MUMBAI: Disabled Indians are finding love and tips for everyday life on mobile apps and chat groups, as technology helps level the field for a community that is often stigmatized and ignored.
A mobile matchmaking app for the disabled has facilitated at least half a dozen marriages since its launch, while a WhatsApp message group for women with prosthetic legs helps them navigate everyday challenges, be it relationships or shoes.
“At least two thirds of disabled people are single — and not from choice,” said Kalyani Khona, 24, founder of matchmaking app Inclov, short for ‘inclusive love’.
“Dating and matchmaking sites are not really inclusive, and there is such a stigma around disabled people that they are resigned to being alone,” she said.
India is home to nearly 27 million disabled people.
They are largely an invisible minority, with a lack of access to public transport and to spaces such as restaurants and movie theaters.
Women are particularly at a disadvantage, often considered a burden by their families because they cannot marry easily.
Inclov, developed with money raised from crowdfunding, has about 19,000 registered users in India; men make up 80 percent.
“We are aware that not everyone with a disability has access to a smartphone,” Khona told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
“Access for women is particularly limited, and they are also more inhibited,” she said.
About 15 women, all with prosthetic legs, get together on a private shared space on WhatsApp to share their common experiences — talking pregnancy, menstruation, and also what footwear is practical, but also cute.
Set up by three women who shared the same prosthetist in Mumbai, the women are all in their 20s and 30s; most are single.
It is not a support group, said Antara Telang, who lost a leg when a branch fell on her during monsoon rains.
“All of us in the chat group know the challenges that women with leg amputations face, and we support each other through everything,” said Telang, 25.
“It’s not just about our disabilities; it’s about interacting with people who understand what you’re going through. Posting on Reddit doesn’t provide the same kind of support that five people saying ‘OMG yes, me too!’ does.”
Disabled Indians use apps, chat groups to find love, navigate life
Disabled Indians use apps, chat groups to find love, navigate life
BBC asks senior music team to ‘step back’ from daily duties after Glastonbury row
- BBC said that it would no longer live-broadcast musical performances deemed “high risk”
LONDON: The BBC has asked senior staff overseeing music and events to step back from their duties amid a backlash over anti-Israel chants during Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury set, the broadcaster reported.
In a statement issued on Thursday, the BBC said that it would no longer live-broadcast musical performances deemed “high risk,” calling the editorial team’s decision not to cut the livestream “an error.”
During his act, the punk duo’s frontman, Bobby Vylan, chanted “Death, death to the IDF.” The BBC said that the band’s act was among the seven acts “deemed high risk” in advance and “suitable for live streaming with appropriate mitigations.”
“The team prioritized stopping the performance from featuring on-demand. This meant that no downloads of Bob Vylan’s set were available on iPlayer or Sounds,” the BBC said.
“However, the live feed, which was showing subsequent performances from other acts on the same Glastonbury stage, remained up until it was amended shortly after 8pm while teams worked on a technical solution.”
The broadcaster vowed to take action against “those found to be responsible for those failings in the live broadcast,” reiterating that there is “no place for antisemitism.”
British police said earlier this week that a criminal investigation was launched into the remarks at the festival in southwestern England.
The remarks drew controversy, with pro-Palestinian groups criticizing what they saw as selective outrage, highlighting the scrutiny over Bob Vylan’s chants against the IDF while atrocities in Gaza went largely unaddressed.
In a post on social media, Bob Vylan said: “We are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of people. We are for the dismantling of a violent military machine.”
The band noted that the backlash was “a distraction from the real story of the atrocities happening in Gaza. “Whatever sanctions we receive will be the distraction.”
The BBC has faced criticism from pro-Palestinian campaigners who accuse the broadcaster of pro-Israel bias in its coverage of the war in Gaza.
Last week, the BBC pulled the documentary “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack,” which featured first-hand accounts from Palestinian medical workers and investigated alleged attacks on hospitals and healthcare facilities in the enclave.
The broadcaster said that the decision was made because the film “risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC.”
Producer of dropped BBC Gaza documentary says broadcaster tried to gag him
- In a post on LinkedIn, Ben de Pear said he declined to sign the BBC ‘double gagging clause’ multiple times
- The corporation shelved ‘Gaza: Doctors Under Attack’ amid widespread criticisms over controversial decision
LONDON: The executive producer of a shelved BBC documentary on Gaza has accused the corporation of attempting to silence him over its controversial decision to pull the film.
Ben de Pear, former editor of Channel 4 News and executive producer of “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack,” said he was repeatedly pressured to sign what he called a “double gagging clause” that would have barred him and others from speaking about the BBC’s decision to drop the film.
“I rejected and refused to sign the double gagging clause the BBC bosses tried multiple times to get me to sign,” de Pear wrote in a LinkedIn post.
“Not only could we have been sued for saying the BBC refused to air the film (palpably and provably true) but also if any other company had said it, the BBC could sue us.
“Not only could we not tell the truth that was already stated, but neither could others. Reader, I didn’t sign it.”
Describing the film’s production as a “painful journey,” de Pear previously accused Tim Davie, BBC’s director general, of taking editorial decisions he was not qualified to make.
“All the decisions about our film were not taken by journalists, they were taken by Tim Davie,” he said at conference in Sheffield. “He is just a PR person. Tim Davie is taking editorial decisions which, frankly, he is not capable of making.”
He accused the BBC of “failing as an institution,” calling for Davie and the corporation’s senior leadership to step down.
While the BBC has not officially responded, The Guardian reported that sources close to the matter denied the broadcaster tried to gag de Pear.
One insider said the request was a standard clause requiring producers to seek BBC approval before promoting its content — a claim disputed by de Pear’s company, Basement Films.
The controversy comes amid broader criticism of the BBC’s handling of Gaza-related coverage.
This includes backlash over its decision to drop “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack” because it “risked creating a perception of partiality,” its refusal to broadcast a performance by Irish rap trio Kneecap — one member of whom faces terror charges — and its failure to interrupt the Glastonbury live feed featuring anti-Israel chants by punk-rap duo Bob Vylan.
On Wednesday, over 400 media professionals — including 111 BBC journalists — signed an open letter accusing the BBC of acting as “PR for the Israeli government” and calling for the removal of BBC board member Robbie Gibb, citing conflicts of interest and editorial bias.
The letter also questioned Gibb’s alleged role in the BBC’s decision to drop the Gaza documentary.
Before pulling “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack” entirely, the BBC said it had delayed the film’s broadcast pending a review of another program, “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone.”
Channel 4 ultimately aired “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack” on Wednesday night to critical acclaim.
Hundreds of media figures accuse BBC of acting as ‘PR’ for Israel, urge removal of board member
- Open letter by media professionals, BBC staff say Gaza coverage ‘falls short’ of editorial standards
- Sir Robbie Gibb, former chief of Jewish Chronicle, accused of ‘ideological allegiances’ to Israel
LONDON: Hundreds of media professionals, including over 100 current BBC staff, have signed an open letter accusing the broadcaster of acting as “PR for the Israeli government,” and called for the removal of BBC board member Sir Robbie Gibb over alleged conflicts of interest.
The letter, sent to BBC Director-General Tim Davie and the broadcaster’s board, follows a string of controversies — including the BBC’s live broadcast of anti-Israel chants by the punk-rap duo Bob Vylan at Glastonbury, and the decision to pull a commissioned documentary on Gaza.
“All too often it has felt that the BBC has been performing PR for the Israeli government and military. This should be a cause of great shame and concern for everyone at the BBC,” the letter stated.
The signatories — which include actress Miriam Margolyes, filmmaker Mike Leigh, actor Charles Dance, and historian William Dalrymple — claim the BBC’s coverage of Gaza “falls short” of its editorial standards and fails to reflect the reality on the ground.
The letter also raises concerns over the BBC’s decision to withdraw from airing “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack,” a documentary it originally commissioned, which will now be broadcast by Channel 4.
The BBC said it pulled the film because it “risked creating a perception of partiality.”
“This appears to be a political decision and is not reflective of the journalism in the film,” the letter stated. “This illustrates precisely what many of us have experienced first hand: an organisation that is crippled by fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government.”
Much of the criticism focuses on Gibb, a former head of the BBC’s Westminster political team and ex-spin doctor for Prime Minister Theresa May.
Gibb helped lead the consortium that purchased The Jewish Chronicle in 2020 and served as a director until August 2024.
The letter describes his position on the BBC board — including on the editorial standards committee — as “untenable,” citing the Jewish Chronicle’s alleged history of publishing “anti-Palestinian and often racist content.”
The letter accuses Gibb of a conflict of interest and highlights what it sees as a double standard: “For many of us, our efforts have been frustrated by opaque decisions made at senior levels of the BBC without discussion or explanation. Our failures impact audiences.
“As an organisation we have not offered any significant analysis of the UK government’s involvement in the war on Palestinians. We have failed to report on weapons sales or their legal implications. These stories have instead been broken by the BBC’s competitors.”
The statement alleges Gibb has a “conflict of interest” which “highlights a double standard for BBC content makers who have themselves experienced censorship in the name of ‘impartiality.’”
The letter further stated: “In some instances staff have been accused of having an agenda because they have posted news articles critical of the Israeli government on their social media.
“By comparison, Gibb remains in an influential post with little transparency regarding his decisions despite his ideological leanings being well known. We can no longer ask licence fee payers to overlook Gibbs’s ideological allegiances.”
A BBC spokesperson said: “Robust discussions amongst our editorial teams about our journalism are an essential part of the editorial process.
“We have ongoing discussions about coverage and listen to feedback from staff and we think these conversations are best had internally.
“Regarding our coverage of Gaza, the BBC is fully committed to covering the conflict impartially and has produced powerful coverage from the region.”
The spokesperson added that in addition to “breaking news, ongoing analysis, and investigations,” the BBC has produced award-winning documentaries such as “Life and Death in Gaza,” and “Gaza 101.”
Paramount to pay $16 million in settlement with Trump over ‘60 Minutes’ interview
- Paramount said the money will go to Trump’s future presidential library, not to the president himself
NEW YORK: In a case seen as a challenge to free speech, Paramount has agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump over the editing of CBS’ ” 60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris in October.
Paramount told media outlets the money will go to Trump’s future presidential library, not to the president himself. It said the settlement did not involve an apology.
Trump’s lawyer said the president had suffered “mental anguish” over the editing of the interview by CBS News, while Paramount and CBS rejected his contention that it was edited to enhance how Harris sounded. They had sought to get Trump’s lawsuit dismissed.
There was no immediate word from the White House about the settlement of the case, which Trump filed in Amarillo, Texas.
The case has been closely watched by advocates for press freedom and by journalists within CBS, whose lawyers called Trump’s lawsuit “completely without merit” and promised to vigorously fight it after it was filed.
In early February, “60 Minutes” released a full, unedited transcript of the interview.
Under the settlement reached with help of a mediator, Paramount agreed that “60 Minutes” will release transcripts of future interviews of presidential candidates, “subject to redactions as required for legal and national security concerns,” CBS News cited the statement as saying.
Trump, who did not agree to be interviewed by “60 Minutes” during the campaign, protested editing where Harris is seen giving two different answers to a question by the show’s Bill Whitaker in separate clips aired on “60 Minutes” and “Face the Nation” earlier in the day. CBS said each reply came within Harris’ long-winded answer to Whitaker, but was edited to be more succinct.
The president’s lawyer, Edward Andrew Paltzik, said that caused confusion and “mental anguish,” misleading voters and causing them to pay less attention to Trump and his Truth Social platform.
Paramount and controlling shareholder Shari Redstone were seeking the settlement with Trump, whose administration must approve the company’s proposed merger with Skydance Media. CBS News President and CEO Wendy McMahon and “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens, who both opposed a settlement, have resigned in recent weeks.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation, a media advocacy group that says it is a Paramount shareholder, has said that it would file a lawsuit in protest if a settlement was reached.
In December, ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit by Trump over statements made by anchor George Stephanopoulos, agreeing to pay $15 million toward Trump’s presidential library rather than engage in a public fight. Meta reportedly paid $25 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit against the company over its decision to suspend his social media accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol.
Asharq to bridge US-Arab divide with new Arabic politics podcast
- America Bi Lahjetna (“America in Our Dialects”) is the first journalist-led Arabic-language political podcast produced in the US capital
- Hosted by Hiba Nasr, Zena Ibrahim, Kareem Yousry, and Azouz Allilou, the show dives into American political developments with fresh, localized insight
RIYADH: From the heart of Washington DC, Asharq Podcasts launches America Bi Lahjetna, which translates to “America in Our Dialects”, the first journalist-led Arabic-language political podcast produced in the US capital. The show delivers weekly episodes that bring American headlines closer to home, in a voice that speaks directly to the region.
Hosted by Hiba Nasr (Bureau Chief), Zena Ibrahim (Reporter and Producer), Kareem Yousry (Reporter and Producer), and Azouz Allilou (Reporter and Producer), the show dives into American political developments with fresh, localized insight. Each episode moves beyond the headlines to draw meaningful connections to the realities, concerns, and interests of Arab audiences across the region — precisely when and where it matters most.
In line with growing demand for content that feels less formal, simpler, and more conversational, America Bi Lahjetna moves away from traditional news delivery. Instead, it offers a smart, approachable format that reflects how today’s audiences, especially younger listeners — consume political content: through relatable voices, contextual storytelling, and accessible language.
“This podcast isn’t about translating the news, it’s about explaining why it matters to us,” said Hiba Nasr, Asharq’s Washington Bureau Chief.
“Every week, we unpack the headlines that dominate the American conversation and connect them to the Arab world, politically, emotionally, and strategically. From our base in Washington, we bring clarity to a chaotic media landscape and give our region both a window into and a voice within US political discourse. That’s what makes America Bi Lahjetna different. We’re not observers. We’re participants.”
In its first episodes, the team breaks down some of the most pressing stories in US politics, offering Arab audiences’ critical context often missing from international coverage, and linking Washington’s decisions to their regional implications.
America Bi Lahjetna is now streaming on YouTube and Asharq NOW.
