top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

YouTuber challenges FIR, LoC in HC

Mumbai : The Bombay High Court issued notice to the state government on a petition filed by UK-based medico and YouTuber, Dr. Sangram Patil, seeking to quash a Mumbai Police FIR and revoking a Look Out Circular in a criminal case lodged against him, on Thursday.   Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, who heard the matter with preliminary submissions from both sides, sought a response from the state government and posted the matter for Feb. 4.   Maharashtra Advocate-General Milind Sathe informed the court...

YouTuber challenges FIR, LoC in HC

Mumbai : The Bombay High Court issued notice to the state government on a petition filed by UK-based medico and YouTuber, Dr. Sangram Patil, seeking to quash a Mumbai Police FIR and revoking a Look Out Circular in a criminal case lodged against him, on Thursday.   Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, who heard the matter with preliminary submissions from both sides, sought a response from the state government and posted the matter for Feb. 4.   Maharashtra Advocate-General Milind Sathe informed the court that the state would file its reply within a week in the matter.   Indian-origin Dr. Patil, hailing from Jalgaon, is facing a criminal case here for posting allegedly objectionable content involving Bharatiya Janata Party leaders on social media.   After his posts on a FB page, ‘Shehar Vikas Aghadi’, a Mumbai BJP media cell functionary lodged a criminal complaint following which the NM Joshi Marg Police registered a FIR (Dec. 18, 2025) and subsequently issued a LoC against Dr. Patil, restricting his travels.   The complainant Nikhil Bhamre filed the complaint in December 2025, contending that Dr. Patil on Dec. 14 posted offensive content intended to spread ‘disinformation and falsehoods’ about the BJP and its leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.   Among others, the police invoked BNSS Sec. 353(2) that attracts a 3-year jail term for publishing or circulating statements or rumours through electronic media with intent to promote enmity or hatred between communities.   Based on the FIR, Dr. Patil was detained and questioned for 15 hours when he arrived with his wife from London at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (Jan. 10), and again prevented from returning to Manchester, UK on Jan. 19 in view of the ongoing investigations.   On Wednesday (Jan. 21) Dr. Patil recorded his statement before the Mumbai Police and now he has moved the high court. Besides seeking quashing of the FIR and the LoC, he has sought removal of his name from the database imposing restrictions on his international travels.   Through his Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, the medico has sought interim relief in the form of a stay on further probe by Crime Branch-III and coercive action, restraint on filing any charge-sheet during the pendency of the petition and permission to go back to the UK.   Pasbola submitted to the court that Dr. Patil had voluntarily travelled from the UK to India and was unaware of the FIR when he landed here. Sathe argued that Patil had appeared in connection with other posts and was not fully cooperating with the investigators.

One Island, One Message

Beijing’s aggression is paradoxically uniting Taiwan around the defence of its democratic identity.

For years, China has tried to prise Taiwan from the inside. It has offered economic incentives to Taiwanese businesses, funnelled disinformation through social media and quietly courted politicians on the island through patronage and pressure. More recently, it has escalated its coercive campaign with sabre-rattling military drills and ‘grey-zone’ incursions that stop short of open war. But now, Beijing’s meddling is producing a reaction it did not intend: unity.


Last month, a remarkable demonstration unfolded on Ketagalan Boulevard in front of the Presidential Office in Taipei as thousands of protesters gathered under the slogan ‘Reject United Front Tactics, Safeguard Taiwan.’ But what made headlines was not the crowd size, nor the slogans, but the symbols. For the first time in memory, the red-and-blue flag of the Republic of China (ROC) flew alongside the green-and-white standard of Taiwan’s independence movement. These banners, long seen as emblems of opposing visions for Taiwan’s future, were raised together in defiance of a common adversary: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).


This convergence signals a tectonic shift in Taiwan’s political landscape. The island’s deep-rooted divide between those who favour preserving the ROC and those who demand a Republic of Taiwan is being supplanted by a new consensus: that Taiwan, under any name, must remain free, democratic and self-governed.


That consensus is being tested almost daily. On April 30, Somalia announced that it would bar Taiwanese passport holders from entering or even transiting through its territory. The move, based on China’s interpretation of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, was an unlikely yet telling episode in Beijing’s global pressure campaign.


Resolution 2758, passed in 1971, recognised the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the legitimate holder of China’s seat at the United Nations. Yet it did not specify Taiwan’s status, let alone affirm China’s sweeping claim over it. Nevertheless, Beijing has wielded the resolution like a cudgel to bludgeon Taiwan’s international space. Today, only 12 nations formally recognise Taiwan. China’s campaign to force governments, airlines, and multilateral bodies to treat Taiwan as part of the PRC has become so pervasive that even a government in Mogadishu, which barely governs its own capital, feels compelled to fall in line.


The timing is no coincidence. Somalia’s ban comes as Taiwan deepens ties with Somaliland, the breakaway republic in the north that declared independence from Somalia in 1991 but remains diplomatically isolated. In 2020, Somaliland and Taiwan opened representative offices in each other’s capitals, forming a small but defiant axis of unrecognised states.


Beijing’s furious response has been predictable. But its cumulative aggression is proving counterproductive. While China hoped to isolate Taiwan, it is instead catalysing a new form of national unity rooted in territory and democracy.


Historically, Taiwan’s internal political divide was sharp. Those loyal to the ROC saw the island as a bastion of Chinese republicanism, a legitimate government in exile with claims over all of China. Independence activists, by contrast, rejected the ROC’s legacy, viewing it as a colonial import imposed by Chiang Kai-shek’s defeated Nationalists in 1949. They demanded a clean break and a new ‘Republic of Taiwan.’ For decades, these groups competed bitterly in elections and public discourse.


Yet today, as the Chinese military sends jets across the Taiwan Strait’s median line, and balloons and drones into its airspace, the salience of this historical divide is fading. China’s strategy is to make Taiwan’s air and sea space feel like Chinese territory by normalizing its military presence.


But that effort has backfired. As threats mount, Taiwan’s national consciousness is becoming more territorialised in return. A sense of shared peril is mobilising the public. When the public perceives that domestic actors such as pro-China legislators are undermining democratic governance from within, outrage is spilling onto the streets.


By targeting all Taiwanese, regardless of political stripe, Beijing has forged unlikely alliances between former adversaries. The ROC loyalists and the independence activists may not agree on what to call their country, but certainly they know it is not the People’s Republic of China.

Comments


bottom of page