India has rejected remarks on Jammu and Kashmir made by Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, reiterating that Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh are an integral and inalienable part of India.

New Delhi also said the international community should focus on developments in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK), including what India described as human rights concerns and the use of the territory for cross-border terrorism.

MEA Rejects Norway’s Remarks

The response came after Eide discussed regional issues, including Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan, during talks with Pakistan Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar in Islamabad on Thursday.

Dar reportedly briefed the Norwegian minister on what Pakistan describes as the “long-standing unresolved” Kashmir dispute. He also raised India's decision to keep the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance.

Responding to questions about Eide's remarks during his regular media briefing, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal rejected the characterisation of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed issue in the manner suggested by Pakistan.

‘Integral Part of India’

Jaiswal said New Delhi's position on the territory remained unchanged.

“Let me say that the whole of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh are an integral and inalienable part of India,” he said.

He added that the issue that should concern the international community was the situation in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

According to Jaiswal, this includes alleged atrocities in PoJK and the use of the territory for cross-border terrorism.

India Stands by IWT Position

The MEA spokesperson was also asked about recent comments by Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif criticising India's decision to keep the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance.

Jaiswal said there had been no change in India's position on the treaty.

India placed the IWT in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025, which killed 26 civilians. New Delhi has maintained that the treaty will remain in abeyance until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably abjures” its support for cross-border terrorism.

The treaty, signed in 1960, governs the use of the Indus river system by India and Pakistan and has remained an important component of bilateral relations for decades.

Protests Intensify in PoJK

India's latest remarks also come amid reports of growing public unrest in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

The region has witnessed protests, clashes, communications disruptions and allegations of excessive use of force by security personnel.

The demonstrations initially focused on issues such as electricity tariffs and the rising cost of essential commodities, but the demands have reportedly expanded to include political reforms, greater transparency and stronger democratic representation.

Security Crackdown Allegations

Videos circulating on social media, including material linked to the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), have purportedly shown clashes involving Pakistani security personnel.

Other footage circulating online has reportedly shown women protesters fleeing during a security operation in the Kotli district, accompanied by claims that live ammunition was used. Such material and claims could not be independently verified from the information available.

Large gatherings have also reportedly taken place in several parts of PoJK, with protesters expressing solidarity with the JAAC and raising concerns about alleged violence by Pakistani security forces.

Kashmir Remains a Key Diplomatic Issue

India's response underscores New Delhi's longstanding position that Jammu and Kashmir, including Ladakh, is an integral part of the country.

At the same time, Pakistan continues to raise the Kashmir issue at international forums and describes it as an unresolved dispute.

With India-Pakistan relations already strained over terrorism, the Indus Waters Treaty and developments in PoJK, New Delhi's rejection of the Norwegian foreign minister's remarks is likely to add another diplomatic dimension to the ongoing regional debate.

In Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, anti-government protests entered their 34th consecutive day this week, having evolved from initial demands over inflation, electricity tariffs and wheat flour shortages into a broader rejection of Islamabad's control over the region altogether. At a gathering in Rawalakot, protest leader Javed Iqbal told the crowd that decades of Pakistani messaging about "liberating" Srinagar had lost all credibility with local Kashmiris. The gathering responded with a slogan declaring the region would never become a Pakistani province, and social media videos have shown large numbers of local women joining marches against what protesters describe as repression and arbitrary arrests. The unrest turned deadly this week when Pakistani security forces opened fire during clashes in Rawalakot, killing six civilians, according to multiple reports. The Joint Awami Action Committee has called for a long march toward Muzaffarabad on July 15, urging widespread participation.

India's Ministry of External Affairs addressed the situation directly at its weekly briefing, with spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal saying the protests are a consequence of what he called Pakistan's long-term denial of fundamental rights in the region, and accusing Pakistani authorities of responding with excessive force, supply blockades and communications blackouts. He said India hopes the international community will hold Pakistan accountable.

The unrest in PoK has coincided with a sharp escalation in violence in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Pashtun areas. JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman said the region has recorded more than 50 deaths over just two to three days, arguing that Pakistani government authority no longer effectively extends into Balochistan at all. According to data from the South Asia Terrorism Portal, Pakistan has recorded roughly 650 killing incidents so far in 2026, including 487 civilian and 730 security force deaths, alongside close to 1,200 militants killed.

Rehman used the moment to take a direct swipe at Munir's growing political role, telling reporters that if the military wants to do politics, its personnel should retire their uniforms and contest elections instead — a way, he said, of testing how many votes people in uniform would actually receive from the public. He separately accused the military of pushing a new generation of Pakistanis toward violence through its handling of the crisis.

Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has sought to shift blame for the violence outward, chairing a meeting with Munir and Balochistan Chief Minister Sarfraz Bugti last week where he accused militants of using Afghan territory to stage attacks inside both Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Taken together, the three fronts — PoK's sustained street movement, the mounting Balochistan-Pashtun death toll, and a senior political leader publicly challenging the Army's electoral legitimacy — paint a picture of a security and political establishment under simultaneous pressure from multiple directions, with no clear sign from Islamabad of how it intends to address any of them.

The Centre has once again clarified that an Indian passport is not a conclusive proof of citizenship, stressing that it is issued primarily as a travel document for international travel under the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. The clarification comes amid continuing political debate over the documents that can be used to establish citizenship during official verification processes.

Addressing the media on Tuesday, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said passports are issued to Indian citizens after a rigorous verification process in accordance with the Passport Act, 1967, and the Passport Rules, 1980. However, he emphasized that the purpose of a passport is to facilitate international travel rather than serve as definitive legal proof of citizenship in every circumstance.

The government also highlighted that fewer than 8 per cent of India's population currently possesses a passport, underlining that the document is not universally held by Indian citizens.

The clarification follows a similar statement made by the MEA on June 24, during Passport Seva Divas, when the ministry first publicly stated that a passport should be viewed as a travel document rather than definitive evidence of citizenship. The issue gained attention after questions were raised regarding whether passports could be accepted as proof of citizenship during the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The ministry has also referred to a 2013 Bombay High Court judgment, which held that while a passport indicates nationality, it cannot by itself be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship. Officials further noted that, under exceptional circumstances and in the public interest, the Central Government has the authority under the Passport Act to issue a passport even to a non-Indian citizen, reinforcing the distinction between a passport and legal citizenship.

The latest clarification has drawn criticism from the Congress party. Congress leaders Supriya Shrinate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal questioned the government's position, asking on what basis passports are issued if they cannot be considered proof of citizenship. The party also alleged that the government was creating ambiguity over citizenship documentation for political reasons.

Legal experts point out that India does not issue a single universal document that serves as absolute proof of citizenship for every citizen. Instead, citizenship is determined under the Citizenship Act, 1955, based on the manner in which it was acquired and supported by relevant official records.

The government also reiterated the distinction between nationality and citizenship. While a passport identifies a person's nationality and enables international travel, citizenship defines an individual's legal rights, constitutional protections and obligations within India.

Officials clarified that documents such as Aadhaar, Voter ID, PAN Card and Driving Licence are issued for specific administrative purposes and therefore cannot independently establish citizenship. Aadhaar, for instance, serves as proof of identity and residence, while a voter identity card is issued for electoral purposes.

The ministry further explained that cancellation or suspension of a passport does not automatically result in the loss of Indian citizenship. Passports may be cancelled due to reasons such as furnishing false information, violations under the Passport Act, legal proceedings or national security concerns. Termination of citizenship, however, follows a separate legal process governed by the Citizenship Act.

The government also highlighted improvements in passport services over the past decade. According to the MEA, the number of Passport Seva Kendras and related service centres has increased from 77 to 545, while the rollout of chip-based e-passports since 2025 has resulted in the issuance of 1.47 crore e-passports. Average passport processing time has been reduced to five to six days, and the number of countries offering visa-free entry to Indian passport holders has increased from 16 in 2019 to 27.

The clarification comes at a time when questions surrounding citizenship documentation continue to remain part of wider legal and political discussions, with the Centre maintaining that citizenship must be determined under the provisions of the Citizenship Act rather than through any single identity or travel document.

At a media briefing in Auckland on Saturday, during the final leg of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's three-nation Indo-Pacific tour, a New Zealand journalist asked why Modi doesn't hold press conferences. MEA Secretary (East) Rudrendra Tandon's response has since taken over Indian social media: he called Modi a "quintessential Indian politician," said questioning the Prime Minister's political style "wouldn't be appropriate" for a civil servant, and pointed to Modi's electoral record — a third term in office — as evidence the approach works.

Tandon went further, arguing that India's electorate is "predominantly rural" and prefers direct contact over being "spoken to through intermediaries," calling Modi's use of rallies, social media and similar channels a communication style he has "perfected." He also noted the moment felt like "deja vu," referencing a near-identical exchange in Norway two months earlier, when Norwegian journalist Helle Lyng Svendsen asked Modi directly why he wouldn't take questions from "the freest press in the world" — a question Modi didn't answer before walking away. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal offered a shorter version of the same point separately: "The Prime Minister has his own style of communication."

The "quintessential" remark quickly became the story itself. Clips of the exchange spread across X within hours, with much of the reaction mocking the phrasing rather than engaging with Tandon's underlying argument — a pattern similar to what followed the Norway incident, where Indian broadcasters spent more airtime dissecting the confrontation than the trade agreements Modi's visit was meant to highlight. Word searches for the term "quintessential" reportedly spiked as viewers looked it up.

This marks the third time in two months a foreign journalist has raised the press-conference question with Modi or his officials during an overseas trip — after Norway in May and an incident in Melbourne in early July. Each time, officials have given a version of the same explanation: that Modi communicates differently, and by design.

Supporters of the government have made similar arguments before. BJP MP Tejasvi Surya has said press conferences are no longer the only legitimate channel for public communication, pointing to rallies, public meetings and social media as equally valid.

Critics see it differently. Modi has not held a formal press conference in the decade he's been Prime Minister, relying instead on scripted interviews and platforms like Mann Ki Baat where questions aren't put to him live. India's ranking on Reporters Without Borders' 2026 World Press Freedom Index — 157th out of 180 countries, down six places from the previous year and placed in the "very serious" category — has become a regular reference point in this recurring debate, cited by critics as evidence the pattern goes beyond personal style.

For now, neither the MEA nor the Prime Minister's Office has indicated any change is coming. The pattern from Norway, Melbourne and now Auckland suggests the question — and the answer — may simply resurface again on Modi's next foreign trip.

More than 50 British lawmakers have signed a letter calling for diplomatic intervention as Pakistani security forces crack down on protesters in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, leaving 11 dead and over 70 injured.

Markets shut, protests widen

The situation across Pakistan-occupied Kashmir remains volatile. Markets in Muzaffarabad stayed closed on Tuesday, with shutdowns continuing in Bhimbar and Kotli. Hundreds of protesters have taken to the streets, defying a government crackdown on the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), the anti-government group leading the agitation.

Local sources said tear gas was fired at demonstrators following fresh clashes with JAAC workers. The unrest has triggered a communications blackout, making it difficult to verify ground-level developments independently.

Diplomatic pressure builds

Imran Hussain, the UK MP who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Kashmir, confirmed that over 50 lawmakers have backed a letter to the British Foreign Office. The MPs expressed concern over arrests, internet and mobile service disruptions, and the deteriorating situation in the region.

"The letter urges the British government to take diplomatic action," Hussain said. British Kashmiris, according to the June 6 letter, have been unable to contact relatives in PoJK amid the blackout.

What India said

New Delhi did not hold back. On Tuesday, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal accused Pakistan of circulating "fake news and videos" to divert attention from alleged human rights abuses in PoK. He expressed concern over reports of police brutality and said the international community must hold Pakistan accountable.

India has consistently maintained that territories under Pakistan's illegal occupation remain an integral part of Jammu and Kashmir.

11 dead, over 70 injured

The casualty figures tell a grim story. Seven civilians and four police personnel have been killed, officials said. More than 70 others have been injured in clashes between protesters and security forces.

Violence escalated after JAAC activists gathered outside a hospital morgue to protest the alleged killing of a member in police firing. Rawalakot Commissioner Sardar Waheed Khan told Reuters that four police officers and a passer-by died after protesters opened fire. Six protesters were killed in the subsequent security response.

Police have described the incident as a terrorist act, claiming JAAC-linked individuals used shotguns and other weapons. The regional government banned JAAC on June 5 under anti-terrorism laws and launched a crackdown on its supporters.

What's behind the PoK unrest?

Despite government claims that most of JAAC's 38 demands have been accepted, the group continues its agitation. Key demands include the abolition of 12 reserved assembly seats, along with broader economic and governance reforms.

Former Jammu and Kashmir DGP Shesh Paul Vaid accused Pakistani security forces of using excessive force against civilians. "The unrest reflects growing public dissatisfaction in PoJK," he said, arguing that protesters seeking their rights are being met with force instead of dialogue.

The coming days will determine whether diplomatic pressure mounts or the protests spread further.

MEA Dismisses 'Trashy Ruminations' as PM Modi's Name Surfaces in Epstein Files

India's foreign ministry has issued a sharp rebuttal after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's name was referenced in the massive new release of documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, labeling the claims as "trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal".

The controversy erupted following the U.S. Department of Justice's release of 3.5 million pages of records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act on January 30, 2026. The documents included an email where Epstein claimed the Indian PM followed his advice during a 2017 visit to Israel, prompting a fierce political clash in New Delhi.

The MEA's Forceful Rejection

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) moved swiftly to address the reference, confirming only the factual occurrence of the Prime Minister's landmark Israel visit in July 2017—the first by an Indian PM. In an official statement, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal dismissed all other insinuations in the email with "the utmost contempt".

"The rest of the allusions in the email are little more than trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal," the statement read. The government's response aimed to shut down what it framed as a baseless narrative rooted in the claims of a disgraced individual.

 The Allegation and Political Fallout

The specific email cited by opposition leaders was sent by Epstein on July 6, 2017—the final day of PM Modi's Israel trip. In it, Epstein wrote, "The Indian Prime Minister Modi took advice and danced and sang in Israel for the benefit of the US president. They had met a few weeks ago.. it worked !".

The Congress party seized on the reference, with spokesperson Pawan Khera calling it a "matter of national shame" and demanding the Prime Minister personally answer three questions about the nature of the alleged advice and what "worked".

The BJP retaliated fiercely, accusing the Congress of fraud. Party spokesperson Sambit Patra alleged the opposition had deceptively edited the email, inserting the word "his" to falsely construct a phrase claiming Modi took "his advice" from Epstein.

Beyond the 2017 Email: Other India References

The tranche of documents contained more than a dozen emails and messages referencing India. They included:

A 2014 email from current Petroleum Minister Hardeep Puri to Epstein, written before Puri joined the government, detailing strategic reasons for engaging with India post-Modi's election.

May 2019 emails from Epstein to Trump strategist Steve Bannon and Indian businessman Anil Ambani. Epstein suggested arranging a meeting between Bannon and Modi, claiming the Prime Minister was "on board" with certain ideas and discussing China and Pakistan as strategic concerns.

A Global Scandal's Latest Ripple

The U.S. DoJ's release is the largest under the transparency act and includes emails linking Epstein to a global network of politicians, celebrities, and billionaires. The files mention hundreds of names, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, Britain's Prince Andrew, and entrepreneur Elon Musk, highlighting the financier's relentless pursuit of high-profile connections.

Legal representatives for Epstein's victims have criticized the release for inadequately protecting survivors' identities, with lawyer Gloria Allred stating the DoJ "should be ashamed of themselves".

Key Allegations and Official Responses

| Aspect | Detail | Source / Response |

| Core Allegation | Epstein email claims PM Modi "took advice" and performed in Israel for the benefit of the US President in July 2017. | U.S. DoJ Released Files |

| MEA's Response | Dismisses claims as "trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal," confirms only the official visit occurred. | Official MEA Statement |

| Political Reaction | Congress demands PM's explanation; BJP accuses Congress of editing emails and committing fraud. | Political Statements |

| Other India Links | Emails show 2014 contact from Hardeep Puri and 2019 messages to Steve Bannon & Anil Ambani referencing Modi. | Document References |

| Global Context | Files detail Epstein's connections to Trump, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and other global figures. | BBC Analysis |

Why This Matters Now

The timing of the controversy is significant on two fronts. First, it demonstrates the continuing global ripple effects of the Epstein case, revealing how his influence operations attempted to touch virtually every sphere of power. Second, it injects a volatile element into India's domestic politics, with the opposition seeking accountability and the government vehemently defending the Prime Minister's integrity.

As of now, the MEA's unequivocal dismissal stands as the government's final word on the matter. With the Prime Minister scheduled for a second visit to Israel in February 2026, the diplomatic significance of the relationship remains, even as the political storm over the past visit continues to brew at home.