<p>I went out of Delhi during Diwali and returned on October 29, hoping to have escaped the pollution. But as the flight hovered over the skies of Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), the air turned grey. It was a stark contrast to the skies of Chennai, where I had a layover, and Kerala, from where my journey began. Back on the ground, I was told that there had been no sunlight for the past few days. This time, the Deepawali celebrations were loud and smoky — with crackers, government-sanctioned and court-approved.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The stated aim was to reclaim the Indian tradition of a “true Diwali”, where fireworks were deemed an important part of the festivities, undoing earlier petitions and court rulings that had restricted their use because of their toxic emissions.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/diwali-special-not-just-india-these-foreign-countries-also-celebrate-the-festival-1760878472646">Diwali special: Not just India, these foreign countries also celebrate the festival</a></p><p><br>Already, the stubble burning in farms across Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh — an annual affair — had darkened the skies and stung the eyes. The celebration of Diwali with renewed vigour for fireworks added to the toxic mix. Western disturbances — the wind systems that usually clear Delhi’s air in the transition between summer and winter — stayed away for most of the last week of October this year. As a result of this deadly cocktail of factors, Delhi became the most polluted city in the world, the same gas chamber it is notorious for.</p><p>The Air Quality Index (AQI) — a measure of air pollution — dipped to dangerous levels, hovering in the “severe” category for most of the week. Doctors reported nearly a 50 per cent rise in eye infections in Delhi. Hospitals filled up with patients suffering from bronchitis, asthma, and lung infections, all at a time already known as the peak flu season.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/diwali-2025-7-timeless-traditional-customs-that-keep-the-festival-of-lights-glowing-1760852309991">Diwali 2025: 7 timeless traditional customs that keep the festival of lights glowing</a></p><h2>How did we reach here?</h2><p>Delhi in October 2025 will likely be remembered as a textbook case of pollution caused by human actions. While India has repeatedly asserted that it should not be penalised for historic emissions caused by industrialised nations, a politically motivated decision to reintroduce toxic elements into the air runs counter to its own climate commitments.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/diwali-2025-10-stunning-decor-ideas-to-brighten-up-your-home-this-festive-season-1760867557369">Diwali 2025: 10 stunning decor ideas to brighten up your home this festive season</a></p><p><br>Despite decades of debate, nothing substantive has been achieved to end stubble burning — the practice of clearing farmlands after the harvest to prepare for the next sowing. Though centuries old, the scale and mechanisation of modern farming have worsened its impact. Despite court interventions and punitive measures, no viable, large-scale alternative to stubble burning has been introduced. What could have been a technical or administrative challenge has instead become a political blame game between states, depending on who is in power and who is in opposition.</p><h2>Firecrackers: A Chinese tradition adopted for an Indian festival</h2><p>In spite of talk about so-called “green crackers”, much of the market this year was flooded with imported or locally manufactured fireworks containing similar levels of toxins as before. Few realise that firecrackers were never an original part of Diwali, which for centuries was celebrated by lighting diyas — earthen lamps — to mark the return of Lord Rama to Ayodhya after 14 years of vanvaas, or exile. Firecrackers, originating in China, reached the Indian subcontinent around the 16th or 17th century through trade routes and were gradually incorporated into celebrations. But in the past few years, whether to use them or not became a political flashpoint. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has often portrayed restrictions on fireworks as an attack on Hindu traditions, arguing that Diwali is incomplete without them.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/how-much-will-it-cost-for-cloud-seeding-in-delhi-iit-kanpur-director-says-one-should-not-need-to-spend-this-money-but-bjp-pollution-1761740211656">How much will it cost for cloud seeding in Delhi? IIT Kanpur Director says ‘one should not need to spend this money’ but...</a></p><h2>Artificial rain: Looking for a needle in a haystack</h2><p>In an attempt to mitigate the impact of post-Diwali pollution, the Delhi government experimented with cloud seeding and artificial rain. But it was too little, too late. There was no sunlight or breeze for nearly a week, and the air still smelt of burnt paper. Once again, we found ourselves at the mercy of nature to clear the mess we had created.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/effort-to-create-artificial-rain-and-reduce-pollution-fail-in-delhi-1761767579762/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/effort-to-create-artificial-rain-and-reduce-pollution-fail-in-delhi-1761767579762/embed</a></p><h2>GRAPpling with our own mess</h2><p>There was a time when Delhi managed to address its pollution problem — with the introduction of CNG-run buses and private vehicles, curbs on industrial emissions, and the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), which imposed restrictions on construction, vehicular movement, and other activities based on pollution levels. But now, we are grappling with the same menace all over again, with the benefits of those earlier efforts slowly evaporating.&nbsp;</p><p>Measures like the “odd-even” scheme — which limits private vehicles on the road based on their registration numbers — can only go so far.&nbsp;</p><p>What we need is a separation of logic from superstitious fervour and political posturing.</p><p>At the end of the day, it will once again take nature to rescue us. To that extent, our only options seem to be either to pray for rain — or, to satisfy the zealots, to pray to Lord Indra himself.<br>&nbsp;</p><p><i><strong>Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.</strong></i></p>

Delhi’s post-Diwali smog worsened due to stubble burning, fireworks, and weak winds, exposing political hypocrisy and failed climate action.  People in India's capital struggle to breath in toxic air. How did we reach here, once again?

I went out of Delhi during Diwali and returned on October 29, hoping to have escaped the pollution. But as the flight hovered over the skies of Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), the air turned grey. It was a stark contrast to the skies of Chennai, where I had a layover, and Kerala, from where my journey began. Back on the ground, I was told that there had been no sunlight for the past few days. This time, the Deepawali celebrations were loud and smoky — with crackers, government-sanctioned and court-approved. The stated aim was to reclaim the Indian tradition of a “true Diwali”, where fireworks were deemed an important part of the festivities, undoing earlier petitions and court rulings that had restricted their use because of their toxic emissions. Also read: Diwali special: Not just India, these foreign countries also celebrate the festival Already, the stubble burning in farms across Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh — an annual affair — had darkened the skies and stung the eyes. The celebration of Diwali with renewed vigour for fireworks added to the toxic mix. Western disturbances — the wind systems that usually clear Delhi’s air in the transition between summer and winter — stayed away for most of the last week of October this year. As a result of this deadly cocktail of factors, Delhi became the most polluted city in the world, the same gas chamber it is notorious for. The Air Quality Index (AQI) — a measure of air pollution — dipped to dangerous levels, hovering in the “severe” category for most of the week. Doctors reported nearly a 50 per cent rise in eye infections in Delhi. Hospitals filled up with patients suffering from bronchitis, asthma, and lung infections, all at a time already known as the peak flu season. Also read: Diwali 2025: 7 timeless traditional customs that keep the festival of lights glowing How did we reach here? Delhi in October 2025 will likely be remembered as a textbook case of pollution caused by human actions. While India has repeatedly asserted that it should not be penalised for historic emissions caused by industrialised nations, a politically motivated decision to reintroduce toxic elements into the air runs counter to its own climate commitments. Also read: Diwali 2025: 10 stunning decor ideas to brighten up your home this festive season Despite decades of debate, nothing substantive has been achieved to end stubble burning — the practice of clearing farmlands after the harvest to prepare for the next sowing. Though centuries old, the scale and mechanisation of modern farming have worsened its impact. Despite court interventions and punitive measures, no viable, large-scale alternative to stubble burning has been introduced. What could have been a technical or administrative challenge has instead become a political blame game between states, depending on who is in power and who is in opposition. Firecrackers: A Chinese tradition adopted for an Indian festival In spite of talk about so-called “green crackers”, much of the market this year was flooded with imported or locally manufactured fireworks containing similar levels of toxins as before. Few realise that firecrackers were never an original part of Diwali, which for centuries was celebrated by lighting diyas — earthen lamps — to mark the return of Lord Rama to Ayodhya after 14 years of vanvaas, or exile. Firecrackers, originating in China, reached the Indian subcontinent around the 16th or 17th century through trade routes and were gradually incorporated into celebrations. But in the past few years, whether to use them or not became a political flashpoint. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has often portrayed restrictions on fireworks as an attack on Hindu traditions, arguing that Diwali is incomplete without them. Also read: How much will it cost for cloud seeding in Delhi? IIT Kanpur Director says ‘one should not need to spend this money’ but... Artificial rain: Looking for a needle in a haystack In an attempt to mitigate the impact of post-Diwali pollution, the Delhi government experimented with cloud seeding and artificial rain. But it was too little, too late. There was no sunlight or breeze for nearly a week, and the air still smelt of burnt paper. Once again, we found ourselves at the mercy of nature to clear the mess we had created. https://www.wionews.com/videos/effort-to-create-artificial-rain-and-reduce-pollution-fail-in-delhi-1761767579762/embed GRAPpling with our own mess There was a time when Delhi managed to address its pollution problem — with the introduction of CNG-run buses and private vehicles, curbs on industrial emissions, and the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), which imposed restrictions on construction, vehicular movement, and other activities based on pollution levels. But now, we are grappling with the same menace all over again, with the benefits of those earlier efforts slowly evaporating. Measures like the “odd-even” scheme — which limits private vehicles on the road based on their registration numbers — can only go so far. What we need is a separation of logic from superstitious fervour and political posturing. At the end of the day, it will once again take nature to rescue us. To that extent, our only options seem to be either to pray for rain — or, to satisfy the zealots, to pray to Lord Indra himself. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

<p>Delhi’s post-Diwali smog worsened due to stubble burning, fireworks, and weak winds, exposing political hypocrisy and failed climate action. &nbsp;People in India's capital struggle to breath in toxic air. How did we reach here, once again?</p>

Desolation by Smog: Politics polluted Indian capital Delhi, and we're GRAPpling with our own mess, once again

<p>US President Donald Trump has called on Senate Republicans to eliminate the filibuster in order to end the prolonged government shutdown that has lasted more than 30 days. Trump wanted the GOP to use the “nuclear option,” meaning rule changes to pass a Republican funding bill with a simple majority, and without Democratic support. Senate Democrats have been blocking Republican stopgap bills, leaving the upper chamber of the US Congress deadlocked. The Senate is expected to reconvene on November 3 to continue negotiations. The US government shutdown, which has led to the closure of several agencies and the non-payment of salaries, resulted from disputes over federal funding and the expiry of programmes such as tax credits.</p><h2>What is a filibuster?</h2><p>The filibuster is a procedural tactic used by lawmakers in the US Senate to block the passage of bills. It usually involves speechmaking that can last for 24 hours in some cases. This unique method is used only in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives, the lower house of the US Congress. One or more senators are usually deployed to delay or block a vote on legislation or nominations by extending debate indefinitely.</p><p>Senate rules do not impose many limits on debate. Opponents use this loophole to prevent bills from advancing unless 60 senators vote for cloture, which ends debate and allows a vote. The continuous speaking on the floor, known as “talking filibusters,” is not always the method used, as the mere threat of extended debate is often enough to halt Senate business.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/how-trump-s-government-shutdown-changed-the-course-of-3i-atlas-tracking-1761788533316">How Trump’s government shutdown changed the course of 3I/ATLAS tracking</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Filibuster advocates say it protects minority rights and promotes compromise. However, many critics of this practice consider it a waste of time that causes legislative gridlock. Historically, filibusters were used to block civil rights legislation and, in more recent decades, as a tool for both parties to block the passage of major bills.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/do-congress-members-get-paid-and-janitors-don-t-in-us-govt-shutdown-wion-fact-checks-1759337689803">Do Congress members get paid, and janitors don’t in US govt shutdown? WION fact checks</a></p><h2>Will the filibuster be stopped this time?</h2><p>In spite of Trump's urging, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and some other Republicans are opposed to ending filibuster. In their view, this would damage Senate traditions and invite future retaliation from Democrats.. While ending the filibuster could empower the majority for now, it could destabilise Senate norms and lead to greater partisanship in national policymaking.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-us-shutdown-why-is-it-happening-and-how-will-this-impact-americans-all-you-need-to-know-1759329160282">EXPLAINED US Government Shutdown: Why is it happening, and how will this impact Americans? All you need to know.</a></p><h2>How often was filibuster avoidance used?</h2><p>Filibuster avoidance was used in the past for judicial nominations—by Democrats in 2013 and Republicans in 2017. But it has never been used for general legislation such as budget measures.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-shutdown-food-aid-runs-dry-as-us-shutdown-hits-42-million-americans-1761724381372/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-shutdown-food-aid-runs-dry-as-us-shutdown-hits-42-million-americans-1761724381372/embed</a></p><h2>The origins of the filibuster</h2><p>The filibuster had an unintentional origin and is not something enshrined in the US Constitution. The first Senate rules in 1789 allowed unlimited debate and included a “previous question” motion that permitted a simple majority to end the debates. In 1806, Vice President Aaron Burr recommended removing this motion as redundant. His move inadvertently allowed endless debates. The term “filibuster” comes from words meaning “freebooter” or “pirate” and was widely used in the 1850s to describe obstructive tactics in the legislature.</p><p>In 1841, Democrats delayed a Whig effort to charter a national bank. In 1917, after a filibuster prevented legislation to arm merchant ships during World War 1, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, creating the cloture process, which originally required a two-thirds vote. This threshold was reduced to three-fifths, or 60 votes, in 1975.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

President Trump has urged Senate Republicans to scrap the filibuster amid a prolonged government shutdown. The move threatens to upend long-cherished Senate rules. What is a filibuster?

US President Donald Trump has called on Senate Republicans to eliminate the filibuster in order to end the prolonged government shutdown that has lasted more than 30 days. Trump wanted the GOP to use the “nuclear option,” meaning rule changes to pass a Republican funding bill with a simple majority, and without Democratic support. Senate Democrats have been blocking Republican stopgap bills, leaving the upper chamber of the US Congress deadlocked. The Senate is expected to reconvene on November 3 to continue negotiations. The US government shutdown, which has led to the closure of several agencies and the non-payment of salaries, resulted from disputes over federal funding and the expiry of programmes such as tax credits. What is a filibuster? The filibuster is a procedural tactic used by lawmakers in the US Senate to block the passage of bills. It usually involves speechmaking that can last for 24 hours in some cases. This unique method is used only in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives, the lower house of the US Congress. One or more senators are usually deployed to delay or block a vote on legislation or nominations by extending debate indefinitely. Senate rules do not impose many limits on debate. Opponents use this loophole to prevent bills from advancing unless 60 senators vote for cloture, which ends debate and allows a vote. The continuous speaking on the floor, known as “talking filibusters,” is not always the method used, as the mere threat of extended debate is often enough to halt Senate business. Also read: How Trump’s government shutdown changed the course of 3I/ATLAS tracking Filibuster advocates say it protects minority rights and promotes compromise. However, many critics of this practice consider it a waste of time that causes legislative gridlock. Historically, filibusters were used to block civil rights legislation and, in more recent decades, as a tool for both parties to block the passage of major bills. Also read: Do Congress members get paid, and janitors don’t in US govt shutdown? WION fact checks Will the filibuster be stopped this time? In spite of Trump's urging, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and some other Republicans are opposed to ending filibuster. In their view, this would damage Senate traditions and invite future retaliation from Democrats.. While ending the filibuster could empower the majority for now, it could destabilise Senate norms and lead to greater partisanship in national policymaking. Also read: EXPLAINED US Government Shutdown: Why is it happening, and how will this impact Americans? All you need to know. How often was filibuster avoidance used? Filibuster avoidance was used in the past for judicial nominations—by Democrats in 2013 and Republicans in 2017. But it has never been used for general legislation such as budget measures. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-shutdown-food-aid-runs-dry-as-us-shutdown-hits-42-million-americans-1761724381372/embed The origins of the filibuster The filibuster had an unintentional origin and is not something enshrined in the US Constitution. The first Senate rules in 1789 allowed unlimited debate and included a “previous question” motion that permitted a simple majority to end the debates. In 1806, Vice President Aaron Burr recommended removing this motion as redundant. His move inadvertently allowed endless debates. The term “filibuster” comes from words meaning “freebooter” or “pirate” and was widely used in the 1850s to describe obstructive tactics in the legislature. In 1841, Democrats delayed a Whig effort to charter a national bank. In 1917, after a filibuster prevented legislation to arm merchant ships during World War 1, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, creating the cloture process, which originally required a two-thirds vote. This threshold was reduced to three-fifths, or 60 votes, in 1975.

<p>President Trump has urged Senate Republicans to scrap the filibuster amid a prolonged government shutdown. The move threatens to upend long-cherished Senate rules. What is a filibuster?</p>

'Nuclear Option': What is a filibuster, which Trump wants to eliminate in US Senate to end the government shutdown?

<p>Scott Bessent's recent flip-flops on India could put a chameleon to shame. In just three months, the US Treasury secretary shifted from mocking India’s trade policies – calling it the “Maharaja of tariffs” – to seeking its support in a high-stakes contest with China. The turnaround reeks of opportunism.&nbsp;</p><h2>Bessent was in hawk mode this summer against India</h2><p>Back in July 2025, at the height of trade tensions, Bessent derided India’s import duties as protectionist and laughed off the Indian rupee’s sharp decline, brushing it off as "just market forces at work." At the time, the US had just imposed a steep 50 per cent tariffs on Indian goods, citing India’s continued purchase of discounted Russian oil, which Washington claimed was helping fund Moscow’s war in Ukraine.</p><p>Bessent made it clear that the pressure campaign was meant to extract trade concessions from New Delhi. “India loves its barriers,” he said. “But now they’re feeling the pinch from ours. It’s fair play in a tough world.” That remark, during a Fox Business interview on July 15 , set the tone for weeks of economic sabre-rattling by the two nations.</p><h2>So why is he now seeking help from India?&nbsp;</h2><p>In a new interview with Fox News, Bessent said: “We expect support from India and the Europeans. This is China versus the rest of the world. They've pointed a bazooka at our supply chains, and we’re not letting it happen.”&nbsp;</p><p>The comment came after China moved to restrict exports of rare earth minerals – essential for US defence technologies, electronics, and renewable energy components. Bessent now wants India to join the US in forming a counterweight to China in this critical domain.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Bessent's rhetoric contributed to damaging relations, increasing mistrust</h2><p>In July, Bessent used pointed rhetoric against India, calling it the “maharaja of tariffs”. Through August and early September, he ramped up the pressure. In a Bloomberg TV appearance, he accused India of "hiding behind outdated trade barriers" while benefitting from cheap Russian oil. He claimed this distorted global markets and hurt US manufacturing.</p><p>Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in early September, Bessent called India’s retaliatory tariffs on US tech and agricultural exports "self-defeating and unfair." These were not stray remarks; they were part of a broader push led by President Donald Trump to rebalance trade with countries seen as non-reciprocal.</p><p>Bessent showed no sign of compromise, even as minor tariff rollbacks to 25 per cent were negotiated later in September.</p><h2>Sudden pivot: India is now a partner?</h2><p>It's mid-October, and Bessent’s tone seems to have shifted sharply. In multiple interviews, he described India as a key democratic ally and praised its rare earth reserves. He said the US was engaging with “allies like India” to diversify supply chains and resist Chinese coercion.</p><p>In a Financial Times interview on Tuesday (Oct 14), he said, “China’s in recession and exporting their pain. India and others see the threat. We're asserting sovereignty together.”</p><p>And notably, the US still maintains punitive tariffs of 25 to 50 per cent on Indian goods.</p><h2>Mixed messaging carries real risks in bilateral ties</h2><p>Bessent’s dramatic reversal has sparked criticism that this is a case of diplomatic inconsistency with real consequences for bilateral ties. With no public acknowledgement of the U-turn, Bessent appears to be recalibrating American policy based on short-term strategic need.</p><p>Whether this approach secures cooperation or deepens mistrust remains to be seen. What is clear is that Bessent’s India policy is less about principles and more about positioning.</p><p>But in trade talks, Washington may have realised one thing by now: India doesn't dance.</p>

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent slammed India over tariffs in July, but by October called it a key ally against China’s rare earth restrictions. What is behind this sharp U-turn?


Scott Bessent's recent flip-flops on India could put a chameleon to shame. In just three months, the US Treasury secretary shifted from mocking India’s trade policies – calling it the “Maharaja of tariffs” – to seeking its support in a high-stakes contest with China. The turnaround reeks of opportunism. Bessent was in hawk mode this summer against India Back in July 2025, at the height of trade tensions, Bessent derided India’s import duties as protectionist and laughed off the Indian rupee’s sharp decline, brushing it off as "just market forces at work." At the time, the US had just imposed a steep 50 per cent tariffs on Indian goods, citing India’s continued purchase of discounted Russian oil, which Washington claimed was helping fund Moscow’s war in Ukraine. Bessent made it clear that the pressure campaign was meant to extract trade concessions from New Delhi. “India loves its barriers,” he said. “But now they’re feeling the pinch from ours. It’s fair play in a tough world.” That remark, during a Fox Business interview on July 15 , set the tone for weeks of economic sabre-rattling by the two nations. So why is he now seeking help from India? In a new interview with Fox News, Bessent said: “We expect support from India and the Europeans. This is China versus the rest of the world. They've pointed a bazooka at our supply chains, and we’re not letting it happen.” The comment came after China moved to restrict exports of rare earth minerals – essential for US defence technologies, electronics, and renewable energy components. Bessent now wants India to join the US in forming a counterweight to China in this critical domain. Bessent's rhetoric contributed to damaging relations, increasing mistrust In July, Bessent used pointed rhetoric against India, calling it the “maharaja of tariffs”. Through August and early September, he ramped up the pressure. In a Bloomberg TV appearance, he accused India of "hiding behind outdated trade barriers" while benefitting from cheap Russian oil. He claimed this distorted global markets and hurt US manufacturing. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in early September, Bessent called India’s retaliatory tariffs on US tech and agricultural exports "self-defeating and unfair." These were not stray remarks; they were part of a broader push led by President Donald Trump to rebalance trade with countries seen as non-reciprocal. Bessent showed no sign of compromise, even as minor tariff rollbacks to 25 per cent were negotiated later in September. Sudden pivot: India is now a partner? It's mid-October, and Bessent’s tone seems to have shifted sharply. In multiple interviews, he described India as a key democratic ally and praised its rare earth reserves. He said the US was engaging with “allies like India” to diversify supply chains and resist Chinese coercion. In a Financial Times interview on Tuesday (Oct 14), he said, “China’s in recession and exporting their pain. India and others see the threat. We're asserting sovereignty together.” And notably, the US still maintains punitive tariffs of 25 to 50 per cent on Indian goods. Mixed messaging carries real risks in bilateral ties Bessent’s dramatic reversal has sparked criticism that this is a case of diplomatic inconsistency with real consequences for bilateral ties. With no public acknowledgement of the U-turn, Bessent appears to be recalibrating American policy based on short-term strategic need. Whether this approach secures cooperation or deepens mistrust remains to be seen. What is clear is that Bessent’s India policy is less about principles and more about positioning. But in trade talks, Washington may have realised one thing by now: India doesn't dance.

<p>US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent slammed India over tariffs in July, but by October called it a key ally against China’s rare earth restrictions. What is behind this sharp U-turn?<br>&nbsp;</p>

Scott Bessent, the shape-shifter: Treasury secy who called India ‘Maharaja of tariffs’ now wants ‘ally’ to support US against China

<p>Pakistan-Afghanistan border clashes are once again escalating this week, as tensions rise between Islamabad and the Taliban government. At least 250 people have reportedly been killed in the most recent clashes, with Afghanistan claiming 58 Pakistani soldiers dead and 25 border posts captured—though independent verification is limited. At the heart of this ongoing conflict lies a colonial legacy: the Durand Line—an arbitrary border drawn by the British Empire. More than a century later, this line continues to divide communities, fuel violence, and define a bitter geopolitical rivalry in South Asia.</p><h2>What is the Durand Line?</h2><p>The Durand Line, a 2,640-kilometre frontier extending from the Iranian border in the west to the Chinese frontier in the east, cuts across traditional Pashtun tribal areas now split between Pakistan and Afghanistan.</p><p>The line was drawn in 1893 during the "Great Game"—the geopolitical contest between the British Empire and Tsarist Russia over control of Central Asia. The agreement was signed between British Indian Foreign Secretary Sir Mortimer Durand and Afghan Emir Abdur Rahman Khan.</p><p>Its purpose was to define ‘spheres of influence’, not to serve as a permanent international border. Nevertheless, it became a lasting and contentious Pakistan-Afghanistan boundary that still divides the region today.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-heavy-clashes-at-afghanistan-pakistan-border-as-taliban-forces-retaliate-days-after-pak-strikes-on-kabul-1760207719094">‘Heavy clashes’ at Afghanistan-Pakistan border as Taliban forces retaliate days after Pak strikes</a></p><h2>How the Durand Line separates Afghan tribes across two countries</h2><p>The Durand Line artificially divided major tribal groups, especially the Pashtuns and Baloch, with no regard for their centuries-old historical, cultural, linguistic, or familial ties. For many Afghans, it is a stark symbol of Britain’s “divide and rule” colonial policy, imposed to secure imperial interests rather than reflect the realities on the ground.</p><p>Afghan governments have never ratified the demarcation, viewing it as an unequal and coerced arrangement. The 1919 Treaty of Rawalpindi, signed after the Third Anglo-Afghan War, gave Afghanistan full independence in foreign affairs. Although the British reaffirmed the Durand Line in this treaty, Afghanistan never accepted it as a permanent border.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan-border-clashes-taliban-stands-in-support-of-tlp-over-lawful-protest-details-inside-1760373968541">Afghanistan-Pakistan border clashes: Taliban stands in support of TLP over ‘lawful protest’. Details inside</a></p><h2>Pakistan inherited the Durand Line—and its disputes</h2><p>When Pakistan was formed in 1947, it inherited the Durand Line from British India. The line was recognised internationally, including by the United Nations.</p><p>However, every Afghan government since then—monarchist, republican, communist, mujahideen, and Taliban—has rejected the Durand Line. It is seen as a colonial relic that divided the Afghan nation and turned many tribal Afghans into "foreigners" within their own homeland.</p><p>This unresolved border remains a source of instability, cross-border militancy, and refugee flows.</p><h2>Border fencing and recent clashes</h2><p>To control the frontier, Pakistan has fenced nearly 98 per cent of the border. But Afghanistan views the fencing as illegitimate, even as several parts of the border remain porous, allowing militant groups to move across.</p><p>The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), for example, is alleged by Pakistan to operate from Afghan territory. In 2025, Pakistan reported at least 17 infiltration attempts, resulting in 202 fatalities.</p><p>The current clashes erupted after Pakistani airstrikes on alleged TTP hideouts, triggering Taliban reprisals. Similar incidents occurred in 2024 (16 clashes) and early 2025 (12 clashes), displacing thousands, according to United Nations estimates.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/shehbaz-sharif-stokes-trump-s-ego-with-nobel-nod-as-pakistan-burns-within-1760464579318/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/shehbaz-sharif-stokes-trump-s-ego-with-nobel-nod-as-pakistan-burns-within-1760464579318/embed</a></p><h2>Leaders often invoke the Durand Line to fuel nationalism</h2><p>Political and military leaders on both sides frequently use the Durand Line to stir nationalist sentiments.</p><p>Taliban officials, including Deputy Foreign Minister Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai and Defence Minister Mullah Yaqub, have labelled the line “imaginary” and “unacceptable”. Former President Hamid Karzai said Pakistan pressured him to recognise the line during his presidency.</p><p>On the Pakistani side, Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi insists the border is settled and essential for national security. Yet even former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who is Pashtun himself, has publicly questioned the legitimacy of the Durand Line, reflecting divisions within Pakistan.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pakistan-afghan-clashes-erupts-again-in-khyber-pakhtunkhwa-why-are-these-neighbours-exchanging-deadliest-fire-in-years-1760492638499">Pakistan-Afghan Taliban clashes erupt again in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: Why are these neighbours exchanging deadliest fire in years</a></p><h2>A lasting strain on Afghanistan–Pakistan relations</h2><p>The Durand Line remains unresolved, straining diplomatic ties and enabling militant movements on both sides.</p><p>More than a territorial line, it represents contested identity, sovereignty, and resistance—and a symbol of colonial injustice. Without dialogue, the Durand Line may continue to divide not only land, but lives.</p>

Here is how the Durand Line, a colonial-era border drawn by the British and Tsarist Russia between what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan, continues to fuel conflict, tribal divisions, and militancy due to its disputed status and geopolitical legacy.


Pakistan-Afghanistan border clashes are once again escalating this week, as tensions rise between Islamabad and the Taliban government. At least 250 people have reportedly been killed in the most recent clashes, with Afghanistan claiming 58 Pakistani soldiers dead and 25 border posts captured—though independent verification is limited. At the heart of this ongoing conflict lies a colonial legacy: the Durand Line—an arbitrary border drawn by the British Empire. More than a century later, this line continues to divide communities, fuel violence, and define a bitter geopolitical rivalry in South Asia. What is the Durand Line? The Durand Line, a 2,640-kilometre frontier extending from the Iranian border in the west to the Chinese frontier in the east, cuts across traditional Pashtun tribal areas now split between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The line was drawn in 1893 during the "Great Game"—the geopolitical contest between the British Empire and Tsarist Russia over control of Central Asia. The agreement was signed between British Indian Foreign Secretary Sir Mortimer Durand and Afghan Emir Abdur Rahman Khan. Its purpose was to define ‘spheres of influence’, not to serve as a permanent international border. Nevertheless, it became a lasting and contentious Pakistan-Afghanistan boundary that still divides the region today. Also read: ‘Heavy clashes’ at Afghanistan-Pakistan border as Taliban forces retaliate days after Pak strikes How the Durand Line separates Afghan tribes across two countries The Durand Line artificially divided major tribal groups, especially the Pashtuns and Baloch, with no regard for their centuries-old historical, cultural, linguistic, or familial ties. For many Afghans, it is a stark symbol of Britain’s “divide and rule” colonial policy, imposed to secure imperial interests rather than reflect the realities on the ground. Afghan governments have never ratified the demarcation, viewing it as an unequal and coerced arrangement. The 1919 Treaty of Rawalpindi, signed after the Third Anglo-Afghan War, gave Afghanistan full independence in foreign affairs. Although the British reaffirmed the Durand Line in this treaty, Afghanistan never accepted it as a permanent border. Also read: Afghanistan-Pakistan border clashes: Taliban stands in support of TLP over ‘lawful protest’. Details inside Pakistan inherited the Durand Line—and its disputes When Pakistan was formed in 1947, it inherited the Durand Line from British India. The line was recognised internationally, including by the United Nations. However, every Afghan government since then—monarchist, republican, communist, mujahideen, and Taliban—has rejected the Durand Line. It is seen as a colonial relic that divided the Afghan nation and turned many tribal Afghans into "foreigners" within their own homeland. This unresolved border remains a source of instability, cross-border militancy, and refugee flows. Border fencing and recent clashes To control the frontier, Pakistan has fenced nearly 98 per cent of the border. But Afghanistan views the fencing as illegitimate, even as several parts of the border remain porous, allowing militant groups to move across. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), for example, is alleged by Pakistan to operate from Afghan territory. In 2025, Pakistan reported at least 17 infiltration attempts, resulting in 202 fatalities. The current clashes erupted after Pakistani airstrikes on alleged TTP hideouts, triggering Taliban reprisals. Similar incidents occurred in 2024 (16 clashes) and early 2025 (12 clashes), displacing thousands, according to United Nations estimates. https://www.wionews.com/videos/shehbaz-sharif-stokes-trump-s-ego-with-nobel-nod-as-pakistan-burns-within-1760464579318/embed Leaders often invoke the Durand Line to fuel nationalism Political and military leaders on both sides frequently use the Durand Line to stir nationalist sentiments. Taliban officials, including Deputy Foreign Minister Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai and Defence Minister Mullah Yaqub, have labelled the line “imaginary” and “unacceptable”. Former President Hamid Karzai said Pakistan pressured him to recognise the line during his presidency. On the Pakistani side, Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi insists the border is settled and essential for national security. Yet even former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who is Pashtun himself, has publicly questioned the legitimacy of the Durand Line, reflecting divisions within Pakistan. Also read: Pakistan-Afghan Taliban clashes erupt again in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: Why are these neighbours exchanging deadliest fire in years A lasting strain on Afghanistan–Pakistan relations The Durand Line remains unresolved, straining diplomatic ties and enabling militant movements on both sides. More than a territorial line, it represents contested identity, sovereignty, and resistance—and a symbol of colonial injustice. Without dialogue, the Durand Line may continue to divide not only land, but lives.

<p>Here is how the Durand Line, a colonial-era border drawn by the British and Tsarist Russia between what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan, continues to fuel conflict, tribal divisions, and militancy due to its disputed status and geopolitical legacy.</p>

Pakistan vs Afghanistan border clash: Durand Line, an unfinished legacy of British colonialism, still festers and causes rivalry

<p>Online video piracy is on rising again, &nbsp;and streaming platforms are partially responsible for driving frustrated consumers back to illicit downloads. Streaming services came to the scene as a legal, convenient alternative to the torrents and online content piracy. In the past five years, online piracy of movies, series, and other content has surged, moving closer to the scale seen before giants like Netflix revolutionised content access. While Hollywood studios fought piracy through courts and legislation, leading to crackdowns on torrent sites and piracy platforms, streaming services have been squeezing consumers in recent years through raising subscription fees, aggressive password-sharing restrictions, and fragmented content distributed across multiple platforms. The result? Viewers find themselves subscribing to numerous services to keep up, pushing some back to piracy in order to dodge the rising costs.</p><h2>Rise of piracy is a consumer baclash against streaming giants</h2><p>Anecdotal evidence suggests that many consumers now simultaneously maintain paid streaming subscriptions and access content through piracy websites, blending both worlds as they juggle convenience, cost, and availability. We are essentially seeing a return to the early 2010s, when online piracy thrived before streaming’s golden era took hold.</p><p>Analysts frame this resurgence of piracy as a consumer backlash against price hikes, ad intrusions, and the growing complexity of streaming services. Estimates from MUSO, a leading anti-piracy firm, show global piracy site visits ballooned from approximately 104 billion in 2020 to over 216 billion in 2024 — a staggering 66 per cent increase in just four years, with film and TV downloads leading the surge.&nbsp;</p><p>The rising costs of streaming services, coupled with new ad-supported tiers and the controversial crackdown on password sharing led by Netflix and followed by others, have depleted the appeal that once drove people away from illegal sources.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/salman-khans-sikandar-leaked-online-3000-pirated-links-pulled-down-on-release-day-8909530">Salman Khan's Sikandar leaked ONLINE: '3000 pirated links' pulled down on release day</a></p><h2>Streaming was once the darling of entertainment industry but then, this happened</h2><p>&nbsp;Between 2015 and 2020, the early boom of official streaming offered consumers affordable, on-demand access to vast libraries, often outpacing the speed and convenience of illegal torrenting. But since 2020, particularly in the Covid pandemic and post-pandemic years, piracy has been bouncing back.&nbsp;</p><p>Rising living costs and what some call ‘streaming fatigue’ — the exhaustion of juggling multiple platforms — have contributed to this reversal.</p><p>Data from MUSO’s 2023 report revealed that pirated video content attracted over 229 billion visits annually, with film piracy traffic spiking sharply in recent years. Due to conent piracy, the entertainment industry has reportedly lost tens of billions annually worldwide, affecting jobs and revenues across the sector.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-the-matrix-resurrections-leaked-online-on-torrent-sites-days-before-india-release-438732">'The Matrix Resurrections' leaked online on torrent sites, days before India release</a></p><h2>Torrenting is being embraced by the young generation</h2><p>Despite law enforcement actions including site blocking and server raids, torrent sites remain active and continue to serve a dedicated user base. In regions like Sweden, 25 per cent of people - mostly aged 15 to 24 - openly admit to pirating content, often via torrents, viewing streaming as “cable 2.0.”&nbsp;</p><p>Many users automate torrent setups to build seamless, ad-free libraries, effectively creating their own DIY Netflix without subscription fees.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bollywood/housefull-5-akshay-kumar-abhishek-bachchan-s-comedy-film-leaked-online-on-tamilrockers-1749181311760">Housefull 5: Akshay Kumar &amp; Abhishek Bachchan's comedy film Leaked online</a></p><h2>How streaming industry lost consumer confidence</h2><p>Streaming giants' recent policies look more punitive than consumer-friendly. Average household spending on streaming in the US is estimated to have climbed substantially, with Netflix’s monthly fees rising from around $8 in 2011 to over $15 in 2023.&nbsp;</p><p>Disney+ and Max have also increased subscription prices, while content fragmentation forced consumers to juggle multiple subscriptions—sometimes costing $50 to $100 monthly per househild. These amounts often surpass the expense of traditional cable TV.</p><p>Streaming platforms have introduced cheaper, ad-supported plans, yet “ad creep” has begun to infiltrate even so-called ad-free tiers, prompting complaints about interruptions that users once avoided by pirating content.&nbsp;</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bollywood/scam-worth-rs-22-400-crore-killing-bollywood-piracy-hurting-business-of-hindi-films-1747881065974">Scam worth Rs 22,400 crore killing Bollywood: Piracy hurting business of Hindi films</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The “seamless viewing experience” is increasingly cited as a key factor driving consumers toward piracy, which offers uninterrupted access without ads or limits.</p><p>The fragmentation of content licensing has exacerbated the issue. Disney’s withdrawal of its titles from competing platforms, and the constant shuffle of exclusives mean viewers are forced into a frustrating hunt across multiple apps. As a consequence, more than 90 per cent of piracy traffic in 2023 targeted movies and TV shows.</p><p>Password-sharing crackdowns, especially those initiated by Netflix in 2023, have stirred dissatisfaction among younger viewers who traditionally shared family accounts. For many, piracy now appears as the easiest, cheapest solution when faced with subscription fees hovering around $15 or more per service.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/world-s-largest-sports-piracy-site-shut-down-1757011258408/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/world-s-largest-sports-piracy-site-shut-down-1757011258408/embed</a></p><h2>Users view piracy as acceptable&nbsp;</h2><p>When legal alternatives feel overpriced or bogged down with ads, surveys are showing that viewrs think piracy is acceptable. Industry experts like Andy Chatterley of MUSO highlighted that piracy fills the “seamless viewing experience” gap left by streaming services, offering users access, affordability, and ownership—albeit illegally.</p><p>While unlicensed streaming dominates much piracy traffic, torrents still play a significant role, prized for their high-quality downloads and offline viewing capabilities.&nbsp;</p><h2>Streamers are prioritising profit over experience. It will hurt them</h2><p>&nbsp;As streaming platforms prioritise profits over consumer convenience, piracy will continue its resurgence.</p><p>If streaming services fail to heed the lessons of the torrent era and address consumer frustrations with pricing, ads, and content fragmentation, the entertainment industry could face substantial revenue losses in the coming years.&nbsp;</p><p>The data and consumer sentiment tell a clear story: frustration is winning, and the mantra “Can’t pay, won’t pay” echoes louder than ever.</p>

Online video piracy is surging again as streaming platforms have lost the plot on consumer confidence by raising prices, cracking down on password sharing, and fragmenting content. Frustrated users are going back to torrents and piracy sites. Here is a warning shot:

Online video piracy is on rising again, and streaming platforms are partially responsible for driving frustrated consumers back to illicit downloads. Streaming services came to the scene as a legal, convenient alternative to the torrents and online content piracy. In the past five years, online piracy of movies, series, and other content has surged, moving closer to the scale seen before giants like Netflix revolutionised content access. While Hollywood studios fought piracy through courts and legislation, leading to crackdowns on torrent sites and piracy platforms, streaming services have been squeezing consumers in recent years through raising subscription fees, aggressive password-sharing restrictions, and fragmented content distributed across multiple platforms. The result? Viewers find themselves subscribing to numerous services to keep up, pushing some back to piracy in order to dodge the rising costs. Rise of piracy is a consumer baclash against streaming giants Anecdotal evidence suggests that many consumers now simultaneously maintain paid streaming subscriptions and access content through piracy websites, blending both worlds as they juggle convenience, cost, and availability. We are essentially seeing a return to the early 2010s, when online piracy thrived before streaming’s golden era took hold. Analysts frame this resurgence of piracy as a consumer backlash against price hikes, ad intrusions, and the growing complexity of streaming services. Estimates from MUSO, a leading anti-piracy firm, show global piracy site visits ballooned from approximately 104 billion in 2020 to over 216 billion in 2024 — a staggering 66 per cent increase in just four years, with film and TV downloads leading the surge. The rising costs of streaming services, coupled with new ad-supported tiers and the controversial crackdown on password sharing led by Netflix and followed by others, have depleted the appeal that once drove people away from illegal sources. Also read: Salman Khan's Sikandar leaked ONLINE: '3000 pirated links' pulled down on release day Streaming was once the darling of entertainment industry but then, this happened Between 2015 and 2020, the early boom of official streaming offered consumers affordable, on-demand access to vast libraries, often outpacing the speed and convenience of illegal torrenting. But since 2020, particularly in the Covid pandemic and post-pandemic years, piracy has been bouncing back. Rising living costs and what some call ‘streaming fatigue’ — the exhaustion of juggling multiple platforms — have contributed to this reversal. Data from MUSO’s 2023 report revealed that pirated video content attracted over 229 billion visits annually, with film piracy traffic spiking sharply in recent years. Due to conent piracy, the entertainment industry has reportedly lost tens of billions annually worldwide, affecting jobs and revenues across the sector. Also read: 'The Matrix Resurrections' leaked online on torrent sites, days before India release Torrenting is being embraced by the young generation Despite law enforcement actions including site blocking and server raids, torrent sites remain active and continue to serve a dedicated user base. In regions like Sweden, 25 per cent of people - mostly aged 15 to 24 - openly admit to pirating content, often via torrents, viewing streaming as “cable 2.0.” Many users automate torrent setups to build seamless, ad-free libraries, effectively creating their own DIY Netflix without subscription fees. Also read: Housefull 5: Akshay Kumar & Abhishek Bachchan's comedy film Leaked online How streaming industry lost consumer confidence Streaming giants' recent policies look more punitive than consumer-friendly. Average household spending on streaming in the US is estimated to have climbed substantially, with Netflix’s monthly fees rising from around $8 in 2011 to over $15 in 2023. Disney+ and Max have also increased subscription prices, while content fragmentation forced consumers to juggle multiple subscriptions—sometimes costing $50 to $100 monthly per househild. These amounts often surpass the expense of traditional cable TV. Streaming platforms have introduced cheaper, ad-supported plans, yet “ad creep” has begun to infiltrate even so-called ad-free tiers, prompting complaints about interruptions that users once avoided by pirating content. Also read: Scam worth Rs 22,400 crore killing Bollywood: Piracy hurting business of Hindi films The “seamless viewing experience” is increasingly cited as a key factor driving consumers toward piracy, which offers uninterrupted access without ads or limits. The fragmentation of content licensing has exacerbated the issue. Disney’s withdrawal of its titles from competing platforms, and the constant shuffle of exclusives mean viewers are forced into a frustrating hunt across multiple apps. As a consequence, more than 90 per cent of piracy traffic in 2023 targeted movies and TV shows. Password-sharing crackdowns, especially those initiated by Netflix in 2023, have stirred dissatisfaction among younger viewers who traditionally shared family accounts. For many, piracy now appears as the easiest, cheapest solution when faced with subscription fees hovering around $15 or more per service. https://www.wionews.com/videos/world-s-largest-sports-piracy-site-shut-down-1757011258408/embed Users view piracy as acceptable When legal alternatives feel overpriced or bogged down with ads, surveys are showing that viewrs think piracy is acceptable. Industry experts like Andy Chatterley of MUSO highlighted that piracy fills the “seamless viewing experience” gap left by streaming services, offering users access, affordability, and ownership—albeit illegally. While unlicensed streaming dominates much piracy traffic, torrents still play a significant role, prized for their high-quality downloads and offline viewing capabilities. Streamers are prioritising profit over experience. It will hurt them As streaming platforms prioritise profits over consumer convenience, piracy will continue its resurgence. If streaming services fail to heed the lessons of the torrent era and address consumer frustrations with pricing, ads, and content fragmentation, the entertainment industry could face substantial revenue losses in the coming years. The data and consumer sentiment tell a clear story: frustration is winning, and the mantra “Can’t pay, won’t pay” echoes louder than ever.

<p>Online video piracy is surging again as streaming platforms have lost the plot on consumer confidence by raising prices, cracking down on password sharing, and fragmenting content. Frustrated users are going back to torrents and piracy sites. Here is a warning shot:</p>

Online video piracy is growing. Streaming platforms' anti-consumer moves are part of the problem

<p>Two of the key aspects of Israel's war in Gaza were the future of Palestinian statehood and the disarming of Hamas. Neither of these were prominently mentioned at the peace summit in Egypt aimed at ending the Israel-Hamas war ongoing since 2023. This has left the core issues unresolved, leaving room for future conflicts. Much of what happened at Sharm el-Sheikh on Monday (Oct 13) was about Donald Trump. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not present; reportedly, Turkey's Erdoğan successfully discouraged Trump from inviting him to Egypt. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was present, but he does not control Gaza; Hamas does. It is not clear who represented Hamas, as much of its political and military leadership was wiped out by Israel during the war.</p><h2>Gaza peace summit: What happened at Sharm El-Sheikh?</h2><p>The Sharm El-Sheikh Summit was co-chaired by Donald Trump and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and attended by leaders of more than 20 countries to endorse the first phase of a US-brokered Gaza ceasefire and peace plan agreed by Hamas and Israel on October 8. The summit happened even as all 20 living Israeli hostages held by Hamas were released in exchange for over 1,900 Palestinian prisoners from Israel. On record, the summit's focus was on international backing for the ceasefire, future governance of Gaza, security, and humanitarian aid.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hot-mic-moment-trump-calls-canadian-pm-carney-mr-president-at-peace-summit-at-least-i-didn-t-call-you-a-governor-1760412035954">Hot mic MOMENT! Trump calls Canadian PM Carney ‘Mr President’ at peace summit: 'At least I didn’t call you a governor'</a></p><h2>A symbolic event without any real value?</h2><p>With neither belligerent of the war fully present, the summit was mostly a symbolic signing ceremony for the initial phase of the ceasefire plan. The most important questions remained unanswered: full Israeli withdrawal, Gaza reconstruction—which is estimated to cost around $53 billion—and post-war governance. Those matters, it appears, will be tackled in future negotiations.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Gaza peace summit: Was there a final text, communiqué, resolution, or joint statement?</h2><p>The summit produced two primary documents:</p><p>1. The Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity, which was dubbed as the "peace document" or "agreement," was signed by the US president, el-Sisi, and leaders from Qatar and Turkey. The language was broad, containing commitments to support the ceasefire and stressing regional stability, security, and economic prosperity. This largely symbolic document focused on upholding the first phase of the peace plan. It did not delve into specifics regarding Gaza's governance or the disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups.</p><p>2. A joint statement was issued by Trump, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey. This statement was also vague about Palestinian statehood or Hamas disarmament. It stressed "equality between Israelis and Palestinians," a vision of "tolerance, dignity, and equal opportunity for every person... regardless of race, faith, or ethnicity." It also spoke of collective efforts to end the war and foster peace.</p><p>Absent from the proceedings, or documents, of the summit were any binding resolutions on the most contentious issues.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-most-wonderful-candidate-stopped-india-pak-war-at-gaza-summit-pakistan-pm-shehbaz-sharif-nominates-trump-for-nobel-peace-prize-again-1760410513130">'Most wonderful candidate...stopped India-Pak war': At Gaza Summit, Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif 'nominates' Trump for Nobel Peace Prize again</a></p><h2>Verbal assurances and warnings on Palestinian statehood</h2><p>The documents and summit discussions included indirect references to Palestinian statehood but nothing explicit. Egyptian President el-Sisi explicitly warned during the summit that "only the creation of a Palestinian state could offer a durable end to the conflict." The joint statement's stress on equality between Israelis and Palestinians was interpreted by some analysts as a subtle nod to statehood aspirations, as was the presence of Mahmoud Abbas.</p><p>Most of the summit remarks and documents prioritised cessation of hostilities over political changes on the ground for Palestinians. Implementation of the ceasefire appeared more important than addressing deeper political issues.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-urges-new-chapter-of-peace-in-west-asia-says-gaza-deal-enables-rebuilding-1760412952552/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-urges-new-chapter-of-peace-in-west-asia-says-gaza-deal-enables-rebuilding-1760412952552/embed</a></p><h2>Was there any mention of Hamas or its disarmament?</h2><p>Interestingly, the documents avoided direct mentions of Hamas by name. Thus, the main actor of the war was absent from the summit, having relied on Qatari and Egyptian mediators. There was no explicit condemnation of the 7 October 2023 terror attack by Hamas on Israel that set off the war. The signed declaration and joint statement did not mention Hamas but praised "regional leaders" (implicitly including Qatar and Egypt) for brokering the deal with Hamas and acknowledged their "very important role."</p><p>The texts did not include binding language on Hamas disarmament, which remains a sticking point earmarked for later phases of negotiations.</p><p>But prior to the Egypt summit, Hamas had outrightly rejected disarmament as "out of the question." Germany’s Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, stated that some states were "exerting pressure on Hamas to disarm for further talks."</p><p>The Egypt declaration focused on "security" broadly, leaving disarmament and Hamas’s future role—such as its exclusion from Gaza governance—for future negotiation.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-pakistan-india-going-to-live-very-nicely-together-trump-says-at-gaza-peace-summit-in-egypt-1760379182400">‘Pakistan, India going to live very nicely together’: Trump says at Gaza peace summit in Egypt</a></p><h2>So, what did the Egypt summit achieve?</h2><p>The one clear achievement was to secure the international community's approval for the truce, with optimism that it would hold. As for the rest, it was largely a procedural and symbolic event intended for optics. While celebrating the ceasefire’s start, the summit deferred thornier issues like Palestinian statehood and Hamas disarmament to future talks, possibly to avoid derailing momentum for peace on the ground.</p><p>In short, Gaza now has a fragile peace, and the Egypt summit left several crucial questions unanswered. Let’s wait for phase two of the talks.</p>

The Egypt summit, led by Trump, focused on ceasefire and aid but avoided explicity mention of Palestinian statehood and Hamas disarmament. The core issues are thus left for future. What was the language of the summit texts?

Two of the key aspects of Israel's war in Gaza were the future of Palestinian statehood and the disarming of Hamas. Neither of these were prominently mentioned at the peace summit in Egypt aimed at ending the Israel-Hamas war ongoing since 2023. This has left the core issues unresolved, leaving room for future conflicts. Much of what happened at Sharm el-Sheikh on Monday (Oct 13) was about Donald Trump. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not present; reportedly, Turkey's Erdoğan successfully discouraged Trump from inviting him to Egypt. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was present, but he does not control Gaza; Hamas does. It is not clear who represented Hamas, as much of its political and military leadership was wiped out by Israel during the war. Gaza peace summit: What happened at Sharm El-Sheikh? The Sharm El-Sheikh Summit was co-chaired by Donald Trump and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and attended by leaders of more than 20 countries to endorse the first phase of a US-brokered Gaza ceasefire and peace plan agreed by Hamas and Israel on October 8. The summit happened even as all 20 living Israeli hostages held by Hamas were released in exchange for over 1,900 Palestinian prisoners from Israel. On record, the summit's focus was on international backing for the ceasefire, future governance of Gaza, security, and humanitarian aid. Also read: Hot mic MOMENT! Trump calls Canadian PM Carney ‘Mr President’ at peace summit: 'At least I didn’t call you a governor' A symbolic event without any real value? With neither belligerent of the war fully present, the summit was mostly a symbolic signing ceremony for the initial phase of the ceasefire plan. The most important questions remained unanswered: full Israeli withdrawal, Gaza reconstruction—which is estimated to cost around $53 billion—and post-war governance. Those matters, it appears, will be tackled in future negotiations. Gaza peace summit: Was there a final text, communiqué, resolution, or joint statement? The summit produced two primary documents: 1. The Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity, which was dubbed as the "peace document" or "agreement," was signed by the US president, el-Sisi, and leaders from Qatar and Turkey. The language was broad, containing commitments to support the ceasefire and stressing regional stability, security, and economic prosperity. This largely symbolic document focused on upholding the first phase of the peace plan. It did not delve into specifics regarding Gaza's governance or the disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups. 2. A joint statement was issued by Trump, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey. This statement was also vague about Palestinian statehood or Hamas disarmament. It stressed "equality between Israelis and Palestinians," a vision of "tolerance, dignity, and equal opportunity for every person... regardless of race, faith, or ethnicity." It also spoke of collective efforts to end the war and foster peace. Absent from the proceedings, or documents, of the summit were any binding resolutions on the most contentious issues. Also read: 'Most wonderful candidate...stopped India-Pak war': At Gaza Summit, Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif 'nominates' Trump for Nobel Peace Prize again Verbal assurances and warnings on Palestinian statehood The documents and summit discussions included indirect references to Palestinian statehood but nothing explicit. Egyptian President el-Sisi explicitly warned during the summit that "only the creation of a Palestinian state could offer a durable end to the conflict." The joint statement's stress on equality between Israelis and Palestinians was interpreted by some analysts as a subtle nod to statehood aspirations, as was the presence of Mahmoud Abbas. Most of the summit remarks and documents prioritised cessation of hostilities over political changes on the ground for Palestinians. Implementation of the ceasefire appeared more important than addressing deeper political issues. https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-urges-new-chapter-of-peace-in-west-asia-says-gaza-deal-enables-rebuilding-1760412952552/embed Was there any mention of Hamas or its disarmament? Interestingly, the documents avoided direct mentions of Hamas by name. Thus, the main actor of the war was absent from the summit, having relied on Qatari and Egyptian mediators. There was no explicit condemnation of the 7 October 2023 terror attack by Hamas on Israel that set off the war. The signed declaration and joint statement did not mention Hamas but praised "regional leaders" (implicitly including Qatar and Egypt) for brokering the deal with Hamas and acknowledged their "very important role." The texts did not include binding language on Hamas disarmament, which remains a sticking point earmarked for later phases of negotiations. But prior to the Egypt summit, Hamas had outrightly rejected disarmament as "out of the question." Germany’s Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, stated that some states were "exerting pressure on Hamas to disarm for further talks." The Egypt declaration focused on "security" broadly, leaving disarmament and Hamas’s future role—such as its exclusion from Gaza governance—for future negotiation. Also read: ‘Pakistan, India going to live very nicely together’: Trump says at Gaza peace summit in Egypt So, what did the Egypt summit achieve? The one clear achievement was to secure the international community's approval for the truce, with optimism that it would hold. As for the rest, it was largely a procedural and symbolic event intended for optics. While celebrating the ceasefire’s start, the summit deferred thornier issues like Palestinian statehood and Hamas disarmament to future talks, possibly to avoid derailing momentum for peace on the ground. In short, Gaza now has a fragile peace, and the Egypt summit left several crucial questions unanswered. Let’s wait for phase two of the talks.

<p>The Egypt summit, led by Trump, focused on ceasefire and aid but avoided explicity mention of Palestinian statehood and Hamas disarmament. The core issues are thus left for future. What was the language of the summit texts?</p>

Gaza 'Trump peace summit' in Egypt a circus or mere show? No commitments on Palestine statehood or Hamas disarmament leaves key questions unsolved

<p>As military conflicts raged in the past five years, a rather 'benign tumour' has been growing in the world, which could become the potential flashpoint of the next wars: the race for critical minerals. Rare earths are the next oil, a potential cause for small to big wars. In essence, countries will likely wage wars over sand. Here is the dystopian view of the future of the 'rare earths wars', which is probably already on.</p><h2>What are rare earths and why could they become the cause of wars?</h2><p>The world today runs on rare earths: 17 obscure 'critical elements' powering everything from military systems and clean energy tech to your digital gadgets. From F-35 fighter jets and missile guidance to electric vehicles, wind turbines, and AI semiconductors, these minerals are inside everything. Demand has exploded, but supply is dangerously concentrated in a few countries. China today controls more than 70 per cent of global mining of these elements, and over 90 per cent of their processing. It’s a geopolitical weapon in the hands of China, and its rivals, led by the US, will find any reason to change that status quo.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-lifts-export-ban-on-fertilisers-rare-earths-tunnel-machines-as-wang-yi-visits-india-report-1755581848134">China lifts export ban on fertilisers, rare earths, tunnel machines as Wang Yi visits India:&nbsp;Report</a></p><h2>How China’s rare earths export controls triggered global panic and Trump anger</h2><p>Last week, China launched sweeping export controls on key rare earths and processing technologies, just ahead of President Xi Jinping’s planned summit with US President Donald Trump, which the latter cancelled in anger. The Chinese curbs applied to holmium, europium, and ytterbium. It also blocked exports of critical magnet materials. Trump then threatened to slap 100 per cent tariffs on Chinese goods and framed the export bans as a national security threat to the US. In the American view, the curbs were tantamount to economic warfare.</p><p>In an analysis, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warned these curbs could cripple American defence production within months, because without Chinese rare earths, America’s F-35 jets, submarine systems, and precision-guided munitions cannot be built.</p><p>Decades of offshoring and underinvestment in rare earths have left the US and the West utterly dependent on China, with no viable alternatives in the short term.</p><p>This is how critical minerals have become strategic leverage, just like oil once was—leading to the West’s excuses for military interventions in producer countries, mostly in the Middle East.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/top-7-countries-with-the-largest-rare-earth-reserves-see-where-india-stands-1759307993918">Top 7 countries with the largest rare earth reserves: See where India stands</a></p><h2>Rare earths are already a key factor in conflict zones, from Africa to Asia to Europe</h2><p>The scramble for rare earths is already playing out as a key aspect in several conflict and post-conflict zones. Trump’s planned re-entry into Afghanistan is being seen by many analysts in the context of the vast untapped reserves that include rare earths, lithium, and copper—at an estimated total value of up to $3 trillion by some accounts.</p><p>Even before the US withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021 after 20 years of occupation, China had moved in aggressively, having signed multi-billion-dollar mining deals. Before and during the new Taliban regime, Chinese mining workers have been attacked by Taliban-linked groups and Islamic State Khorasan. The region is slowly becoming a battleground not just of jihadist ideology and terror, but of extraction rights. With Trump aides already discussing “securing American interests” in Afghanistan, the Great Game has shifted underground, quite literally.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-threatens-china-with-increased-tariffs-and-no-meeting-with-xi-jinping-over-rare-earth-monopoly-policy-market-down-1760120771356">Trump threatens 'massive tariffs' on China, says 'now there seems to be no reason' to meet Xi Jinping</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As the Ukraine-Russia war continues, mineral geopolitics is on full display. Invading Ukraine gave Russia control of roughly half of its rich rare earth deposits, and much of its graphite, lithium, and uranium. These resources are central to European energy independence and Western re-industrialisation plans.</p><p>Under Trump, the US struck a deal with Ukraine for preferential access to its critical minerals, tying aid to resource rights—a kind of quid pro quo.</p><p>Thus, the war has now become, at least partially, about controlling Europe’s last great mineral trove. Russia has weaponised these assets, using export controls and territorial dominance to manipulate markets and supply chains.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-defends-rare-earth-export-curbs-world-business-watch-wion-1760334659059/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-defends-rare-earth-export-curbs-world-business-watch-wion-1760334659059/embed</a></p><p>Africa, one of the most mineral-rich regions in the world, is quietly becoming the next arena—even amid civil conflicts. Burundi, Tanzania, and the DRC hold enormous reserves of neodymium, cobalt, and dysprosium, but are also ravaged by decades of internecine wars involving armed groups, armies and governments. In spite of these conflicts, China has managed to dominate mining operations in the African continent for years.</p><p>Amid the unrest and corruption, Western nations are planning to re-enter Africa strategically in several mineral-rich states, reminiscent of the scramble for Africa during colonialism.</p><p>Rare earth extraction has been linked to insurgencies, land seizures, and violence in Africa.</p><h2>A resource opportunity to resource war: How demand-supply gaps could evolve into real conflicts</h2><p>Rising demand, monopolised supply, and unstable extraction zones—that’s the perfect powder keg that could ignite future wars in places with rare earth resources.</p><p>Unlike oil, these minerals cannot be easily substituted, stored, or rerouted. Scarcity, strategic value, and long development cycles make them uniquely explosive and vulnerable to conflicts.</p><p>Rare earths are the new fault lines of power. And the quiet race beneath the surface is already erupting into open confrontations.<br>Whether in Ukraine, the mountains of Afghanistan, the jungles of the DRC, or the Gobi Desert, the next great conflict may be decided not by ideology or territory, but by who owns the minerals beneath our feet.<br>And those who control the flow will control the future. We are not headed toward a rare earths war; we are already in it.</p>

The global race for rare earth minerals is igniting geopolitical tensions that could lead to real wars. The tussles and tariff wars between China and the US is one aspect. The West is vying for control of critical elements, and could cause a new form of resource warfare.


As military conflicts raged in the past five years, a rather 'benign tumour' has been growing in the world, which could become the potential flashpoint of the next wars: the race for critical minerals. Rare earths are the next oil, a potential cause for small to big wars. In essence, countries will likely wage wars over sand. Here is the dystopian view of the future of the 'rare earths wars', which is probably already on. What are rare earths and why could they become the cause of wars? The world today runs on rare earths: 17 obscure 'critical elements' powering everything from military systems and clean energy tech to your digital gadgets. From F-35 fighter jets and missile guidance to electric vehicles, wind turbines, and AI semiconductors, these minerals are inside everything. Demand has exploded, but supply is dangerously concentrated in a few countries. China today controls more than 70 per cent of global mining of these elements, and over 90 per cent of their processing. It’s a geopolitical weapon in the hands of China, and its rivals, led by the US, will find any reason to change that status quo. Also read: China lifts export ban on fertilisers, rare earths, tunnel machines as Wang Yi visits India: Report How China’s rare earths export controls triggered global panic and Trump anger Last week, China launched sweeping export controls on key rare earths and processing technologies, just ahead of President Xi Jinping’s planned summit with US President Donald Trump, which the latter cancelled in anger. The Chinese curbs applied to holmium, europium, and ytterbium. It also blocked exports of critical magnet materials. Trump then threatened to slap 100 per cent tariffs on Chinese goods and framed the export bans as a national security threat to the US. In the American view, the curbs were tantamount to economic warfare. In an analysis, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warned these curbs could cripple American defence production within months, because without Chinese rare earths, America’s F-35 jets, submarine systems, and precision-guided munitions cannot be built. Decades of offshoring and underinvestment in rare earths have left the US and the West utterly dependent on China, with no viable alternatives in the short term. This is how critical minerals have become strategic leverage, just like oil once was—leading to the West’s excuses for military interventions in producer countries, mostly in the Middle East. Also read: Top 7 countries with the largest rare earth reserves: See where India stands Rare earths are already a key factor in conflict zones, from Africa to Asia to Europe The scramble for rare earths is already playing out as a key aspect in several conflict and post-conflict zones. Trump’s planned re-entry into Afghanistan is being seen by many analysts in the context of the vast untapped reserves that include rare earths, lithium, and copper—at an estimated total value of up to $3 trillion by some accounts. Even before the US withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021 after 20 years of occupation, China had moved in aggressively, having signed multi-billion-dollar mining deals. Before and during the new Taliban regime, Chinese mining workers have been attacked by Taliban-linked groups and Islamic State Khorasan. The region is slowly becoming a battleground not just of jihadist ideology and terror, but of extraction rights. With Trump aides already discussing “securing American interests” in Afghanistan, the Great Game has shifted underground, quite literally. Also read: Trump threatens 'massive tariffs' on China, says 'now there seems to be no reason' to meet Xi Jinping As the Ukraine-Russia war continues, mineral geopolitics is on full display. Invading Ukraine gave Russia control of roughly half of its rich rare earth deposits, and much of its graphite, lithium, and uranium. These resources are central to European energy independence and Western re-industrialisation plans. Under Trump, the US struck a deal with Ukraine for preferential access to its critical minerals, tying aid to resource rights—a kind of quid pro quo. Thus, the war has now become, at least partially, about controlling Europe’s last great mineral trove. Russia has weaponised these assets, using export controls and territorial dominance to manipulate markets and supply chains. https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-defends-rare-earth-export-curbs-world-business-watch-wion-1760334659059/embed Africa, one of the most mineral-rich regions in the world, is quietly becoming the next arena—even amid civil conflicts. Burundi, Tanzania, and the DRC hold enormous reserves of neodymium, cobalt, and dysprosium, but are also ravaged by decades of internecine wars involving armed groups, armies and governments. In spite of these conflicts, China has managed to dominate mining operations in the African continent for years. Amid the unrest and corruption, Western nations are planning to re-enter Africa strategically in several mineral-rich states, reminiscent of the scramble for Africa during colonialism. Rare earth extraction has been linked to insurgencies, land seizures, and violence in Africa. A resource opportunity to resource war: How demand-supply gaps could evolve into real conflicts Rising demand, monopolised supply, and unstable extraction zones—that’s the perfect powder keg that could ignite future wars in places with rare earth resources. Unlike oil, these minerals cannot be easily substituted, stored, or rerouted. Scarcity, strategic value, and long development cycles make them uniquely explosive and vulnerable to conflicts. Rare earths are the new fault lines of power. And the quiet race beneath the surface is already erupting into open confrontations. Whether in Ukraine, the mountains of Afghanistan, the jungles of the DRC, or the Gobi Desert, the next great conflict may be decided not by ideology or territory, but by who owns the minerals beneath our feet. And those who control the flow will control the future. We are not headed toward a rare earths war; we are already in it.

<p>The global race for rare earth minerals is igniting geopolitical tensions that could lead to real wars. The tussles and tariff wars between China and the US is one aspect. The West is vying for control of critical elements, and could cause a new form of resource warfare.<br>&nbsp;</p>

Will rare earths cause the next war (or what is common in China vs US, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Africa)?

<p>After two gruelling years of death and destruction, the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza is most likely coming to an end with the final prisoner-hostage exchange on Monday (Oct 13). Both sides are claiming victory. It is impossible to call anyone the victor in an unequal war. But one thing is clear: Hamas has emerged shaken and stirred, but not completely decimated, which was the declared objective of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he went into Gaza after the October 2023 terror attack. Who are the Hamas, and have they won the Gaza war? Here is an analysis:</p><h2>Who are Hamas? The back story</h2><p>Hamas’s roots go back to the aftermath of the 1967 war during which Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The founders of Hamas, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, initially built a network of religious and charitable institutions called Mujama al-Islamiya. Formally known as the Islamic Resistance Movement (Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah), Hamas came into being in 1987 during the First Intifada, or the Palestinian resistance against Israel. Hamas started as a grassroots offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and quickly became a fierce opponent of Israeli occupation. Equally, it opposed the secular nationalism of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), making it more religion-oriented and an aspect of jihad by merging Sunni Islamist ideology with Palestinian nationalism.&nbsp;</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/breaking-hamas-names-20-surviving-israeli-hostages-in-gaza-that-will-be-freed-in-massive-prisoner-swap-today-1760329323951/amp">Hamas releases names of 20 surviving Israeli hostages that will be freed in massive prisoner swap today</a></p><h2>Israel once helped Hamas grow</h2><p>Israel saw in Hamas a counterforce against the PLO, which was secular and leftist. In the early years, Israel tacitly allowed the group to expand, a strategy that dramatically misfired when Hamas emerged as a political and militant force to reckon with. Palestinians frustrated with the perceived failures of diplomacy, particularly the Oslo Accords, joined Hamas in droves. The Oslo peace process in the 1990s was counterproductive as it led to expanding Israeli settlements, restricted Palestinian autonomy, and worsening economic conditions. Hamas completely rejected the Oslo framework as a betrayal of Palestinian rights.</p><h2>How Hamas became a militant force adept at asymmetric warfare</h2><p>While Fatah, the dominant group in the PLO, focused on negotiation and compromise, Hamas escalated armed resistance through suicide bombings and later through rocket attacks, using asymmetric warfare tactics. Even without a conventional army, the group developed guerrilla tactics against Israel’s military superiority: improvised explosive devices, anti-tank missiles, extensive tunnel networks beneath Gaza, and locally-assembled rockets such as the Qassam.</p><h2>Iran helped Hamas upgrade its arsenal</h2><p>Iran helped Hamas cut across the Sunni-Shia divide, providing financial and military support that allowed Hamas to challenge the perception of Israeli invulnerability. This was on full display on 7 October 2023, which Hamas called “Al-Aqsa Flood.” Hamas fighters breached Israel’s border by land, air (using parasailing), and sea, killing around 1,200 people and taking nearly 250 hostages. The attack, while stunning both Israel and the world, reinjected the Palestinian cause into global headlines and shocked the world back into discussing the Palestinian statehood issue.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-beginning-of-a-new-path-hostage-prisoner-swap-between-israel-hamas-to-take-place-monday-all-details-inside-1760292971752">‘Beginning of a new path’: Hostage-prisoner swap between Israel, Hamas to take place Monday – All details inside</a></p><h2>Hamas attacked Israel, Palestinians suffered in Gaza: The war aftermath&nbsp;</h2><p>The Palestinians in Gaza paid a heavy price for Hamas’s actions. Israel launched its most intensive campaign ever in Gaza, killing at least 60,000 Palestinians according to some accounts, and bombing much of Gaza into rubble.</p><p>But till the last moments of the Israel-Hamas war, the group retained its fighting abilities. Reportedly, it has recruited tens of thousands of new fighters since the war began. Hamas also re-established operational cells even in areas Israel had claimed to have cleared. In short, Hamas dragged the Israeli military into an exhausting, asymmetrical, urban war of attrition.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-hamas-hostage-deal-friends-family-of-hostages-to-watch-their-release-live-1760340067382/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-hamas-hostage-deal-friends-family-of-hostages-to-watch-their-release-live-1760340067382/embed</a></p><h2>Hamas’s endurance to date is its greatest victory</h2><p>This is not a war whose winner and loser can be measured by traditional military benchmarks like territorial control, casualty counts, or a peace accord after surrender. It was a battle of survival. It was about who was able to extract more concessions, shape the narrative, and maintain relevance. Hamas was able to secure the maximum number of prisoners at an almost 3 to 1 ratio for the release of hostages, some already dead. Hamas remains visible even today in hostage negotiations and transfers, making it clear that it still runs Gaza. Many Western nations were forced to recognise the state of Palestine, despite Israel’s frenzied diplomacy and resistance. On these terms, Hamas achieved several key objectives of why it attacked Israel in 2023.</p><h2>Hamas is socially ingrained in Gaza</h2><p>Hamas’s military arm, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, is what most people see, but it also has deep roots in the social infrastructure of Gaza. Even as the economy is crippled by the Israeli blockade and the war, Hamas has been filling critical governance gaps. It has a ‘dawa network’ that provides education, healthcare and food aid to tens of thousands of people. This network functions as a government in the absence of a viable state. Hamas has been able to mix resistance with social services, making it a resilient force, especially when rival factions like Fatah are viewed as corrupt or incompetent by many Palestinians.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hamas-to-not-govern-post-war-gaza-names-almost-ready-for-palestinian-committee-here-s-what-we-know-1760264781454">Hamas to not govern post-war Gaza? Names ‘almost ready’ for Palestinian committee – Here’s what we know</a></p><h2>Hamas is a proxy of Iran</h2><p>Hamas is a key aspect of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” receiving financial and military support from Tehran. It also has political backing or engagement from Qatar, Turkey, and even discreetly from Russia and China, who see the Palestinian issue through a post-colonial prism. As we saw, the Hamas-Israel war also activated other militant groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. This gives Hamas strategic leverage in the region, making it not just a representative of Palestinian resistance, but part of a broader opposition to the Western-backed regional order.</p><h2>The real win for Hamas will come only if…</h2><p>The toughest task with Hamas, assuming the war is over, is the revival of Gaza in terms of infrastructure and economy. From food to healthcare to education and managing internal dissent, Hamas faces bigger enemies than Israel.</p><p>Many Palestinians have accused Hamas of authoritarianism and repression of dissent and criticised it for prioritising military aims over civilian welfare. There is also the spectre of whether Hamas leaders would be tried for war crimes. A clear lack of recognisable leadership faces is another problem for Hamas. Would anyone come forward as the popular leader of the group, given that many of its elders were killed by Israel in overt or covert operations?</p><p>For many Palestinians, Hamas is not perfect but necessary. It is the only force that refuses to accept the status quo of occupation, siege, and diplomatic stagnation—talks for the sake of talks without results. Despite the blockade, assassinations, and four major wars, Hamas has kept the Palestinian struggle alive in the international arena. In this sense, Hamas has not only survived but reshaped the conflict. Its continued presence signals that no military solution can fully decimate a deeply rooted political movement driven by decades of displacement, dispossession, and perceived injustice.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/in-pics-rummaging-for-hope-hamas-and-israel-begin-hostage-exchange-gaza-1760330107614">In Pics | Rummaging for hope: Hamas and Israel begin hostage exchange</a></p><h2>So, did Hamas win the Gaza war?</h2><p>Whether Hamas has "won" the Gaza war depends on the angle through which the conflict is viewed. It has suffered immense military casualties. Gazas' civilians faced unimaginable suffering. But politically and symbolically, Hamas has ensured that its cause cannot be ignored as it disrupted Israeli security assumptions and rallied widespread regional and global support, It has forced a reckoning over the unresolved core issue of the conflict: the occupation of Palestinian land and the creation of a Palestinian state. Until that issue is addressed, Hamas’s fight and the broader resistance it represents will go on.</p>

Hamas evolved from grassroots Islamist roots into Gaza’s ruling force, using militant and social strategies to resist Israeli occupation and reshape the Palestinian conflict narrative. As the Gaza war appears to be ending with the prisoner-hostage swap, here is an analytical look


After two gruelling years of death and destruction, the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza is most likely coming to an end with the final prisoner-hostage exchange on Monday (Oct 13). Both sides are claiming victory. It is impossible to call anyone the victor in an unequal war. But one thing is clear: Hamas has emerged shaken and stirred, but not completely decimated, which was the declared objective of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he went into Gaza after the October 2023 terror attack. Who are the Hamas, and have they won the Gaza war? Here is an analysis: Who are Hamas? The back story Hamas’s roots go back to the aftermath of the 1967 war during which Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The founders of Hamas, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, initially built a network of religious and charitable institutions called Mujama al-Islamiya. Formally known as the Islamic Resistance Movement (Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah), Hamas came into being in 1987 during the First Intifada, or the Palestinian resistance against Israel. Hamas started as a grassroots offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and quickly became a fierce opponent of Israeli occupation. Equally, it opposed the secular nationalism of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), making it more religion-oriented and an aspect of jihad by merging Sunni Islamist ideology with Palestinian nationalism. Also read: Hamas releases names of 20 surviving Israeli hostages that will be freed in massive prisoner swap today Israel once helped Hamas grow Israel saw in Hamas a counterforce against the PLO, which was secular and leftist. In the early years, Israel tacitly allowed the group to expand, a strategy that dramatically misfired when Hamas emerged as a political and militant force to reckon with. Palestinians frustrated with the perceived failures of diplomacy, particularly the Oslo Accords, joined Hamas in droves. The Oslo peace process in the 1990s was counterproductive as it led to expanding Israeli settlements, restricted Palestinian autonomy, and worsening economic conditions. Hamas completely rejected the Oslo framework as a betrayal of Palestinian rights. How Hamas became a militant force adept at asymmetric warfare While Fatah, the dominant group in the PLO, focused on negotiation and compromise, Hamas escalated armed resistance through suicide bombings and later through rocket attacks, using asymmetric warfare tactics. Even without a conventional army, the group developed guerrilla tactics against Israel’s military superiority: improvised explosive devices, anti-tank missiles, extensive tunnel networks beneath Gaza, and locally-assembled rockets such as the Qassam. Iran helped Hamas upgrade its arsenal Iran helped Hamas cut across the Sunni-Shia divide, providing financial and military support that allowed Hamas to challenge the perception of Israeli invulnerability. This was on full display on 7 October 2023, which Hamas called “Al-Aqsa Flood.” Hamas fighters breached Israel’s border by land, air (using parasailing), and sea, killing around 1,200 people and taking nearly 250 hostages. The attack, while stunning both Israel and the world, reinjected the Palestinian cause into global headlines and shocked the world back into discussing the Palestinian statehood issue. Also read: ‘Beginning of a new path’: Hostage-prisoner swap between Israel, Hamas to take place Monday – All details inside Hamas attacked Israel, Palestinians suffered in Gaza: The war aftermath The Palestinians in Gaza paid a heavy price for Hamas’s actions. Israel launched its most intensive campaign ever in Gaza, killing at least 60,000 Palestinians according to some accounts, and bombing much of Gaza into rubble. But till the last moments of the Israel-Hamas war, the group retained its fighting abilities. Reportedly, it has recruited tens of thousands of new fighters since the war began. Hamas also re-established operational cells even in areas Israel had claimed to have cleared. In short, Hamas dragged the Israeli military into an exhausting, asymmetrical, urban war of attrition. https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-hamas-hostage-deal-friends-family-of-hostages-to-watch-their-release-live-1760340067382/embed Hamas’s endurance to date is its greatest victory This is not a war whose winner and loser can be measured by traditional military benchmarks like territorial control, casualty counts, or a peace accord after surrender. It was a battle of survival. It was about who was able to extract more concessions, shape the narrative, and maintain relevance. Hamas was able to secure the maximum number of prisoners at an almost 3 to 1 ratio for the release of hostages, some already dead. Hamas remains visible even today in hostage negotiations and transfers, making it clear that it still runs Gaza. Many Western nations were forced to recognise the state of Palestine, despite Israel’s frenzied diplomacy and resistance. On these terms, Hamas achieved several key objectives of why it attacked Israel in 2023. Hamas is socially ingrained in Gaza Hamas’s military arm, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, is what most people see, but it also has deep roots in the social infrastructure of Gaza. Even as the economy is crippled by the Israeli blockade and the war, Hamas has been filling critical governance gaps. It has a ‘dawa network’ that provides education, healthcare and food aid to tens of thousands of people. This network functions as a government in the absence of a viable state. Hamas has been able to mix resistance with social services, making it a resilient force, especially when rival factions like Fatah are viewed as corrupt or incompetent by many Palestinians. Also read: Hamas to not govern post-war Gaza? Names ‘almost ready’ for Palestinian committee – Here’s what we know Hamas is a proxy of Iran Hamas is a key aspect of Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” receiving financial and military support from Tehran. It also has political backing or engagement from Qatar, Turkey, and even discreetly from Russia and China, who see the Palestinian issue through a post-colonial prism. As we saw, the Hamas-Israel war also activated other militant groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. This gives Hamas strategic leverage in the region, making it not just a representative of Palestinian resistance, but part of a broader opposition to the Western-backed regional order. The real win for Hamas will come only if… The toughest task with Hamas, assuming the war is over, is the revival of Gaza in terms of infrastructure and economy. From food to healthcare to education and managing internal dissent, Hamas faces bigger enemies than Israel. Many Palestinians have accused Hamas of authoritarianism and repression of dissent and criticised it for prioritising military aims over civilian welfare. There is also the spectre of whether Hamas leaders would be tried for war crimes. A clear lack of recognisable leadership faces is another problem for Hamas. Would anyone come forward as the popular leader of the group, given that many of its elders were killed by Israel in overt or covert operations? For many Palestinians, Hamas is not perfect but necessary. It is the only force that refuses to accept the status quo of occupation, siege, and diplomatic stagnation—talks for the sake of talks without results. Despite the blockade, assassinations, and four major wars, Hamas has kept the Palestinian struggle alive in the international arena. In this sense, Hamas has not only survived but reshaped the conflict. Its continued presence signals that no military solution can fully decimate a deeply rooted political movement driven by decades of displacement, dispossession, and perceived injustice. Also read: In Pics | Rummaging for hope: Hamas and Israel begin hostage exchange So, did Hamas win the Gaza war? Whether Hamas has "won" the Gaza war depends on the angle through which the conflict is viewed. It has suffered immense military casualties. Gazas' civilians faced unimaginable suffering. But politically and symbolically, Hamas has ensured that its cause cannot be ignored as it disrupted Israeli security assumptions and rallied widespread regional and global support, It has forced a reckoning over the unresolved core issue of the conflict: the occupation of Palestinian land and the creation of a Palestinian state. Until that issue is addressed, Hamas’s fight and the broader resistance it represents will go on.

<p>Hamas evolved from grassroots Islamist roots into Gaza’s ruling force, using militant and social strategies to resist Israeli occupation and reshape the Palestinian conflict narrative. As the Gaza war appears to be ending with the prisoner-hostage swap, here is an analytical look<br>&nbsp;</p>

Who are Hamas, and did they 'win' the Gaza war against Israel?

<p>Pakistani authorities have taken the extraordinary step of indefinitely suspending mobile internet services in capital Islamabad and Rawalpindi amid fears of widespread unrest during the “Labbaik Ya Aqsa Million March” called by the far-right Islamist group Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, or TLP. Besides internet blackouts, major roads were reportedly sealed. The Red Zone, home to government offices and foreign embassies, was barricaded. A ban is in place on public gatherings in Rawalpindi until Saturday (Oct 11). The harsh clampdown is a sign of the government’s deep fears about TLP’s ability to mobilise tens of thousands of followers and provoke violent confrontations with law enforcement, as it has done in the past.</p><h2>What is Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan?</h2><p>Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan is an Islamist political and militant group founded in 2015 by the late cleric Khadim Hussain Rizvi. Based on the Barelvi Sunni tradition, TLP is notorious for its extreme stance on Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. It has often taken uncompromising positions on issues perceived to offend Islam, often resorting to violence, lynching and mob justice.</p><p>TLP first made national headlines in 2017, with massive protests that paralysed Islamabad for weeks. That movement was triggered by the government’s refusal to arrest a minister accused of blasphemy. The demonstration led to a political crisis, and the Pakistani military eventually mediated a deal to end it. This showed the group’s ability to mobilise thousands of supporters and disrupt public life.&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/three-policemen-shot-dead-70-wounded-at-tlp-rally-in-pakistan-424577/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/three-policemen-shot-dead-70-wounded-at-tlp-rally-in-pakistan-424577/embed</a></p><p>Since then, TLP has led several violent protests, often resulting in deaths. In 2021, it held &nbsp;demonstrations against French and Danish embassies in protest against cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Those protests resulted in clashes that killed more than 20 people, mostly police officers. Due to its violent tactics and extremist rhetoric, the United States designated TLP a terrorist organisation in 2019. It was later delisted in 2021. Although the Pakistani government has banned TLP twice, it has struggled to contain its influence.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/tlp-to-end-sit-in-protest-as-pakistan-lifts-ban-on-group-427738">TLP to end sit-in protest as Pakistan lifts ban on group</a></p><h2>What is TLP protesting now?</h2><p>The new unrest is linked to the group’s vehement support for the Palestinian cause and opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza, along with condemnation of US backing for Israel. TLP called for a “Labbaik Ya Aqsa Million March” on Friday to show solidarity with Palestinians and pressure the Pakistani government to take a harder stance.</p><p>Clashes in Lahore on Thursday between TLP activists and police injured dozens, and over 150 TLP members were arrested across Pakistan. The government imposed Section 144, shut down internet access, and sealed off sensitive areas.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pakistans-ahmadiyya-minority-man-beaten-to-death-by-karachi-mob-at-place-of-worship-8977824">Pakistan's Ahmadiyya minority man beaten to death by Karachi mob at place of worship</a></p><h2>Why do Pakistani governments fear TLP?</h2><p>TLP protests in the past have paralysed cities. Their demonstrations often involve thousands of followers, many of whom are highly motivated by religious fervour and willing to confront security forces aggressively, leading to direct street battles. TLP-led protests can quickly turn deadly and destabilise urban centres, making them a severe public order challenge.</p><p>The group is politically active too, having won seats in provincial elections. Outlawing or suppressing TLP is therefore not a simple option for the government. TLP’s base remains loyal despite the bans and restrictions. The current TLP leader, Saad Hussain Rizvi, the son of the founder, continues to rally supporters around anti-Western and pro-Palestinian issues.</p>

Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan is a potent and volatile Islamist force in Pakistan, known for its hardline religious ideology and history of violent protests. The government’s preemptive crackdown reflects fears of another destabilising outbreak of violence

Pakistani authorities have taken the extraordinary step of indefinitely suspending mobile internet services in capital Islamabad and Rawalpindi amid fears of widespread unrest during the “Labbaik Ya Aqsa Million March” called by the far-right Islamist group Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan, or TLP. Besides internet blackouts, major roads were reportedly sealed. The Red Zone, home to government offices and foreign embassies, was barricaded. A ban is in place on public gatherings in Rawalpindi until Saturday (Oct 11). The harsh clampdown is a sign of the government’s deep fears about TLP’s ability to mobilise tens of thousands of followers and provoke violent confrontations with law enforcement, as it has done in the past. What is Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan? Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan is an Islamist political and militant group founded in 2015 by the late cleric Khadim Hussain Rizvi. Based on the Barelvi Sunni tradition, TLP is notorious for its extreme stance on Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. It has often taken uncompromising positions on issues perceived to offend Islam, often resorting to violence, lynching and mob justice. TLP first made national headlines in 2017, with massive protests that paralysed Islamabad for weeks. That movement was triggered by the government’s refusal to arrest a minister accused of blasphemy. The demonstration led to a political crisis, and the Pakistani military eventually mediated a deal to end it. This showed the group’s ability to mobilise thousands of supporters and disrupt public life. https://www.wionews.com/videos/three-policemen-shot-dead-70-wounded-at-tlp-rally-in-pakistan-424577/embed Since then, TLP has led several violent protests, often resulting in deaths. In 2021, it held demonstrations against French and Danish embassies in protest against cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Those protests resulted in clashes that killed more than 20 people, mostly police officers. Due to its violent tactics and extremist rhetoric, the United States designated TLP a terrorist organisation in 2019. It was later delisted in 2021. Although the Pakistani government has banned TLP twice, it has struggled to contain its influence. Also read: TLP to end sit-in protest as Pakistan lifts ban on group What is TLP protesting now? The new unrest is linked to the group’s vehement support for the Palestinian cause and opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza, along with condemnation of US backing for Israel. TLP called for a “Labbaik Ya Aqsa Million March” on Friday to show solidarity with Palestinians and pressure the Pakistani government to take a harder stance. Clashes in Lahore on Thursday between TLP activists and police injured dozens, and over 150 TLP members were arrested across Pakistan. The government imposed Section 144, shut down internet access, and sealed off sensitive areas. Also read: Pakistan's Ahmadiyya minority man beaten to death by Karachi mob at place of worship Why do Pakistani governments fear TLP? TLP protests in the past have paralysed cities. Their demonstrations often involve thousands of followers, many of whom are highly motivated by religious fervour and willing to confront security forces aggressively, leading to direct street battles. TLP-led protests can quickly turn deadly and destabilise urban centres, making them a severe public order challenge. The group is politically active too, having won seats in provincial elections. Outlawing or suppressing TLP is therefore not a simple option for the government. TLP’s base remains loyal despite the bans and restrictions. The current TLP leader, Saad Hussain Rizvi, the son of the founder, continues to rally supporters around anti-Western and pro-Palestinian issues.

<p>Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan is a potent and volatile Islamist force in Pakistan, known for its hardline religious ideology and history of violent protests. The government’s preemptive crackdown reflects fears of another destabilising outbreak of violence</p>

What is Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan? Why Pakistan government fears its protests and why it imposed an internet ban

<p>President Emmanuel Macron is always visible on the international stage as the face of European diplomacy in the war in Ukraine. But domestically, his ground is shaking. With five prime ministers in and out of the revolving door, one might think his time is up. But not so fast. France’s unique political system might ensure he completes his term in 2027 despite political and economic headwinds and social unrest. Here are his challenges — and why he might survive the storm.</p><h2>Emmanuel Macron’s second term descends into paralysis</h2><p>Macron is set to announce his sixth prime minister on Friday (Oct 10). Once seen as a centrist reformer and European leader, Macron now presides over a France beset by political gridlock, economic stagnation, and social unrest that regularly triggers protests. His approval rating has plummeted to 17 per cent, and five prime ministers have cycled through office in under three years — instability unseen since the Fourth Republic.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-at-a-political-crossroads-as-calls-for-macron-s-ouster-grows-1759944053069/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-at-a-political-crossroads-as-calls-for-macron-s-ouster-grows-1759944053069/embed</a></p><h2>Macron’s decision to dissolve parliament in 2024 backfired</h2><p>Arguably overconfident, Macron called snap elections in 2024, which resulted in a hung National Assembly. His Renaissance party holds only 166 seats, trailing the left-wing New Popular Front (193) and the far-right National Rally (142). What followed was chaos. Prime Ministers Elisabeth Borne, Gabriel Attal, Michel Barnier, François Bayrou, and Sébastien Lecornu all failed to stabilise governance — with Lecornu’s tenure ending after just 27 days. Macron attempted cross-party talks, but perceptions of his irrelevance are growing.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/former-france-pm-eduardo-philippe-gabriel-attal-go-against-president-macron-and-want-early-election-1759846486546">Former PM and French president's ally Eduardo Philippe wants Macron to call for early election</a></p><h2>On French streets, anger continues to mount</h2><p>French streets remain a barometer of social tension. Macron’s pension reform — raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 — sparked mass protests. Austerity plans totalling €44 billion in savings triggered strikes. The “Bloquons Tout” movement has organised blockades, while unrest in New Caledonia over voting rights reforms has highlighted deep colonial-era fractures. Once a symbol of modernisation, Macron is now seen by many as elitist and socially divisive.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/macron-warns-un-against-letting-survival-of-the-fittest-define-world-order-a-dig-at-trump-1758674204290">Macron warns UN against letting 'survival of the fittest' define world order. A dig at Trump's 'America First' vision?</a></p><h2>France faces a deepening fiscal crisis</h2><p>French public debt reached €3.346 trillion — or 114 per cent of GDP — in the first quarter of 2025. Deficits are projected at 5 to 5.4 per cent of GDP. Macron failed to pass the 2026 budget due to the parliamentary deadlock, forcing France to operate under emergency spending rules. Markets are jittery, and the risk of credit downgrades looms.</p><h2>Yet, Macron is unlikely to leave office early</h2><p>Despite some allies calling for his resignation, Macron is expected to serve his full term thanks to France’s constitutional system. The Constitution of the Fifth Republic ensures presidential stability. Impeachment is only possible in cases of a “breach of duties,” and requires supermajorities in both parliamentary chambers and a ruling by a special court. No French president has ever been removed this way. Charles de Gaulle resigned voluntarily in 1969; others left only after losing elections.</p><h2>Macron could still dissolve parliament again</h2><p>With 18 months left until the 2027 election, Macron technically could dissolve parliament again — but he is unlikely to do so. Even as a lame-duck president, powerless domestically but constitutionally protected, he has the right to remain.</p><p>In the end, Macron has become a symbol of the very dysfunction he aimed to overcome as France’s youngest president. Politically isolated, economically constrained, and socially rejected, his authority has collapsed. But the system that protects the presidency ensures he stays — not because he can govern, but because he cannot be removed.</p>

Emmanuel Macron’s presidency faces political chaos, social unrest, economic crisis and low approval ratings. But France’s constitutional system likely ensures the president can complete his term. Here are the odds


President Emmanuel Macron is always visible on the international stage as the face of European diplomacy in the war in Ukraine. But domestically, his ground is shaking. With five prime ministers in and out of the revolving door, one might think his time is up. But not so fast. France’s unique political system might ensure he completes his term in 2027 despite political and economic headwinds and social unrest. Here are his challenges — and why he might survive the storm. Emmanuel Macron’s second term descends into paralysis Macron is set to announce his sixth prime minister on Friday (Oct 10). Once seen as a centrist reformer and European leader, Macron now presides over a France beset by political gridlock, economic stagnation, and social unrest that regularly triggers protests. His approval rating has plummeted to 17 per cent, and five prime ministers have cycled through office in under three years — instability unseen since the Fourth Republic. https://www.wionews.com/videos/france-at-a-political-crossroads-as-calls-for-macron-s-ouster-grows-1759944053069/embed Macron’s decision to dissolve parliament in 2024 backfired Arguably overconfident, Macron called snap elections in 2024, which resulted in a hung National Assembly. His Renaissance party holds only 166 seats, trailing the left-wing New Popular Front (193) and the far-right National Rally (142). What followed was chaos. Prime Ministers Elisabeth Borne, Gabriel Attal, Michel Barnier, François Bayrou, and Sébastien Lecornu all failed to stabilise governance — with Lecornu’s tenure ending after just 27 days. Macron attempted cross-party talks, but perceptions of his irrelevance are growing. Also read: Former PM and French president's ally Eduardo Philippe wants Macron to call for early election On French streets, anger continues to mount French streets remain a barometer of social tension. Macron’s pension reform — raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 — sparked mass protests. Austerity plans totalling €44 billion in savings triggered strikes. The “Bloquons Tout” movement has organised blockades, while unrest in New Caledonia over voting rights reforms has highlighted deep colonial-era fractures. Once a symbol of modernisation, Macron is now seen by many as elitist and socially divisive. Also read: Macron warns UN against letting 'survival of the fittest' define world order. A dig at Trump's 'America First' vision? France faces a deepening fiscal crisis French public debt reached €3.346 trillion — or 114 per cent of GDP — in the first quarter of 2025. Deficits are projected at 5 to 5.4 per cent of GDP. Macron failed to pass the 2026 budget due to the parliamentary deadlock, forcing France to operate under emergency spending rules. Markets are jittery, and the risk of credit downgrades looms. Yet, Macron is unlikely to leave office early Despite some allies calling for his resignation, Macron is expected to serve his full term thanks to France’s constitutional system. The Constitution of the Fifth Republic ensures presidential stability. Impeachment is only possible in cases of a “breach of duties,” and requires supermajorities in both parliamentary chambers and a ruling by a special court. No French president has ever been removed this way. Charles de Gaulle resigned voluntarily in 1969; others left only after losing elections. Macron could still dissolve parliament again With 18 months left until the 2027 election, Macron technically could dissolve parliament again — but he is unlikely to do so. Even as a lame-duck president, powerless domestically but constitutionally protected, he has the right to remain. In the end, Macron has become a symbol of the very dysfunction he aimed to overcome as France’s youngest president. Politically isolated, economically constrained, and socially rejected, his authority has collapsed. But the system that protects the presidency ensures he stays — not because he can govern, but because he cannot be removed.

<p>Emmanuel Macron’s presidency faces political chaos, social unrest, economic crisis and low approval ratings. But France’s constitutional system likely ensures the president can complete his term. Here are the odds</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Game over for Emmanuel Macron? President is down, but not out yet. How the French system will protect him

<p>Paul Kapur, a staunchly anti-Pakistan scholar, has just been confirmed as the South Asia desk chief of the US State Department. It might come as a bit of a shock to Islamabad, which had assumed that the Trump administration had tilted towards it, as opposed to India, amid the tariff war and trade deal tensions. Kapur, who will be the US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, &nbsp;has been openly critical of Pakistan’s military establishment and its nuclear policies. He has contrasted Pakistan’s instability with India’s democratic order. He had criticised US military aid to Pakistan, calling it “strategic malpractice” given its support for terror safe havens. An influential figure in US policy debates on South Asia, Paul’s books, public testimonies, remarks, articles, and social media posts provide a snapshot of his views. Here is a summary.</p><h2>Kapur has often criticised destabilising actions of the Pakistan military</h2><p>In his book <i>Dangerous Deterrent</i> (2007), Kapur argued that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, developed as a counterbalance to India, emboldened its military to pursue aggressive and revisionist policies. He said Pakistan's "minimum credible deterrence" is a cover for offensive strategies. Challenging the idea that nuclear weapons stabilise regional security, Kapur said Pakistan’s nukes enable risky military adventurism. He is of the view that Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir is an extension of this adventurism, while calling its “first-use” nuclear doctrine provocative and a major threat to regional peace. He thinks of the Pakistani military as a 'revisionist actor', uninterested in peaceful stability and willing to use terrorism to coerce India, raising the spectre of nuclear escalation.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-i-do-not-want-escalation-but-pakistan-defence-minister-khawaja-asif-on-possibility-of-war-with-india-1759908164091">'I do not want escalation but...': Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on possibility of war with India</a></p><h2>Kapur said Pakistan uses terrorists to challenge India's territorial integrity</h2><p>At a 2019 Congressional testimony, Kapur said the Pakistani military was using terrorist proxies to challenge India’s territorial integrity. He called for US aid to be conditioned upon Pakistan ending support for terror, while labelling its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) a “state within a state” that enables ‘global jihadism.’ Writing in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2021, Kapur called Pakistan a “nuclear-armed failing state,” where military elites perpetuate instability, while criticising US engagement as naïve.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-war-possiblity-with-india-real-pakistan-leaders-raise-noise-do-they-think-trump-will-save-them-or-are-they-playing-to-domestic-gallery-1759909424811">'War possibility with India real': Pakistani leaders raise noise. Do they think Trump will save them, or are they playing to domestic gallery?</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In the <i>War on the Rocks </i>podcast (2023-2024), Kapur condemned Pakistan’s denial of militant involvement following terror attacks targeting India, and advocated international isolation of Pakistan’s military to deter further provocations.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-s-khawaja-asif-makes-big-claim-says-india-was-never-truly-united-except-under-aurangzeb-here-s-the-truth-1759930123861">Pakistan’s Khawaja Asif makes big claim, says India was ‘never truly united, except under Aurangzeb’. Here’s the truth</a></p><h2>Kapur called Pakistan’s democracy a sham, contrasted Pakistan's nuclear weapons with India’s restraint</h2><p>Kapur periodically warned that Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons are “escalatory wildcards,” while contrasting India’s restraint with Pakistan’s incentive for early nuclear use. He advocated US restrictions on technology exports to Pakistan.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-to-get-advanced-us-air-to-air-missiles-by-2030-1759928774815/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-to-get-advanced-us-air-to-air-missiles-by-2030-1759928774815/embed</a></p><p>On his Kapur’s X account, Kapur frequently shares his critical views of Pakistan, calling Pakistan’s democracy a sham controlled by the military. He also linked domestic unrest in Pakistan to militant policies.</p><p>On Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal expansions, Kapur described its “full-spectrum deterrence” doctrine as offensive and suicidal for South Asia.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rawalpindi-chicken-tikka-to-balakot-tiramisu-indian-army-officer-shares-menu-naming-dishes-after-terror-targets-hit-during-op-sindoor-1759990693510">Rawalpindi Chicken Tikka to Balakot Tiramisu: Indian Army officer shares menu naming dishes after terror targets hit during Op Sindoor</a></p><h2>Who is Paul Kapur?</h2><p>S Paul Kapur is an American academic and expert on South Asian security specialising in nuclear proliferation issues and US foreign policy in the region. A Professor of National Security Affairs at the US Naval Postgraduate School, Kapur is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and a non-resident fellow at the Stimson Center. Holding a PhD in Political Science, Kapur has written several books on India’s nuclear strategy and Pakistan’s destabilising role in South Asia. His research focuses on the strategic risks posed by Pakistan’s military and nuclear arsenal. Born in New Delhi to an Indian father and an American mother, Kapur studied at Amherst College.</p>

Paul Kapur, the new top US diplomat for South Asia, has periodically critiqued Pakistan’s military, nuclear risks and terror support. He has called for US aid cuts, contrasting India’s democracy with Pakistan's instability. Here is what else he said



Paul Kapur, a staunchly anti-Pakistan scholar, has just been confirmed as the South Asia desk chief of the US State Department. It might come as a bit of a shock to Islamabad, which had assumed that the Trump administration had tilted towards it, as opposed to India, amid the tariff war and trade deal tensions. Kapur, who will be the US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, has been openly critical of Pakistan’s military establishment and its nuclear policies. He has contrasted Pakistan’s instability with India’s democratic order. He had criticised US military aid to Pakistan, calling it “strategic malpractice” given its support for terror safe havens. An influential figure in US policy debates on South Asia, Paul’s books, public testimonies, remarks, articles, and social media posts provide a snapshot of his views. Here is a summary. Kapur has often criticised destabilising actions of the Pakistan military In his book Dangerous Deterrent (2007), Kapur argued that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, developed as a counterbalance to India, emboldened its military to pursue aggressive and revisionist policies. He said Pakistan's "minimum credible deterrence" is a cover for offensive strategies. Challenging the idea that nuclear weapons stabilise regional security, Kapur said Pakistan’s nukes enable risky military adventurism. He is of the view that Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir is an extension of this adventurism, while calling its “first-use” nuclear doctrine provocative and a major threat to regional peace. He thinks of the Pakistani military as a 'revisionist actor', uninterested in peaceful stability and willing to use terrorism to coerce India, raising the spectre of nuclear escalation. Also read: 'I do not want escalation but...': Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on possibility of war with India Kapur said Pakistan uses terrorists to challenge India's territorial integrity At a 2019 Congressional testimony, Kapur said the Pakistani military was using terrorist proxies to challenge India’s territorial integrity. He called for US aid to be conditioned upon Pakistan ending support for terror, while labelling its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) a “state within a state” that enables ‘global jihadism.’ Writing in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2021, Kapur called Pakistan a “nuclear-armed failing state,” where military elites perpetuate instability, while criticising US engagement as naïve. Also read: 'War possibility with India real': Pakistani leaders raise noise. Do they think Trump will save them, or are they playing to domestic gallery? In the War on the Rocks podcast (2023-2024), Kapur condemned Pakistan’s denial of militant involvement following terror attacks targeting India, and advocated international isolation of Pakistan’s military to deter further provocations. Also read: Pakistan’s Khawaja Asif makes big claim, says India was ‘never truly united, except under Aurangzeb’. Here’s the truth Kapur called Pakistan’s democracy a sham, contrasted Pakistan's nuclear weapons with India’s restraint Kapur periodically warned that Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons are “escalatory wildcards,” while contrasting India’s restraint with Pakistan’s incentive for early nuclear use. He advocated US restrictions on technology exports to Pakistan. https://www.wionews.com/videos/pakistan-to-get-advanced-us-air-to-air-missiles-by-2030-1759928774815/embed On his Kapur’s X account, Kapur frequently shares his critical views of Pakistan, calling Pakistan’s democracy a sham controlled by the military. He also linked domestic unrest in Pakistan to militant policies. On Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal expansions, Kapur described its “full-spectrum deterrence” doctrine as offensive and suicidal for South Asia. Also read: Rawalpindi Chicken Tikka to Balakot Tiramisu: Indian Army officer shares menu naming dishes after terror targets hit during Op Sindoor Who is Paul Kapur? S Paul Kapur is an American academic and expert on South Asian security specialising in nuclear proliferation issues and US foreign policy in the region. A Professor of National Security Affairs at the US Naval Postgraduate School, Kapur is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and a non-resident fellow at the Stimson Center. Holding a PhD in Political Science, Kapur has written several books on India’s nuclear strategy and Pakistan’s destabilising role in South Asia. His research focuses on the strategic risks posed by Pakistan’s military and nuclear arsenal. Born in New Delhi to an Indian father and an American mother, Kapur studied at Amherst College.

<p>Paul Kapur, the new top US diplomat for South Asia, has periodically critiqued Pakistan’s military, nuclear risks and terror support. He has called for US aid cuts, contrasting India’s democracy with Pakistan's instability. Here is what else he said</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Paul Kapur, the new South Asia top diplomat of the US, thinks Pakistan is a 'nuclear-armed failing state'. Here is what else he said about it

<p>There is a renewed, though possibly unsustainable, sense of belligerence in the Pakistani establishment against India, as it's possibly emboldened by recent perceived closeness to the US President Donald Trump's administration. Its defence minister has just said the possibility of war with India is 'real' , and both politicians and military officials of Pakistan have been exuding a strange level of confidence, despite the destruction Pakistan faced during Operation Sindoor, India's military response to the Pahalgam terror attack. Both the political elite and military establishment have turned up a notch their hostile rhetoric toward India, almost always hinting at renewed conflict. The tone, increasingly bellicose and defiant, suggests Islamabad is gambling on external backing—particularly from Trump-era US alignments—to bolster its posture.</p><h2>'Risks are real': The rhetoric of provocation from Pakistan</h2><p>The latest in this is the Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif's blunt remarks that “the possibility of war with India is real and cannot be dismissed.” In comments reported on Wednesday (Sep 8), he said Pakistan is ready and would “do better than before”, if a conflict erupts with India. This comes close on the heels of his words that India would be “buried under the wreckage of its warplanes”. Those comments came after Indian Army Chief Gen Upendra Dwivedi warned that Pakistan would be “erased from the world map” if it continued to support terrorism.</p><h2>Pakistan's threat to strike Indian infrastructure</h2><p>Asif was specific in his remarks, hinting that in the event of war, Pakistan would strike Indian infrastructure built on the Indus River. This was interpreted as Pakistan possibly considering Indian actions on hydrological projects or dams as acts of aggression. “If they attempt to build any kind of structure, we will strike it,” he said, equating water control to an existential conflict for Pakistan. For context, India has put the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance since the Pahalgam attack.</p><h2>Is Pakistan reinforcing military presence? &nbsp;</h2><p>Asif has repeatedly warned of an “imminent Indian incursion”. He said earlier that Pakistan has reinforced its forces and strategic decisions had been made accordingly. This was interpreted as troop and logistics movements near the border, but Asif partially backtracked, saying his words had been misinterpreted, even though he still insisted that tensions remained high.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pakistan-to-get-advanced-us-air-to-air-missiles-by-2030-here-s-what-we-know-1759900582027">Pakistan to get advanced US air-to-air missiles by 2030? Here's what we know</a></p><h2>The Pakistan Army's 'mutual destruction' warnings</h2><p>The Pakistan Army has been warning that any future conflict could usher in “cataclysmic devastation,” even as it vowed to respond “swiftly, decisively and destructively,” to India. In recent statements, it has said it would fight to “every nook and corner” of India, and ensure “mutual destruction” if war breaks out. &nbsp;<br>Pakistani Army Chief Gen Asim Munir has not held back either, having once warned that Islamabad “would take half the world down” with it in a major conflict with India, widely seen as nuclear sabre-rattling. He even singled out one of India's major oil refineries as a possible future target.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-approves-sale-of-amraam-missiles-to-pakistan-will-it-impact-india-1759909827533/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-approves-sale-of-amraam-missiles-to-pakistan-will-it-impact-india-1759909827533/embed</a></p><h2>The strategic posturing could be because of US closeness</h2><p>The escalation in rhetoric could be due to Pakistan's thinking that the US has tilted towards it under President Donald Trump. The optics was unmissable in a recent Oval Office meeting between Trump and Gen Munir, with PM Sharif in tow. The picture of Munir gifting Trump what appeared to be rare earths or critical minerals went viral. A section of Pakistani opinion makers feel the US under Trump may take a favorable or lenient stance towards Pakistan. This is emboldening Pakistan to crank up pressure on India, expecting diplomatic cover or acquiescence from Washington.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-you-are-a-transformative-president-canada-pm-carney-praises-trump-for-bringing-peace-between-india-pakistan-1759883371857">'You are a transformative president': Canada PM Carney praises Trump for 'bringing peace' between India-Pakistan</a></p><h2>Or is it to build legitimacy to a government seen as unpopular? &nbsp;</h2><p>Wide swaths of Pakistani society think of the Sharif-Munir establishment as illegitimate, with the main opposition leader Imran Khan jailed for months. Adversarial posturing against India would help the Sharif regime to divert attention by stoking Pakistani nationalism, to distract the public from internal dissent, economic stress, poverty, inflation and persistent governance deficits. Framing the Indus Waters Treaty abeyance as an ‘existential threat’ from India to Pakistan is also a way of gaining local support.</p>

Even without any military build-up, Pakistan establishment is talking up war. Emboldened by perceived Trump support, Pakistani leaders have escalated anti-India rhetoric in recent days, with top leaders threatening war and strikes on Indian infrastructure. Why? 



There is a renewed, though possibly unsustainable, sense of belligerence in the Pakistani establishment against India, as it's possibly emboldened by recent perceived closeness to the US President Donald Trump's administration. Its defence minister has just said the possibility of war with India is 'real' , and both politicians and military officials of Pakistan have been exuding a strange level of confidence, despite the destruction Pakistan faced during Operation Sindoor, India's military response to the Pahalgam terror attack. Both the political elite and military establishment have turned up a notch their hostile rhetoric toward India, almost always hinting at renewed conflict. The tone, increasingly bellicose and defiant, suggests Islamabad is gambling on external backing—particularly from Trump-era US alignments—to bolster its posture. 'Risks are real': The rhetoric of provocation from Pakistan The latest in this is the Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif's blunt remarks that “the possibility of war with India is real and cannot be dismissed.” In comments reported on Wednesday (Sep 8), he said Pakistan is ready and would “do better than before”, if a conflict erupts with India. This comes close on the heels of his words that India would be “buried under the wreckage of its warplanes”. Those comments came after Indian Army Chief Gen Upendra Dwivedi warned that Pakistan would be “erased from the world map” if it continued to support terrorism. Pakistan's threat to strike Indian infrastructure Asif was specific in his remarks, hinting that in the event of war, Pakistan would strike Indian infrastructure built on the Indus River. This was interpreted as Pakistan possibly considering Indian actions on hydrological projects or dams as acts of aggression. “If they attempt to build any kind of structure, we will strike it,” he said, equating water control to an existential conflict for Pakistan. For context, India has put the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance since the Pahalgam attack. Is Pakistan reinforcing military presence? Asif has repeatedly warned of an “imminent Indian incursion”. He said earlier that Pakistan has reinforced its forces and strategic decisions had been made accordingly. This was interpreted as troop and logistics movements near the border, but Asif partially backtracked, saying his words had been misinterpreted, even though he still insisted that tensions remained high. Also read: Pakistan to get advanced US air-to-air missiles by 2030? Here's what we know The Pakistan Army's 'mutual destruction' warnings The Pakistan Army has been warning that any future conflict could usher in “cataclysmic devastation,” even as it vowed to respond “swiftly, decisively and destructively,” to India. In recent statements, it has said it would fight to “every nook and corner” of India, and ensure “mutual destruction” if war breaks out. Pakistani Army Chief Gen Asim Munir has not held back either, having once warned that Islamabad “would take half the world down” with it in a major conflict with India, widely seen as nuclear sabre-rattling. He even singled out one of India's major oil refineries as a possible future target. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-approves-sale-of-amraam-missiles-to-pakistan-will-it-impact-india-1759909827533/embed The strategic posturing could be because of US closeness The escalation in rhetoric could be due to Pakistan's thinking that the US has tilted towards it under President Donald Trump. The optics was unmissable in a recent Oval Office meeting between Trump and Gen Munir, with PM Sharif in tow. The picture of Munir gifting Trump what appeared to be rare earths or critical minerals went viral. A section of Pakistani opinion makers feel the US under Trump may take a favorable or lenient stance towards Pakistan. This is emboldening Pakistan to crank up pressure on India, expecting diplomatic cover or acquiescence from Washington. Also read: 'You are a transformative president': Canada PM Carney praises Trump for 'bringing peace' between India-Pakistan Or is it to build legitimacy to a government seen as unpopular? Wide swaths of Pakistani society think of the Sharif-Munir establishment as illegitimate, with the main opposition leader Imran Khan jailed for months. Adversarial posturing against India would help the Sharif regime to divert attention by stoking Pakistani nationalism, to distract the public from internal dissent, economic stress, poverty, inflation and persistent governance deficits. Framing the Indus Waters Treaty abeyance as an ‘existential threat’ from India to Pakistan is also a way of gaining local support.

<p>Even without any military build-up, Pakistan establishment is talking up war. Emboldened by perceived Trump support, Pakistani leaders have escalated anti-India rhetoric in recent days, with top leaders threatening war and strikes on Indian infrastructure. Why?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

'War possibility with India real': Pakistani leaders raise noise. Do they think Trump will save them, or are they playing to domestic gallery?

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Vinod Janardhanan

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.