Anti-hijab agitation is part of BJP’s efforts to poison the minds of youth: D K Shivakumar

Donald Trump has linked his repeated threats to seize Greenland to his failure to win the Nobel Peace Prize, in a letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

The authenticity of the letter, in which Trump says he no longer feels obligated to “think purely of peace,” was confirmed by Støre to the Norwegian newspaper VG.

“Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace,” Trump wrote, adding he can now “think about what is good and proper for the United States.”

Støre said Trump’s letter was in response to a short message he had sent earlier, on behalf of himself and Finland’s President Alexander Stubb.

Trump has escalated rhetoric toward Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory, insisting the US will take control “one way or the other.” Over the weekend, he tweeted: “Now it is time, and it will be done!!!”

On Saturday, Trump threatened a 10% tariff on imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland from 1 February until the US is allowed to purchase the island. EU diplomats met for emergency talks on possible retaliatory tariffs and sanctions.

In his letter, Trump argued Denmark “cannot protect” Greenland from Russia or China, questioning Danish ownership: “There are no written documents; it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago.” He added that NATO should support the US, claiming the world is “not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland.”

Trump’s stance has unsettled the EU and NATO, as he refused to rule out military action to take control of the mineral-rich island.

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by the independent Norwegian Nobel Committee, not the government. Trump had campaigned for last year’s prize, which went to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who dedicated her award to him.

Støre reiterated that the Nobel Prize decision rests solely with the committee.

Mangaluru: The Phase I project of Badria Vision 2028 was formally launched at a ceremony held at the Badria Campus on January 17, marking an important step in the institution’s long-term development roadmap.

The programme was attended by P.B. Abdul Hameed, Secretary of the MEA, and P.C. Hasir, Correspondent of the MEA, who presided over the event and underscored the institution’s commitment to growth and academic excellence.

Office-bearers of the Badria Alumni Association were present in large numbers, including A.K. Sajid (President), Shamsuddin and S.M. Farooq (Vice-Presidents), Shaheed (General Secretary), and Khaleel (Treasurer), reflecting strong alumni engagement in the initiative.

The gathering was blessed by Sayyid Shamsuddeen Basith Thangal Kukkaje, Qateeb of Zeenat Yatheem Bakshi, who led a special dua seeking divine guidance and success for the project.

The ceremony also witnessed the participation of prominent alumnus and local corporate professional Abdul Latheef, along with alumni members Naushad, Kalandar, Safwan, members of the core committee, and several other former students.

A key moment of the event was the formal handover of a cheque to Ameen Woodland Architect, signalling the immediate commencement of construction work under Phase I of the project.

Organisers said the launch of Phase I reflects a shared vision, institutional unity, and collective resolve to realise the objectives of Badria Vision 2028.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.