For the past several years, the UK-based media outlet, The Telegraph, has consistently promoted narratives that cast India in a negative light. Frequently, the publication has provided a platform for writers who seem dedicated to advancing this particular agenda.

A recent and glaring example of this trend is the coverage of a routine infrastructure project in Mumbai. When the city dismantled the 112 to 115-year-old Elphinstone Road Overbridge, The Telegraph framed the event as a deliberate and politically motivated erasure of history. This specific propaganda piece, authored by Mumbai-based Kashmiri journalist Samaan Lateef, was dramatically titled to suggest that India was actively destroying British-built bridges to purge its colonial past.

The Reality of the Elphinstone Bridge Demolition

In a piece published on April 6, 2026, Samaan Lateef painted a picture of rapid, vindictive destruction. He stated, "The Elphinstone Road Overbridge, which was built in Mumbai in 1913, was knocked down overnight as India continued to purge its colonial legacy." The underlying tone of the article heavily implied that Indian authorities committed a grave error by taking down a century-old bridge constructed during the British colonial regime, dismissing the government's explanation that the structure had simply outlived its practical utility.

To understand the truth, one must look at the facts of the infrastructure in question. Constructed between 1911 and 1913, the Elphinstone Bridge was a road-over-rail structure that crucially connected Parel and Prabhadevi in Central Mumbai. Named after John Elphinstone, the 19th-century governor of Bombay, the bridge was responsible for carrying incredibly heavy daily traffic over the Central Railway tracks. Over more than a century of constant use, the structure suffered from severe structural wear and heavy corrosion. It offered very limited capacity for modern traffic needs and, crucially, stood in the way of a newly planned elevated traffic corridor. These practical, safety-driven factors were the actual drivers behind the decision to dismantle it.

The demolition was ordered to clear the path for a highly necessary, modern four-lane double-decker flyover. This new flyover is a critical component of the 4.5 km Sewri-Worli Elevated Connector project. Once complete, this project will seamlessly link the iconic Bandra-Worli Sea Link with the Atal Setu, creating a much-needed, signal-free east-west corridor across the city. This upgrade will drastically widen the bridge, raise its overall height, and immensely improve traffic flow in what is currently one of Mumbai’s most severely congested areas.

Contrary to the dramatic narrative pushed by Samaan Lateef and The Telegraph that the bridge was "knocked down" in a single night, the actual demolition was a careful, multi-phase process, with the final stretch only being completed recently. The project even faced numerous practical delays. Notably, in 2025, local residents heavily protested the relocation and rehabilitation plans for families living in nearby chawls and buildings, slowing the work down considerably. There was no overnight destruction, nor was there a grand political conspiracy at play.

Furthermore, the execution of this project is being handled entirely by state-level agencies: the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and MahaRail. The estimated cost for the double-decker portion alone is Rs 167 crore. Because both the MMRDA and MahaRail are Maharashtra state agencies, it is factually incorrect to suggest that the directive to demolish the bridge came straight from the Modi government at the Centre as a specific command to erase colonial symbols.

The removal of the British-era bridge was a completely standard procedure of infrastructure renewal. Around the world, numerous countries frequently demolish aging bridges when they no longer meet modern safety and capacity standards, regardless of their historical origins or any nostalgic value they might hold.

Manufacturing a "Colonial Purge"

Despite these clear infrastructural facts, Samaan Lateef injected a completely unrelated "colonial purge" narrative into what was a routine traffic connectivity project.

To bolster his claim, Lateef noted, "Since Narendra Modi was elected prime minister in 2014, India has renamed many places and dismantled much infrastructure redolent of the British legacy,"

He attempted to connect the bridge's removal to previous, entirely separate decisions made by the Modi government to move past the colonial era. He listed actions such as the removal of the bust of Edwin Lutyens (who Lateef inaccurately referred to as Edward Lutyens), the primary architect of New Delhi. He also mentioned the removal of British military portraits from the Rashtrapati Bhavan, the scrapping of old colonial-era railway uniforms, the renaming of various locations, and the Indian Navy's adoption of a new ensign. This new naval flag, inspired by the royal seal of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, specifically removed the St George’s cross. While the Indian government explicitly declared that these specific changes were made to shed the unwarranted burden of a colonial past, Lateef irresponsibly linked the mundane demolition of an unsafe bridge to these ideological decisions, likely to generate clickbait and stoke international backlash against the current Indian administration.

The hypocrisy of The Telegraph's editorial stance becomes apparent when looking at the United Kingdom's own domestic infrastructure practices. The UK has frequently destroyed ancient, historically significant Roman-era roads, villas, and settlements to construct modern motorways and parkways, such as the M25 London Orbital Motorway and the A1139 Frank Perkins Parkway in Peterborough, simply to meet contemporary traffic needs. It is highly unlikely that The Telegraph would apply this same critical lens at home and label such domestic developments as Britain's "purge" of its Roman legacy.

A Pattern of Misinformation: Fighter Jets and Geopolitics

This is far from the first instance where Samaan Lateef has engaged in sensationalist journalism designed to push anti-India narratives on the global stage.

In January 2026, Lateef penned an article for The Telegraph with a highly enthusiastic headline claiming that air forces were lining up to purchase the Pakistani JF-17 Thunder fighter jet. Creating an imaginary surge of global interest, Lateef directly compared the Pakistani aircraft to India’s newly acquired French-manufactured Rafale jets. He wrote, "Low in cost, high in performance, the jets were tested in combat against India as the two nuclear powers went to war in May. The JF-17 excelled against India’s French-made Rafales, and now other countries are lining up to buy their own."

The reality of the global arms market told a very different story. While Lateef confidently claimed that nations including Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iraq, and Libya were eager buyers, Indonesia swiftly and publicly denied any such commitment. Furthermore, with the sole exception of Libya, absolutely none of the other mentioned countries demonstrated any explicit interest or provided official confirmation of a deal to procure the Pakistani jets.

Lateef also pointed to Nigeria's purchase of three JF-17 Thunder jets as proof of success. However, he conveniently omitted the highly relevant fact that Nigeria quickly sidelined these very jets due to a host of severe issues, including sluggish maneuverability, highly limited avionics, outdated radar systems, frequent technical glitches, and overall maintenance nightmares. Similarly, Lateef blamed Western sanctions on the military junta for a delay in supplying JF-17 jets to Myanmar. The truth, which was highly embarrassing for Pakistan, was that Myanmar did receive the deliveries but immediately reported severe technical faults and structural cracks in the aircraft. When Pakistani engineers proved unable to fix these critical flaws, Myanmar pivoted its defense strategy and opted for Russian Su-30s instead.

This fabricated narrative of immense global demand for the JF-17, concocted by Lateef in the British press, was predictably and rapidly amplified by Pakistani media and various ISPR-trained journalists planted within Western outlets. The uncoordinated cascade of these announcements reeked of classic state-sponsored propaganda. It was perfectly timed to distract from India’s successful Rafale acquisitions and the rising international interest in India’s own battle-tested weaponry following the events of Operation Sindoor—a conflict where Indian forces heavily pounded Pakistan following the Pahalgam Islamic terror attack, halting operations only after all desired military objectives were successfully achieved.

Misrepresenting Military Conflicts and Diplomacy

Lateef’s apparent bias was also on full display during the coverage of Operation Sindoor in May 2025. He published a story in The Telegraph—which the newspaper later had to embarrassingly retract—falsely claiming, "India sends warships to Karachi after more clashes". In this piece, Lateef erroneously reported that New Delhi had deployed a massive naval fleet equipped with supersonic cruise missiles to target the Karachi port, a vital hub that handles 60% of Pakistan’s foreign trade. While several media outlets and social media platforms blindly repeated the story of a Karachi port blast, Indian authorities firmly denied making any such naval deployments.

Lateef also attempted to rewrite the history surrounding the 2019 capture of Indian Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman. Expressing apparent glee over the incident, Lateef attributed the pilot's swift return to India entirely to the diplomatic intervention of China and the United States. He also pointedly referred to the region of Jammu and Kashmir as "Indian-administered Kashmir."

This framing completely ignored the on-the-record admissions from within Pakistan itself. Ayaz Sadiq, a former Pakistani senator, member of the Pakistan National Assembly, and leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (N), publicly admitted that Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi stated they had to return Abhinandan because India would attack Pakistan if they did not. Furthermore, the Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, Ali Muhammad Khan, confirmed that leaders from all major parties—including the Muslim League (Nawaj), the Pakistan People’s Party’s Asif Ali Zardari, and various opposition figures—were present at that meeting and agreed to the decision. Khan did not deny Sadiq’s claims that Pakistan was genuinely acting out of fear of an imminent Indian military strike.

Lateef continued this trend of misrepresentation regarding the subsequent ceasefire. In an article published on May 10, he framed the situation by claiming, "Pakistan ‘committed’ to ceasefire amid allegations of violations by both sides." He then gave complete credit for the de-escalation to the United States, publishing a piece titled, "How US helped pull India and Pakistan back from all-out war". This directly contradicted the Indian government’s clear statements that the ceasefire agreement was reached solely because Pakistan approached the Indian Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), and that absolutely no third-party involvement was requested or heeded. Through these reports, Lateef consistently attempted to undermine India’s independent diplomatic credibility.

Twisting Naval Tragedies

In March 2026, Samaan Lateef penned another piece focusing on the torpedoing of Iran’s naval warship, the IRIS Dena, by the US amid the broader ongoing regional war. Bizarrely, Lateef framed the destruction of the Iranian vessel as the shattering of the "illusion of Indian power."

Reflecting on India's hosting of international navies, he wrote, "When India bade them farewell, it appeared a successful gathering for the 18 foreign warships from 84 countries, exemplifying the event’s slogans “Bridges Through Friendship” and “United Through Oceans”. But one delegation was not there to make friends,"

He then dramatically shifted the blame for the sinking onto India, stating, "the brazen strike not only showed the vulnerability of Iranian assets around the world, but served as an affront to India after it graciously welcomed its guests, only for one of them to be blown up on the way home."

This narrative presented the sinking of the IRIS Dena as a humiliating failure and a profound betrayal by India, suggesting the host nation failed to protect its guest following the MILAN 2026 naval exercise. This was an alarming and deliberate misrepresentation of geography and maritime law. The Iranian ship was sunk approximately 20 nautical miles west of Galle. This location falls strictly within the Search and Rescue (SAR) region under the responsibility of Sri Lanka—nowhere near India’s territorial waters.

Furthermore, India had actually offered sanctuary to the IRIS Dena just three days before it was targeted by a US submarine. Simply because the IRIS Dena had participated in an Indian naval exercise, the Indian Navy was under no legal or practical obligation to provide a safe, armed escort for the Iranian warship across the ocean all the way back to its home port. The most India could do in foreign waters was extend humanitarian aid in the form of search and rescue operations, a duty the Indian Navy was indeed actively fulfilling.

In sharp contrast to Lateef's narrative of betrayal, India has been highly supportive of Iran since the conflict between the joint Israel-US front and Iran began. India has provided vital refuge to multiple Iranian warships and offered extensive humanitarian assistance to their crews. As a direct result of these actions, India is among a very select group of nations that have earned deep gratitude and strategic cooperation from Iran. This is most clearly exemplified by India being granted unrestricted access to the heavily contested Strait of Hormuz. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has aggressively blockaded this crucial maritime chokepoint against most other countries to use as geopolitical leverage, even though doing so has caused massive global energy supply disruptions and significant price hikes. India, however, remains exempt.

A Broader Editorial Agenda

The fact that The Telegraph relies on Samaan Lateef to push these narratives is, unfortunately, unsurprising when viewed against the publication's broader editorial history. The British newspaper has cultivated a consistent track record of peddling propaganda aimed at vilifying India and its current administration.

In February of 2026, The Telegraph provided a platform for leftist historian Ramachandra Guha, who authored an op-ed arguing that supposed "Hindu majoritarianism" was rapidly turning India into a "Hindu Pakistan." Analysts at OpIndia noted how the article relied on standard anti-Hindu tropes, attempting to falsely equate the violent realities of destructive Islamic fanaticism with the concept of Hindutva.

Similarly, in July 2025, the outlet published an aggressive opinion piece by Tom Sharpe. Sharpe boldly and incredibly declared India to be "an enemy, not a friend or a neutral." His justification for this extreme label was simply that India maintained standard energy, trade, and military ties with Russia. Part of The Telegraph’s outrage was sparked by the commissioning of the INS Tamal, a stealth frigate constructed in Russia’s Yantar shipyard. The newspaper loudly questioned India’s sovereign military decisions, acting as if procuring a warship from abroad was an act of international betrayal rather than a standard strategic necessity. This stance completely ignores Britain’s own glaring hypocrisy, particularly London’s long and well-documented history of welcoming and protecting Russian wealth. The audacity to label India an "enemy" is particularly striking given that the UK continues to provide safe haven to highly wanted Indian economic fugitives such as Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi.

Ultimately, Samaan Lateef and The Telegraph appear deeply committed to pushing a one-sided narrative. Like many propagandists leaning toward an Islamo-leftist viewpoint, they consistently amplify a bogey of Muslim victimhood while actively villainizing Hindus as "extremists." Tellingly, there is an absolute void in their coverage when it comes to reporting on verifiable incidents of Muslim mob violence directed against Hindu communities.

It is perhaps a poignant reflection of the state of modern international journalism that this is the very same Samaan Lateef who was officially nominated for the "Freelancer of the Year" award by the Society of Editors UK in September 2022, an honor that included an invitation to a prestigious awards ceremony in London. Throughout his career, Lateef has written for various outlets, including the UK’s Independent, Germany’s DW, and the Israeli leftist publication Haaretz. While the specific mastheads may change from year to year, Lateef’s underlying anti-India agenda clearly remains as steadfast as ever.