret, don't divert the issue
35:15if Places of Worship Act is still there.
35:19And the court has been listening to this matter
35:20on the basis of Places of Worship Act also.
35:23Atiko Rehman wants to respond to you quickly, sir.
35:25Let Atiko Rehman respond to you
35:27before I bring in Saira Shahalim and Adweta.
35:28Go on, sir.
35:29Mr. Rehman.
35:30Sir, if you want to revisit the Ayodhya judgment,
35:34then only you can ascertain the real aspect of Places of Worship Act.
35:40The nation, Gaurav, was assured by the Supreme Court
35:44that the Supreme Court and the judiciary is not here
35:48to current past historical historical distortion.
35:52Mr. Atiko Rehman, whether Section 5 of the Act
35:55has been given the judgment of law.
35:57Sir, let Mr. Atiko Rehman complete his point.
35:59Go on, sir. Complete your point, Mr. Rehman.
36:01The nation was assured by the Supreme Court
36:04that using Article 142,
36:07we want to put an end to this particular saga
36:11of Hindu-Muslim relations
36:13towards the mandir and Muslim issue.
36:16We were assured.
36:20So basically, whether it is Atiko Rehman or Saira Shahalim,
36:25Hindus should not reclaim their places of worship.
36:28They should not even seek civilizational justice.
36:30Both of you are of that opinion.
36:33That in India, Hindus will not get justice
36:36whether it is under Aurangzeb,
36:38whether it is under Mughals subsequently,
36:41Advaita, nor under the British,
36:44nor under, you know, 80-odd years
36:47since independence of various governments that have come.
36:50And even today, they should not strive for justice
36:53in the name of peace.
36:55That Ganga, Jamani, Tahzeeb is a one-way street,
36:58Advaita Kala.
36:59Hindus should not fight for justice,
37:01even in courts of law, for peace.
37:03You know, I mean, you know, Gaurav,
37:04I don't want to personalize it.
37:06It's a matter of opinion.
37:07And everyone is free to their opinion in this country.
37:10But I think this is something that is very compelling
37:13for people of the Hindu faith.
37:15It is something that they have been consumed with for a while.
37:17I do not look at this as a recent demand
37:21or, you know, for a relook into this.
37:24So I think it has to progress
37:26in the way that it is progressing,
37:28be it through the courts.
37:30Mediation didn't work out.
37:31That's fine.
37:31A court decision will be far more definitive.
37:33And if that's what has to be followed,
37:36then that will be followed.
37:38But the bottom line is that to ignore it,
37:41to trivialize it,
37:42to say that it's not important,
37:44I think it's doing a disservice,
37:46not only to the Hindu community,
37:48but really this country,
37:49if we have to move forward
37:51with some sort of understanding
37:53of each other's civilizational heritage
37:55as well as belief system.
37:57Because Saira Shahalim,
37:59if historical and archaeological material
38:01establishes the existence
38:03of an earlier Hindu religious structure
38:06beneath, let's say in Mathura,
38:08the mosque that is there,
38:10or in Sambhal,
38:11or in Gyanwapi, in Kashi,
38:15should courts simply ignore
38:16those historical facts
38:18just because of a place of worship act 1991?
38:20Does this indicate that Hindus
38:23have no right to civilizational justice in Bharat?
38:26So Gaurav, I'm going to quote only the law.
38:29I'm really not interested
38:30in any communal slugfest.
38:33How is this a communal slugfest
38:35if Hindus are seeking
38:36their places of worship?
38:39I understand the right wing in India,
38:42you know, wants the political theater
38:44or the complete civilizational victory.
38:47Okay, fine.
38:47I understand the sentiment.
38:48However, I'm again citing the law here
38:51because here mediating statuary
38:54rights under the 1991 Act
38:57that amounts to institutional surrender
38:59under majority...
39:00But it does give that section 5
39:04as Advocate Vinnie Jindal points out,
39:06places that are under ASI are exempt.
39:09How long are we going to negate the law?
39:10Because here it is not just
39:12about medieval relics here.
39:14It is again about holding
39:16the Indian judiciary accountable, right?
39:18And because this is the Indian judiciary's
39:21own constitutional mandates
39:23that we saw under the 1991 Act,
39:25you mean to say,
39:26let's just throw everything apart.
39:28Let's spread the constitution.
39:30Let's spread the laws
39:31that have already been embedded.
39:32And let's just, you know,
39:34ride the wave of popular sentiment.
39:35Does that work?
39:36That is a question.
39:37So, I'm going simply by what
39:40the constitution dictates us,
39:42what the law upholds,
39:44and what the judiciary
39:45should hold accountable to.
39:48So, a judicial verdict
39:49would be acceptable?
39:50The rule of a man
39:51and not sentiments of any kind of
39:54popular majoritarian viewpoint.
39:57It's simple as that.
39:58Okay.
39:59Okay.
40:01Okay, Atiku Rahman, sure.
40:02Come on, go on, sir.
40:04I got your point, Gaurav.
40:05That if any archaeological evidence
40:09is found in Mathura,
40:10Kashi, Giyanopi, etc., etc.,
40:12Hold on, Advaita.
40:13Atiku Rahman is making a point.
40:15Hold on.
40:15Advaita, just one minute.
40:17Advaita, hold on, hold on.
40:18Hold on, Advaita.
40:19Atiku Rahman, yeah,
40:20complete your point, sir.
40:21I mean, it's just framing
40:23that's constantly used.
40:26Please, Atiku Rahman,
40:27it's an important point.
40:28Atiku Rahman,
40:29complete your point, sir.
40:30I agree that the Hindu
40:32civilizational aspect
40:34should be upheld
40:35if anything is found
40:36in these places.
40:38By the same logic, Gaurav,
40:40since the Supreme Court said
40:42that in the Ram Mandir issue,
40:44there was no mandir demolition
40:46to build Ram Mandir.
40:47You have to return
40:49Babri Majid to the Muslims.
40:50Will you agree, Gaurav?
40:52What do Muslims of India
40:53have to do with a masjid
40:54that was built
40:55by chaps of Babar?
40:57What is this love
40:58if Hindus,
40:59if Hindus,
41:00I am sorry,
41:02you have love
41:03for Babar's masjid
41:04and not of Hindus'
41:06Ram Mandir?
41:07Really?
41:08Advaita wants to come in.
41:09People lived here.
41:10India existed before Babar.
41:12from Samarkand.
41:12What is your love for Babar?
41:14It existed.
41:16We were there.
41:17Our ancestors were there.
41:18You can't deny
41:20the very existence.
41:26What do you love for Babar?
41:40Aurangzeb in today's day and age?
41:41I am not going to do that.
41:44I am...
41:47Something that's been said behind.
41:49No, hold on.
41:49But you've raised a valid point
41:50on whether this is all about politics.
41:52And I seriously want this issue
41:54to be dealt with
41:55so that it can be decided.
41:57There are two points
41:58I'm raising here
41:58on this special broadcast.
42:00This is the year 2026.
42:02Do Hindus have a right
42:03to civilizational justice in Bharat?
42:06You don't get it under Aurangzeb
42:07because he's an Islamic bigot.
42:09He's a bigot in our country.
42:11He's demolishing temples.
42:12There are Shahi Farman's
42:13that are available.
42:14There is evidence that's available
42:16that he's destroyed temples
42:17whether it's Mathura or Kashi.
42:19So I don't get justice.
42:21You must answer this
42:22because Hindus don't get justice
42:23under Mughals.
42:25They don't get justice
42:26under British.
42:27They don't get justice initially.
42:28Should they not even
42:29try to get justice today?
42:31No justice for Hindus in Bharat?
42:35Right at stake
42:37saying that Hindus
42:38have all the right
42:39to claim their civilizational
42:41if archaeological and court
42:43establish their Mathura
42:45and Kashi
42:46by the same logic, Gaurav.
42:50Absolutely.
42:51Adweta Kala,
42:52last 30 seconds
42:52I have on this part of the show
42:54because Uttar Pradesh
42:55Chief Minister
42:55Yogi Aditya Nathai said
42:57ab Mathura ki baat karie.
42:58He had earlier remarked
43:00is this all about politics
43:05before elections?
43:06No, it is far
43:07I mean the election is
43:13next year, 2027.
43:15I don't think
43:16we can set it aside
43:17by saying it's politics.
43:18It may make people
43:19feel comfortable
43:20by saying this is just
43:21about politics
43:22and they're welcome
43:23to that thought process.
43:24But the bottom line is
43:25like I said
43:26this is a civilizational wound
43:27which needs to be filled
43:29which needs to be healed
43:30if we are to move forward
43:32and India is not America
43:34we're not 250 years old.
43:36We existed long before
43:38Babar came to India.
43:40We had our faith
43:41we had our belief system
43:42we had our civilization
43:43we had the way we lived.
43:45So I don't think
43:46that we can make
43:47these sort of comparisons.
43:48I think we have to take
43:49knowledge
43:50and accept the fact
43:51that we existed
43:53much before
43:54any of this happened.
43:55And it's best
43:56courts of law decide that.
43:57We'll be tracking
43:57that story very closely.
43:58I want to thank
43:59all my guests
43:59because I want to
44:00quickly move on
44:00to the other big story
44:01we're tracking here
44:02on India First
44:03and that's the
44:03state of Hormuz.
44:04That's once again
44:05emerged as that
44:06central battleground
44:08in this West Asia war.
44:10US President Donald Trump
44:11has threatened
44:12to take control
44:13of the state of Hormuz.
44:14In a post on Truth Social
44:15President Trump
44:16has said that the US
44:17is reinstating
44:19its blockade
44:20but it's only stopping
44:22Iran's ships
44:23from entering or leaving.
44:24Donald Trump has said
44:25all other countries
44:26have a fair share
44:28to use the
44:29state of Hormuz
44:30which according to him
44:31is open.
44:32Donald Trump has also
44:33claimed that
44:34from this point forward
44:36the United States
44:37will be the guardian
44:39of the state of Hormuz
44:40and will be reimbursed
44:4220% on all cargo
44:45shipped through
44:46the state of Hormuz.
44:47Iran has responded
44:48with a stern warning
44:50saying it will not
44:51permit the United States
44:52to interfere
44:52in the management
44:53of the state of Hormuz.
44:55Iran's military spokesperson
44:57Ibrahim Zolfari
44:58has warned
44:59any attempts
45:00by Washington DC
45:01to intervene
45:02or by others
45:04to cooperate
45:04with the United States
45:06would face
45:07severe consequences.
45:09The latest escalation
45:10marks a new phase
45:11in the US-Iran conflict.
45:13According to an analysis
45:14by India Today's
45:15Austin team
45:16the geography
45:17and the intensity
45:17of the war
45:18has changed
45:19significantly
45:19across three distinct phases.
45:21The first
45:22was the aggression phase
45:24that started
45:2528th of February
45:25when the US
45:26and Israeli strikes
45:27killed Iran's
45:28supreme leader
45:29Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
45:31During this period
45:32Washington DC
45:33and Israel
45:33were the initiators
45:35of military operations
45:36with the stated objective
45:38of preventing Iran
45:39from developing
45:39a nuclear weapon.
45:41The conflict
45:41then expanded
45:42with polls
45:43for a regime change
45:45also emerging.
45:47They said of course
45:47we'll create the environment
45:49it's for people of Iran
45:49to do so.
45:50that didn't happen.
45:51The second
45:52was the flare-up phase
45:54which lasted
45:55from the ceasefire
45:56in early April
45:57till the signing
45:58of the MOU
45:59the memorandum
46:00of understanding
46:00on the 17th of June.
46:02This period
46:03saw limited exchanges
46:05with both sides
46:06avoiding a sustained
46:08confrontation
46:08and keeping
46:09their responses
46:10largely
46:12at a very low level
46:13at a tactical level
46:14no strategic
46:15big moves.
46:16the third
46:17and the current
46:18phase
46:19which is
46:20re-escalation
46:21and this is
46:21very very dangerous.
46:23This re-escalation phase
46:24which started
46:25on the 7th of July
46:26this is when
46:27Iranian forces
46:28targeted a commercial
46:30vessel off the coast
46:31of Oman.
46:32Now this has triggered
46:33massive
46:34massive
46:34perhaps the most
46:35intense exchange
46:36of fire
46:37between Washington DC
46:38and Tehran
46:38since the April
46:39ceasefire.
46:40Now according
46:41to the OSINT analysis
46:42this phase
46:44marks a shift
46:45in strategy.
46:46For the first time
46:47in this conflict
46:47Iran is targeting
46:48commercial shipping
46:50including
46:50on the Omani route
46:52in the Strait of Hormuz.
46:53Now this analysis
46:54shows that
46:55earlier Iranian
46:56attacks were
46:57on commercial vessels
46:58which were spread
46:59across the Persian Gulf
47:01and coming into
47:01the Strait of Hormuz
47:02as you see
47:03on the map
47:03there on your
47:04television screen.
47:06Now
47:06since the 7th of July
47:08the attacks have become
47:09more concentrated
47:10around the
47:11eastern flank
47:13of the Strait
47:13the eastern entrance
47:14of the Strait
47:15particularly
47:16along the
47:17Omani shipping corridor
47:18and that's a very
47:18big signal
47:19that Iran is sending
47:20out to the world
47:21and the United States
47:22in particular
47:23on commercial shipping.
47:25Now this changing
47:26pattern of attacks
47:27indicates that
47:27the conflict
47:28is no longer
47:29just about military
47:29strikes
47:30it's about
47:31control
47:32it's about
47:32influence
47:33it's the
47:34larger geopolitical
47:35statement
47:36that is being made
47:37and I quickly
47:38want to bring
47:39in
47:39Mohamed Khatibi
47:40a political
47:41analyst and journalist
47:42who joins us
47:43from Tehran
47:44and Sandeep
47:45Undeetan
47:45my colleague
47:46and senior
47:46journalist
47:47gentlemen
47:47welcome
47:48Mohamed Khatibi
47:49how do you see
47:50this
47:51re-escalation phase
47:53is this
47:54an apprehension
47:55that this war
47:56is now all set
47:57to escalate
47:57or does the
47:58ceasefire still
47:59hold
47:59even if it's
48:00just in form
48:02I think
48:03the ceasefire
48:04is still
48:05holding
48:06because
48:06the United
48:07States
48:07has not
48:08targeted
48:11intensively
48:12but it is
48:13targeting
48:14southern parts
48:14of Iran
48:15it hasn't
48:15yet targeted
48:16Tehran
48:17and the
48:18assassinations
48:20are stopped
48:21it was not
48:22the case
48:24during the war
48:25and right
48:25now
48:26I think
48:27the United
48:27States
48:27wants to
48:28degrade
48:29Iran's
48:30defensive
48:30capabilities
48:31in the
48:32islands
48:33and the
48:34southern
48:35coastline
48:36of Iran
48:37and I
48:38think
48:38the United
48:39States
48:39is not
48:40just
48:41symbolically
48:42attacking
48:42these areas
48:43but it
48:43wants
48:44to degrade
48:45defensive
48:45capabilities
48:46in order
48:47to pave
48:48the way
48:48for further
48:49escalation
48:50and maybe
48:50a ground
48:51invasion
48:51and
48:52also
48:52you think
48:53there could
48:53be a ground
48:54invasion
48:54that's a
48:54very pertinent
48:55point
48:55you make
48:56Sandeep
48:56is that
48:57also
48:57you are
48:57reading
48:58these strikes
48:59are very
48:59carefully
49:00coordinated
49:00on particular
49:02targets
49:02all along
49:04the Strait
49:04of Hormuz
49:05to weaken
49:06Iran's
49:06control
49:07over the
49:08Strait
49:08as Iran
49:09seeks to
49:09actually
49:09increase
49:10its influence
49:11including
49:11on the
49:12Omani
49:12side
49:13absolutely
49:14you know
49:14and like
49:15you said
49:15this battle
49:16is actually
49:17a battle
49:18for the
49:18control
49:18of the
49:19Strait
49:19of Hormuz
49:19which
49:20as the
49:20maps
49:21are showing
49:21you
49:21is 33
49:23kilometers
49:23at its
49:24narrowest
49:24point
49:25between
49:25Iran
49:25and
49:26Oman
49:26now
49:26the
49:27United
49:27States
49:28and the
49:28statements
49:29from
49:29President
49:29Trump
49:30show that
49:30the
49:31US
49:31is trying
49:32to do
49:32an
49:32Iran
49:33on
49:33Iran
49:33with
49:34the
49:34Strait
49:34of Hormuz
49:35they're
49:35trying
49:35to do
49:36exactly
49:36what
49:36the
49:37Iranians
49:37have done
49:37with the
49:38Strait
49:38of Hormuz
49:38which is
49:39to create
49:39a separate
49:39passage
49:40to control
49:42and to
49:43charge
49:43a toll
49:43which is
49:44what
49:44President
49:45Trump
49:45seems
49:45to be
49:46hinting
49:46at
49:46and
49:47this
49:47is
49:47the
49:47kind
49:47of
49:47battle
49:48that's
49:48been
49:49underway
49:49for the
49:49last
49:50couple
49:50of
49:50weeks
49:50the
49:51ceasefire
49:51right
49:52now
49:52Gaurav
49:52it's
49:52literally
49:53hanging
49:53by the
49:54slimmest
49:55the thinnest
49:56of threads
49:56that we've
49:57seen
49:57in the
49:57last
49:58couple
49:58of
49:58days
49:58and
50:00while
50:00it's
50:00still
50:01holding
50:01it's
50:02just
50:02a
50:03ceasefire
50:03in
50:03all
50:03but
50:04name
50:04because
50:04the
50:04kind
50:05of
50:05ordinance
50:05that
50:06both
50:06sides
50:06are
50:06throwing
50:07flinging
50:07at
50:07each
50:07other
50:08we're
50:08just
50:08hearing
50:08reports
50:09of
50:09the
50:09US
50:09having
50:10deployed
50:10unmanned
50:11surface
50:11vessels
50:12attack
50:13drones
50:14for the
50:14first
50:15time
50:15they've
50:16been
50:16hitting
50:16all
50:16those
50:17targets
50:17in
50:17the
50:18south
50:18of
50:18Iran
50:18they're
50:19trying
50:19to
50:19degrade
50:20Iran's
50:21capabilities
50:22Iran's
50:23capacities
50:24to
50:24interfere
50:24with
50:24shipping
50:25in
50:26the
50:26state
50:26of
50:26Hormuz
50:26Gaurav
50:27but
50:27this
50:27is
50:27a
50:27game
50:28that
50:28I
50:30want
50:30to
50:30bring
50:30in
50:31Mr.
50:31Khatibi
50:31once
50:32again
50:32Mohamad
50:32Khatibi
50:33Keshem
50:33Island
50:34we were
50:34told
50:34is like
50:35an
50:35underground
50:35missile
50:36city
50:36that's
50:37being
50:37targeted
50:38Bandar
50:39Abbas
50:40has
50:40been
50:40targeted
50:40other
50:41points
50:42all
50:42along
50:43are
50:43being
50:43targeted
50:44does
50:44this
50:44indicate
50:45a
50:45wider
50:45pattern
50:46that
50:46America
50:47is
50:47trying
50:47to
50:47degrade
50:48Iran's
50:48capability
50:49of
50:50either
50:50targeting
50:50the
50:51Omani
50:51side
50:51or
50:52even
50:52protect
50:52its
50:53own
50:53flank
50:54on
50:54the
50:54Iranian
50:54side
50:55I
50:56think
50:56these
50:57attacks
50:57will
50:57do
50:58no
50:58good
50:58to
50:59diplomacy
50:59as
51:00well
51:00as
51:01it
51:01is
51:02not
51:02able
51:03to
51:03get
51:05control
51:05of
51:05the
51:05Strait
51:06of
51:06Hormuz
51:06even
51:07if
51:08the
51:08whole
51:09missile
51:09silos
51:10of
51:10Iran
51:11and
51:11missile
51:11capabilities
51:12of
51:12Iran
51:13is
51:13destroyed
51:13in
51:14southern
51:14parts
51:14of
51:15Iran
51:15Iran
51:16is
51:16still
51:16capable
51:17to
51:17control
51:18the
51:18Strait
51:18of
51:18Hormuz
51:19just
51:19one
51:20or
51:20two
51:20speed
51:21boats
51:21can
51:22disrupt
51:22shipping
51:23there
51:23and
51:23I
51:23think
51:24that
51:24Trump
51:25is
51:26miscalculating
51:27by
51:27targeting
51:28the
51:28Iranian
51:29coastline
51:30and
51:30Iranian
51:31cities
51:31instead
51:32of
51:33targeting
51:33Iran
51:33and
51:34trying
51:34to
51:34pressure
51:35Iran
51:35to
51:35the
51:35negotiating
51:36table
51:36it
51:37should
51:37get
51:38along
51:39with
51:39Iran's
51:40demands
51:40and
51:41stick
51:41to
51:42the
51:42MOU
51:43that
51:43he
51:43has
51:44signed
51:44and
51:45I
51:45think
51:45that
51:45United
51:46States
51:46as
51:47long
51:47as
51:47it
51:48continues
51:49maximalist
51:50demands
51:50Iran
51:50will
51:51not
51:51give
51:51in
51:51to
51:51the
51:52pressure
51:52and
51:53these
51:53attacks
51:53will
51:54do
51:55no
51:55good
51:55militarily
51:56because
51:56as
51:57I
51:57said
51:57it
51:58has
51:58not
51:59the
51:59ability
52:00to
52:01get
52:02control
52:03of the
52:03Strait of
52:04Hormuz
52:04by the
52:04United
52:05States
52:05Iran
52:05will
52:06continue
52:06to
52:07go on
52:07and
52:10Iran's
52:11strength
52:11and
52:12control
52:13has
52:13only
52:13increased
52:14since
52:14the
52:1428th
52:15of
52:15February
52:15and
52:16especially
52:16on
52:16the
52:16state
52:17of
52:17Hormuz
52:17so
52:17America
52:18wants
52:18to
52:18charge
52:1920%
52:19Sandeep
52:20is there
52:21merit
52:21in the
52:21Iranian
52:22thinking
52:22that
52:22America
52:23could
52:23attempt
52:24a
52:24limited
52:24ground
52:25assault
52:25especially
52:26in
52:26and
52:27around
52:27the
52:27Keshem
52:28Island
52:28and
52:28try
52:28and
52:28take
52:28control
52:29of
52:29the
52:29islands
52:31Absolutely
52:31Gaurav
52:32and
52:32as we
52:32wargamed
52:33over the
52:33last
52:33couple
52:34of
52:34months
52:34that
52:34option
52:35has
52:35always
52:35been
52:36on
52:36the
52:36table
52:36the
52:37kind
52:37of
52:37US
52:38amphibious
52:39ready
52:39groups
52:40that
52:40have
52:40been
52:40moved
52:40into
52:41theater
52:41their
52:41airborne
52:42units
52:42their
52:43special
52:43forces
52:44they are
52:44looking
52:44at
52:45some
52:45kind
52:45of
52:45option
52:47to
52:47grab
52:48some
52:49of
52:49the
52:49islands
52:50to
52:50take
52:51control
52:51of
52:51Keshem
52:52Island
52:52or
52:52some
52:53of
52:53those
52:53islands
52:54but
52:55all
52:56of
52:56these
52:56options
52:57are
52:58fraught
52:58with
52:58so
52:59that
53:00the
53:00Americans
53:01have
53:01not
53:02given
53:03the
53:03green
53:03signal
53:03to
53:04any
53:04of
53:04them
53:04because
53:04the
53:05possibility
53:06of
53:06the
53:07loss
53:07of
53:07lives
53:07of
53:08US
53:08servicemen
53:09that's
53:09extremely
53:10high
53:10and
53:11given
53:11the
53:11fact
53:11that
53:12the
53:12US
53:12is
53:13in
53:13an
53:13election
53:13year
53:14you
53:14have
53:15the
53:15midterms
53:16coming
53:16up
53:16in
53:16November
53:16body
53:17bags
53:18are
53:18the
53:18last
53:18thing
53:19that
53:19Trump
53:20would
53:20like
53:20to
53:20see
53:20so
53:21the
53:21last
53:2130
53:22seconds
53:22I
53:22have
53:22on
53:22this
53:22part
53:23of
53:23the
53:23show
53:23I
53:23just
53:23want
53:23a
53:23yes
53:24no
53:24answer
53:24do
53:25we
53:25see
53:25an
53:25escalation
53:26in
53:26the
53:26days
53:26and
53:26weeks
53:26ahead
53:27yes
53:28no
53:28escalation
53:29yes
53:29or
53:29escalation
53:30no
53:31I
53:32think
53:32this
53:32will
53:33stay
53:34the
53:34same
53:34and
53:35Iran
53:35and
53:35United
53:36States
53:36will
53:36do
53:37tit
53:37for
53:37tat
53:37operations
53:38I
53:38don't
53:39think
53:39that
53:39this
53:39will
53:40be
53:40escalated
53:41further
53:41it
53:42is
53:42right
53:43now
53:4310
53:44okay
53:44so
53:44no
53:45escalation
53:45but
53:45tit
53:45for
53:46tat
53:46attacks
53:46yes
53:46Sandeep
53:47is
53:47that
53:47also
53:47you're
53:47reading
53:48yes
53:48or
53:48no
53:48escalation
53:49or
53:49just
53:49tit
53:49for
53:50tat
53:50tactical
53:50strikes
53:50tit
53:51for
53:51tat
53:51Gaurav
53:51the
53:52peace
53:52deal
53:53holds
53:53the
53:53MOU
53:54holds
53:54these
53:55kind
53:55of
53:55attacks
53:56will
53:56keep
53:56going
53:57till
53:58they
53:58resolve
53:59it
53:59with
54:00some
54:01kind
54:01of
54:01resolution
54:02fair
54:02enough
54:03I've
54:03run
54:03out
54:03of
54:03time
54:04on
54:04this
54:04part
54:04of
54:04the
54:04show
54:04but
54:04that's
54:05a
54:05story
54:05we'll
54:05be
54:05tracking
54:06very
54:06closely
54:06here
54:07on
54:07India
54:08today
54:08Mohamed
54:09Khatibi
54:09Sandeep
54:09Nathan
54:10many
54:10thanks
54:10for
54:10joining
54:10me
Comments