The Early Spring is proof not everyone can talk about their real feelings, and it is perfectly OK

UN votes to ‘correct the map’ as India backs fairer world view

Nigerian Navy discovers 99,000 litres of suspected stolen, illegally refined products as it intensifies anti-crude oil theft operations

Who is Aditi Paudel? 17-year-old becomes Japan's first literacy ambassador

Bengaluru: Officials find 40 kg expired chilli at chairman's club 

Jaishankar rejects trade link to ending Ukraine war 

Israeli strikes on Lebanon kill three, injure 23 despite truce

Alpine glacier was covered with sheep wool sheets to prevent melting. It worked

South Korea mulls deploying military assets to Strait of Hormuz

World's fifth-largest economy, British army can't afford to train

Breaking | Vance takes the podium: First White House briefing since Leavitt's exit

Taiwan raises 'concerns' over China's missile test

BRICS 2026: $1 trillion sovereign capital set to converge in Delhi for first iBRICS Summit

What is Iran's Pickaxe Mountain that Trump has again threatened to bomb?

UN votes to correct world map that visually shrank Africa for 450 years

Former NewJeans member Danielle launches YouTube channel, hints at new solo journey

Bangladesh batter Towhid Hridoy creates history with 350 not out in South Africa

Brendan Fraser’s transformation fuels The Mummy 4 excitement as fans welcome back Rick O’Connell

Krishna Janmashtami 2026: From Dhaniya Panjiri to Makhana Kheer- 5 best sweet dishes perfect for celebrating Lord Krishna’s birth

Donald Trump plans to travel to Ireland on Qatari-donated jet amid security concerns

Nazi-looted art to return to Jewish heirs

Eight killed in Kerala’s Thrissur after car rams into lorry parked on highway

Why Russian fighter jets use bulky, low-pressure tyres compared to US jets

FBI-wanted fraud accused arrested in Jalandhar over $600,000 scam

Why US tanks weigh over 20 tons more than Russian tanks

New Friday OTT releases (September 4, 2026): GDN, Dhamaal 4, Jagamae Sangeetham- Watch 6 new movies and TV shows on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Killing the Himalayas slowly: Human urine is melting a glacier on Mount Everest

For decades, regime change in Iran was the ambition nobody in Washington or Jerusalem quite wanted to admit openly.Not anymore.Donald Trump is again asking when Iranians will “rise up and fight.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared toppling Iran's government a “central mission” and says the objective is “within reach.” US Senator Ted Cruz has gone further, advocating that Iranian opponents of the government be armed to overthrow it themselves.The message is unmistakable: the Islamic Republic is wounded. Now, its enemies want Iranians to finish the job.But revolutions cannot simply be commissioned from abroad.Iran has already suffered something approaching political and military decapitation. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is gone. Senior commanders and political figures have been eliminated. The old hierarchy has been ripped apart.And yet, the Islamic Republic remains.That may be the greatest problem confronting the regime-change strategy.Destroying leaders is not the same as destroying institutions.Iran's political system was constructed precisely to withstand enormous pressure. The Revolutionary Guards, clerical establishment, security apparatus and overlapping centres of authority mean that when one powerful figure disappears, another can occupy the space.And the replacements are not necessarily moderates.Iran has elevated veteran hardliner Mohsen Rezaei to a crucial national-security position. Meanwhile, President Masoud Pezeshkian may favour negotiations and de-escalation, but Iran's presidency has never possessed absolute authority over the country's military-security establishment.That leaves Washington confronting an uncomfortable possibility: it can decapitate Iran's leadership without liberalising Iran.There is no denying the fury inside the country.Economic pressure is enormous. Oil exports have collapsed under the American blockade. Inflation and economic isolation are squeezing ordinary Iranians. Years of demonstrations have already exposed deep frustration with clerical rule.But asking Iranians to revolt from Washington is very different from Iranians deciding independently to revolt.Every call from an American president or Israeli prime minister risks handing Tehran another propaganda weapon: the argument that dissent is not an indigenous demand for freedom but a foreign-backed attempt to dismantle the Iranian state.And there is another question Washington cannot escape.What happens the morning after?Ted Cruz says the objective should be regime collapse and has argued for giving opponents of Tehran the weapons to achieve it.But collapse is not a political settlement.Iraq should have permanently buried the assumption that removing a hated government automatically produces a stable successor. Saddam Hussein's government was destroyed rapidly. The political, sectarian and security consequences outlived the invasion itself.Iran — with more than 90 million people, powerful security institutions, ethnic and regional fault lines and an enormous strategic footprint — would present an even more consequential challenge.None of this absolves Tehran.The Islamic Republic has brutally suppressed opposition. Iranians have repeatedly risked imprisonment and death demanding political and social change. Their grievances are real, and their right to determine their government belongs to them.That is precisely why their future cannot simply become another strategic objective written in Washington or Jerusalem.Trump can call for an uprising.Netanyahu can declare regime change within reach.Cruz can advocate putting weapons into Iranian hands.But none of them can manufacture the legitimacy required to govern Iran the day after the Islamic Republic falls.<h2>The Verdict</h2>America and Israel may have succeeded in changing many of the men who rule Iran.They have not yet changed the system that rules Iran.And perhaps that is the lesson being forgotten amid all the talk of imminent victory.You can bomb a command centre. You can eliminate a commander. You can even decapitate a government.But a revolution belongs to the people who must live with what replaces it.And if Washington and Jerusalem confuse regime destruction with nation-building, Iran could become another brutal reminder that in the Middle East, removing the old order is sometimes the beginning of the war — not the end of it.

The Islamic Republic has brutally suppressed opposition. Iranians have repeatedly risked imprisonment and death demanding political and social change. Their grievances are real, and their right to determine their government belongs to them.

For decades, regime change in Iran was the ambition nobody in Washington or Jerusalem quite wanted to admit openly. Not anymore. Donald Trump is again asking when Iranians will “rise up and fight.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared toppling Iran's government a “central mission” and says the objective is “within reach.” US Senator Ted Cruz has gone further, advocating that Iranian opponents of the government be armed to overthrow it themselves. The message is unmistakable: the Islamic Republic is wounded. Now, its enemies want Iranians to finish the job. But revolutions cannot simply be commissioned from abroad. Iran has already suffered something approaching political and military decapitation. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is gone. Senior commanders and political figures have been eliminated. The old hierarchy has been ripped apart. And yet, the Islamic Republic remains. That may be the greatest problem confronting the regime-change strategy. Destroying leaders is not the same as destroying institutions. Iran's political system was constructed precisely to withstand enormous pressure. The Revolutionary Guards, clerical establishment, security apparatus and overlapping centres of authority mean that when one powerful figure disappears, another can occupy the space. And the replacements are not necessarily moderates. Iran has elevated veteran hardliner Mohsen Rezaei to a crucial national-security position. Meanwhile, President Masoud Pezeshkian may favour negotiations and de-escalation, but Iran's presidency has never possessed absolute authority over the country's military-security establishment. That leaves Washington confronting an uncomfortable possibility: it can decapitate Iran's leadership without liberalising Iran. There is no denying the fury inside the country. Economic pressure is enormous. Oil exports have collapsed under the American blockade. Inflation and economic isolation are squeezing ordinary Iranians. Years of demonstrations have already exposed deep frustration with clerical rule. But asking Iranians to revolt from Washington is very different from Iranians deciding independently to revolt. Every call from an American president or Israeli prime minister risks handing Tehran another propaganda weapon: the argument that dissent is not an indigenous demand for freedom but a foreign-backed attempt to dismantle the Iranian state. And there is another question Washington cannot escape. What happens the morning after? Ted Cruz says the objective should be regime collapse and has argued for giving opponents of Tehran the weapons to achieve it. But collapse is not a political settlement. Iraq should have permanently buried the assumption that removing a hated government automatically produces a stable successor. Saddam Hussein's government was destroyed rapidly. The political, sectarian and security consequences outlived the invasion itself. Iran — with more than 90 million people, powerful security institutions, ethnic and regional fault lines and an enormous strategic footprint — would present an even more consequential challenge. None of this absolves Tehran. The Islamic Republic has brutally suppressed opposition. Iranians have repeatedly risked imprisonment and death demanding political and social change. Their grievances are real, and their right to determine their government belongs to them. That is precisely why their future cannot simply become another strategic objective written in Washington or Jerusalem. Trump can call for an uprising. Netanyahu can declare regime change within reach. Cruz can advocate putting weapons into Iranian hands. But none of them can manufacture the legitimacy required to govern Iran the day after the Islamic Republic falls. The Verdict America and Israel may have succeeded in changing many of the men who rule Iran. They have not yet changed the system that rules Iran. And perhaps that is the lesson being forgotten amid all the talk of imminent victory. You can bomb a command centre. You can eliminate a commander. You can even decapitate a government. But a revolution belongs to the people who must live with what replaces it. And if Washington and Jerusalem confuse regime destruction with nation-building, Iran could become another brutal reminder that in the Middle East, removing the old order is sometimes the beginning of the war — not the end of it.

The Islamic Republic has brutally suppressed opposition. Iranians have repeatedly risked imprisonment and death demanding political and social change. Their grievances are real, and their right to determine their government belongs to them.

The Verdict | Kill the leaders, save the regime? Why Iran refuses to fall

Pakistan wants the world to see it as a peacemaker in the US-Iran war. Well, you cannot present yourself as a peacemaker while continuing to kill civilians in Afghanistan. Even though Asim Munir and Shehbaz Sharif have portrayed themselves as the peacemakers to US President Donald trump, their own backyard has skeletons of civilians, including children and women, buried. The right to defend yourself does not give any government a free pass to put civilian lives at risk.&nbsp;Pakistan's credibility has always been questionable. If Islamabad is calling for restraint and dialogue in the Iran conflict, then those same principles must apply to Afghanistan. Peace in Iran, but military pressure on Afghanistan: Munir's actions continue to contradict his own position. If Pakistan genuinely wants to play the role of mediator in West Asia, it should first demonstrate that it can apply the same standards to its own neighbourhood.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/i-wouldn-t-call-it-a-war-says-jd-vance-on-ongoing-conflict-with-iran-1788467837247">‘I wouldn’t call it a war,’ says JD Vance on ongoing conflict with Iran</a>&nbsp;Pakistan does not have to choose between defending its people and respecting Afghan civilians. A responsible state is expected to do both. You see, the real test of diplomacy is not what you say when the world's cameras are watching. It is what you do when dealing with your own neighbours. Credibility is earned through consistent action, not dramatic and diplomatic speeches.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/short-videos/pakistan-s-internal-war-ttp-attacks-expose-growing-security-crisis-1788500084641/embed">https://www.wionews.com/short-videos/pakistan-s-internal-war-ttp-attacks-expose-growing-security-crisis-1788500084641/embed</a>&nbsp;You cannot demand restraint from others while using force against your innocents. If Pakistan wants to be taken seriously as a regional peacemaker, it must first show that peace is a principle, not a position it adopts only when it suits its interests.&nbsp;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.

Pakistan’s bid to mediate in the Iran conflict faces scrutiny as Asim Munir and Shehbaz Sharif call for peace while civilian deaths in Afghanistan continue

Pakistan wants the world to see it as a peacemaker in the US-Iran war. Well, you cannot present yourself as a peacemaker while continuing to kill civilians in Afghanistan. Even though Asim Munir and Shehbaz Sharif have portrayed themselves as the peacemakers to US President Donald trump, their own backyard has skeletons of civilians, including children and women, buried. The right to defend yourself does not give any government a free pass to put civilian lives at risk. Pakistan's credibility has always been questionable. If Islamabad is calling for restraint and dialogue in the Iran conflict, then those same principles must apply to Afghanistan. Peace in Iran, but military pressure on Afghanistan: Munir's actions continue to contradict his own position. If Pakistan genuinely wants to play the role of mediator in West Asia, it should first demonstrate that it can apply the same standards to its own neighbourhood. Also Read: ‘I wouldn’t call it a war,’ says JD Vance on ongoing conflict with Iran Pakistan does not have to choose between defending its people and respecting Afghan civilians. A responsible state is expected to do both. You see, the real test of diplomacy is not what you say when the world's cameras are watching. It is what you do when dealing with your own neighbours. Credibility is earned through consistent action, not dramatic and diplomatic speeches. https://www.wionews.com/short-videos/pakistan-s-internal-war-ttp-attacks-expose-growing-security-crisis-1788500084641/embed You cannot demand restraint from others while using force against your innocents. If Pakistan wants to be taken seriously as a regional peacemaker, it must first show that peace is a principle, not a position it adopts only when it suits its interests. 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.

Pakistan seeks a peacemaker role in the Iran conflict, but military action and civilian deaths in Afghanistan raise questions over Islamabad’s credibility

The Verdict: Peace for Iran, pressure on Afghanistan: Pakistan’s contradictory diplomacy

For years, the West has pursued a simple strategy toward Vladimir Putin: punish Russia economically, isolate Moscow diplomatically and force the Kremlin to pay a price for its war in Ukraine.But is that strategy still working?Putin may be isolated from much of the Western political establishment. Yet the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit tells a very different story.Russia remains deeply engaged with China, India and much of the non-Western world. Putin can still sit at the table with major powers — and that makes the claim that Russia is simply “isolated” increasingly difficult to sustain.But there is a catch.At the SCO summit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a message that Moscow cannot easily dismiss: the world must move from endless wars toward an end to war. Modi's appeal reflects India's increasingly independent diplomatic position — maintaining its strategic relationship with Russia while simultaneously deepening ties with the United States.China presents another complicated equation.Beijing has become crucial to Moscow economically and strategically, but that does not necessarily make Russia the senior partner. The longer the war continues, the greater Russia's dependence on China could become.Meanwhile, Europe is moving in the opposite direction.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/putin-may-be-isolated-but-sco-showed-russia-is-not-cut-off-1788420897346/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/putin-may-be-isolated-but-sco-showed-russia-is-not-cut-off-1788420897346/embed</a>The EU continues sanctions against Russia and is preparing further measures targeting individuals, Moscow's military-industrial complex and its ability to sustain the war.Britain is also helping Ukraine expand its long-range strike capability. Moscow has warned that British military targets could face retaliation if British-made missiles continue being used against Russian territory.And NATO is increasingly focused on what comes after Ukraine — with European governments concerned about alleged Russian hybrid attacks, airspace incidents and the possibility of wider confrontation.So the old definition of isolation no longer fits.Russia is economically constrained, militarily challenged and politically estranged from much of Europe.But it is not diplomatically alone.The Verdict? Putin has not broken out of Western isolation — he has learned to operate around it.And perhaps that is the bigger story.The world is no longer divided neatly between Moscow and the West.India wants strategic autonomy. China wants greater global influence. Europe wants security. Washington wants leverage.And Putin is trying to turn those competing interests into diplomatic space for Russia.Is he isolated? In the West, increasingly yes.In the world? Not even close.&nbsp;

The EU continues sanctions against Russia and is preparing further measures targeting individuals, Moscow's military-industrial complex and its ability to sustain the war.

For years, the West has pursued a simple strategy toward Vladimir Putin: punish Russia economically, isolate Moscow diplomatically and force the Kremlin to pay a price for its war in Ukraine. But is that strategy still working? Putin may be isolated from much of the Western political establishment. Yet the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit tells a very different story. Russia remains deeply engaged with China, India and much of the non-Western world. Putin can still sit at the table with major powers — and that makes the claim that Russia is simply “isolated” increasingly difficult to sustain. But there is a catch. At the SCO summit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a message that Moscow cannot easily dismiss: the world must move from endless wars toward an end to war. Modi's appeal reflects India's increasingly independent diplomatic position — maintaining its strategic relationship with Russia while simultaneously deepening ties with the United States. China presents another complicated equation. Beijing has become crucial to Moscow economically and strategically, but that does not necessarily make Russia the senior partner. The longer the war continues, the greater Russia's dependence on China could become. Meanwhile, Europe is moving in the opposite direction. https://www.wionews.com/videos/putin-may-be-isolated-but-sco-showed-russia-is-not-cut-off-1788420897346/embed The EU continues sanctions against Russia and is preparing further measures targeting individuals, Moscow's military-industrial complex and its ability to sustain the war. Britain is also helping Ukraine expand its long-range strike capability. Moscow has warned that British military targets could face retaliation if British-made missiles continue being used against Russian territory. And NATO is increasingly focused on what comes after Ukraine — with European governments concerned about alleged Russian hybrid attacks, airspace incidents and the possibility of wider confrontation. So the old definition of isolation no longer fits. Russia is economically constrained, militarily challenged and politically estranged from much of Europe. But it is not diplomatically alone. The Verdict? Putin has not broken out of Western isolation — he has learned to operate around it. And perhaps that is the bigger story. The world is no longer divided neatly between Moscow and the West. India wants strategic autonomy. China wants greater global influence. Europe wants security. Washington wants leverage. And Putin is trying to turn those competing interests into diplomatic space for Russia. Is he isolated? In the West, increasingly yes. In the world? Not even close.

The EU continues sanctions against Russia and is preparing further measures targeting individuals, Moscow's military-industrial complex and its ability to sustain the war.

The Verdict | Putin is isolated — but not alone

Can Nepal outsource its own responsibility towards the Himalayas?&nbsp;Well, apparently, it has.&nbsp;&nbsp;Even as families are still coming to terms with the tragedy, the Balendra Shah government has written to India, China and the United States to take blame for the recent flash floods, and pay compensation, instead of sending aid.&nbsp;So, even as people suffer, Nepal doesn't want help. It needs accountability.&nbsp;Is Nepal right in doing so?&nbsp;Well, Nepal is right about one thing: the Himalayan climate crisis is real, and it is human-made.&nbsp;&nbsp;But Kathmandu's demand for climate reparations cannot absolve it of responsibility.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-floods-nepal-pm-balendra-shah-govt-cannot-absolve-itself-of-blame-1788284122135/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-floods-nepal-pm-balendra-shah-govt-cannot-absolve-itself-of-blame-1788284122135/embed</a>&nbsp;The uncomfortable question Nepal must answer is this: what has Kathmandu itself done to protect the ecological system from which it earns billions of dollars in tourism, hydropower and other economic activity?&nbsp;Take, for instance, Mount Everest. Nepal has long known that the world's highest mountain is being subjected to extraordinary commercial pressure. Yet the response has too often been to raise permit prices rather than impose stricter rules. Overcrowding happens every year, despite a cap on the number of permits.&nbsp;Veteran sherpas have repeatedly argued for a ceiling of 250 climbers, yet thousands of people end up at Mount Everest, generating enormous quantities of waste and putting additional pressure on an extremely fragile environment.&nbsp;Nepal possesses enormous hydropower potential and is actively seeking foreign investment to exploit it. And it has Chinese companies investing in it. Indian companies also have investments.&nbsp;But are other countries invading and forcing themselves in? No. Nepal makes decisions about which projects to approve, which companies to invite, which environmental assessments to conduct and which rivers and valleys to develop.&nbsp;If Kathmandu believes that Himalayan countries deserve compensation because they are disproportionately exposed to climate change, then the next logical step is for Nepal to become a model of Himalayan environmental governance. Limit tourism, impose scientific rules, enforce waste rules rather than merely announcing them, and conduct environmental assessments for hydropower and infrastructure projects.&nbsp;The answer, therefore, is not to blame other countries immediately, when your own actions have contributed to your country's situation.&nbsp;Every country has a responsibility to support genuine climate finance, and avert global warming. but it is not a one-way street.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Himalayas don't know political borders. All they know is how to respond to human exploitation.&nbsp;And that is exactly what they have done this time too.

Nepal has long known that the world's highest mountain, Mt. Everest, is being subjected to extraordinary commercial pressure. Yet the response has too often been to raise permit prices rather than impose stricter rules. Overcrowding happens every year, despite a cap on the number of permits.

Can Nepal outsource its own responsibility towards the Himalayas? Well, apparently, it has. Even as families are still coming to terms with the tragedy, the Balendra Shah government has written to India, China and the United States to take blame for the recent flash floods, and pay compensation, instead of sending aid. So, even as people suffer, Nepal doesn't want help. It needs accountability. Is Nepal right in doing so? Well, Nepal is right about one thing: the Himalayan climate crisis is real, and it is human-made. But Kathmandu's demand for climate reparations cannot absolve it of responsibility. https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-floods-nepal-pm-balendra-shah-govt-cannot-absolve-itself-of-blame-1788284122135/embed The uncomfortable question Nepal must answer is this: what has Kathmandu itself done to protect the ecological system from which it earns billions of dollars in tourism, hydropower and other economic activity? Take, for instance, Mount Everest. Nepal has long known that the world's highest mountain is being subjected to extraordinary commercial pressure. Yet the response has too often been to raise permit prices rather than impose stricter rules. Overcrowding happens every year, despite a cap on the number of permits. Veteran sherpas have repeatedly argued for a ceiling of 250 climbers, yet thousands of people end up at Mount Everest, generating enormous quantities of waste and putting additional pressure on an extremely fragile environment. Nepal possesses enormous hydropower potential and is actively seeking foreign investment to exploit it. And it has Chinese companies investing in it. Indian companies also have investments. But are other countries invading and forcing themselves in? No. Nepal makes decisions about which projects to approve, which companies to invite, which environmental assessments to conduct and which rivers and valleys to develop. If Kathmandu believes that Himalayan countries deserve compensation because they are disproportionately exposed to climate change, then the next logical step is for Nepal to become a model of Himalayan environmental governance. Limit tourism, impose scientific rules, enforce waste rules rather than merely announcing them, and conduct environmental assessments for hydropower and infrastructure projects. The answer, therefore, is not to blame other countries immediately, when your own actions have contributed to your country's situation. Every country has a responsibility to support genuine climate finance, and avert global warming. but it is not a one-way street. The Himalayas don't know political borders. All they know is how to respond to human exploitation. And that is exactly what they have done this time too.

Nepal has long known that the world's highest mountain, Mt. Everest, is being subjected to extraordinary commercial pressure. Yet the response has too often been to raise permit prices rather than impose stricter rules. Overcrowding happens every year, despite a cap on the number of permits.

The Verdict | Nepal wants climate reparations, but what about its own responsibility?

Chief Minister Vijay's TVK-led coalition government in Tamil Nadu is just entering its fourth month at the helm of the state's affairs. Well within what is regarded as the six-month honeymoon period of a new Government, cracks are already appearing between the TVK and its major ally Congress. Despite the warm personal rapport and bonhomie seen between Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Chief Minister Vijay during the latter’s swearing-in ceremony, TVK Ministers and MLAs have been relentlessly projecting CM Vijay as a possible Prime Ministerial candidate for the 2029 Lok Sabha polls. If the recent remarks of Congress MLA and Tamil Nadu Tourism Minister Rajesh Kumar are any indication, it is clear that the Congress is extremely unhappy over attempts by a section of the TVK to project Vijay as a possible PM candidate. That too, while being in alliance with the Congress which has been pitching for India's Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi as the Prime Ministerial face.&nbsp;&nbsp;Speaking at a Congress party event in his native district Kanyakumari, Tourism Minister and Congress MLA Rajesh Kumar recently made Congress' stance amply clear. "In the 2029 Lok Sabha polls, our leader Rahul Gandhi will be elected as the Prime Minister... If TVK does not accept this, the two Congress Ministers in Tamil Nadu will not continue in these roles. Congress party means everything to us. Without Congress party, I am nothing... the Congress movement is everything. If Congress party wants us to resign tomorrow, we will resign the next moment. Every party can have their own stance and policies. For every one of us in the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi is our face."&nbsp;&nbsp;Minister Rajesh Kumar's comments and its timing would give the impression that the differences between TVK and Congress are primarily over who would be the Prime Ministerial face. However, there is more to it than meets the eye. Though the TVK-led coalition has been in power for less than four months, a lot of differences and tensions have been simmering under the surface, far beneath the public glare. It would be fair to assume that the comments by Minister Rajesh Kumar carried the weight of all those unheard and unaddressed concerns that the Congress has been having with the TVK.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>A coalition that does not have a convenor and grievance redressal mechanism&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;While the TVK Government celebrated its 100 days in power and is now stepping into its fourth month, there has been minimal progress regarding the structure of the overall TVK-led alliance, which comprises the Congress (five MLAs), VCK (two MLAs), IIUML (two MLAs) and the outside support of the Left parties (four MLAs). In all these months, Chief Minister Vijay chaired only a single meeting involving allied parties.&nbsp;&nbsp;Even now, a convenor is yet to be appointed to address the differing opinions that are emerging among coalition partners. At a more basic level, this alliance remains without a formal name. It is being known only as the TVK-led coalition.&nbsp;&nbsp;So far, there have been no discussions regarding a common minimum programme to reflect the electoral promises of the coalition partners. As a result, the alliance may appear directionless. This situation has led to feelings of dissatisfaction among the Congress party members, and party cadre have started to express their grievances with this new government.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Congress was given 2 Ministers and 1 MP. Is that it?&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;For the support provided by the five MLAs, TVK granted two Ministerial berths and a Rajya Sabha MP seat to the Congress. However, questions remain within the Congress on whether the party has gotten its due share in several other politically appointed roles within Tamil Nadu.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Tamil Nadu Government has completed the appointments of government pleaders and public prosecutors, chairpersons for various boards across government departments, with opportunities predominantly being extended to members of Vijay's TVK, while those from allied parties are being kept at bay.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is noteworthy that there has been a lack of adequate negotiations or consultations between the TVK and its coalition partners in this regard. Many senior and junior workers of the Congress who had been awaiting fair opportunities within the legal system have expressed significant disappointment regarding the outcomes of this process. The growing discontent among the Congress party members is becoming increasingly apparent.&nbsp;&nbsp;Several inquiries regarding the fairness of recent decisions are being directed towards the senior leadership of the Tamil Nadu Congress. When a potential candidate for a significant position approached the Congress ministers or the state leadership, they were unable to provide satisfactory responses.&nbsp;&nbsp;Furthermore, Parliamentarian Praveen Charavarthy, who was once considered an adroit negotiator with the TVK, now appears to lack a voice in these discussions. There is currently a lack of clarity regarding the reasons for the delay in appointing a convenor for the alliance and the rationale behind the approach of the TVK in filling government positions with only their own people.&nbsp;&nbsp;Is it to be perceived that the TVK leadership has conveyed to the Congress High Command in Delhi, as well as to the leadership of the other coalition parties, that their due share in power has already been allocated?&nbsp;&nbsp;How to seal the cracks? The way ahead for the TVK-led coalition...&nbsp;&nbsp;Chief Minister Joseph Vijay's electoral victory represents a significant milestone in the political landscape of Tamil Nadu. This achievement is noteworthy as it has contributed to liberating the Congress Party and other political entities from the popular perception among Dravidian parties that coalition governments are ill-suited for the state.&nbsp;&nbsp;Meanwhile, it is essential to recognize the potential risks associated with presenting the TVK as the preeminent force within the coalition, while characterizing allies (Congress, VCK, IUML) as mere numerical supporters. This imbalance in representation could jeopardize the integrity of the significant alliance-related commitments outlined by Chief Minister Vijay during his election campaigns.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is crucial to confront and address these issues and differences promptly. Tackling these issues will facilitate a more equitable recognition of all parties as valuable contributors to the coalition's objectives, particularly in anticipation of the forthcoming local body elections and the 2029 parliamentary elections.&nbsp;&nbsp;Therefore, the adoption of the longstanding Kerala model of coalition governance, along with the establishment of a structured alliance framework, is essential and should be prioritized. It is necessary to establish a new name for the alliance, appoint conveners at the state, district, and block levels, facilitate an equitable allocation of power, and advance discussions and consultations among all coalition partners in preparation for the local body elections.&nbsp;&nbsp;These actions are critical for promoting unity in the face of challenges posed by the Dravidian parties, within the state assembly and in the broader context. This strategy is not merely a choice; it is a vital commitment for coalition parties, particularly the Congress party in Tamil Nadu, to embrace the aspirations of their supporters and to celebrate the shared enthusiasm inspired by the leadership of the TVK.&nbsp;(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.)

The Congress is extremely unhappy over attempts by a section of the TVK to project Vijay as a possible PM candidate. That too, while being in alliance with the Congress, which has been pitching for India's Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi as the Prime Ministerial face. 

Chief Minister Vijay's TVK-led coalition government in Tamil Nadu is just entering its fourth month at the helm of the state's affairs. Well within what is regarded as the six-month honeymoon period of a new Government, cracks are already appearing between the TVK and its major ally Congress. Despite the warm personal rapport and bonhomie seen between Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Chief Minister Vijay during the latter’s swearing-in ceremony, TVK Ministers and MLAs have been relentlessly projecting CM Vijay as a possible Prime Ministerial candidate for the 2029 Lok Sabha polls. If the recent remarks of Congress MLA and Tamil Nadu Tourism Minister Rajesh Kumar are any indication, it is clear that the Congress is extremely unhappy over attempts by a section of the TVK to project Vijay as a possible PM candidate. That too, while being in alliance with the Congress which has been pitching for India's Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi as the Prime Ministerial face. Speaking at a Congress party event in his native district Kanyakumari, Tourism Minister and Congress MLA Rajesh Kumar recently made Congress' stance amply clear. "In the 2029 Lok Sabha polls, our leader Rahul Gandhi will be elected as the Prime Minister... If TVK does not accept this, the two Congress Ministers in Tamil Nadu will not continue in these roles. Congress party means everything to us. Without Congress party, I am nothing... the Congress movement is everything. If Congress party wants us to resign tomorrow, we will resign the next moment. Every party can have their own stance and policies. For every one of us in the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi is our face." Minister Rajesh Kumar's comments and its timing would give the impression that the differences between TVK and Congress are primarily over who would be the Prime Ministerial face. However, there is more to it than meets the eye. Though the TVK-led coalition has been in power for less than four months, a lot of differences and tensions have been simmering under the surface, far beneath the public glare. It would be fair to assume that the comments by Minister Rajesh Kumar carried the weight of all those unheard and unaddressed concerns that the Congress has been having with the TVK. A coalition that does not have a convenor and grievance redressal mechanism While the TVK Government celebrated its 100 days in power and is now stepping into its fourth month, there has been minimal progress regarding the structure of the overall TVK-led alliance, which comprises the Congress (five MLAs), VCK (two MLAs), IIUML (two MLAs) and the outside support of the Left parties (four MLAs). In all these months, Chief Minister Vijay chaired only a single meeting involving allied parties. Even now, a convenor is yet to be appointed to address the differing opinions that are emerging among coalition partners. At a more basic level, this alliance remains without a formal name. It is being known only as the TVK-led coalition. So far, there have been no discussions regarding a common minimum programme to reflect the electoral promises of the coalition partners. As a result, the alliance may appear directionless. This situation has led to feelings of dissatisfaction among the Congress party members, and party cadre have started to express their grievances with this new government. Congress was given 2 Ministers and 1 MP. Is that it? For the support provided by the five MLAs, TVK granted two Ministerial berths and a Rajya Sabha MP seat to the Congress. However, questions remain within the Congress on whether the party has gotten its due share in several other politically appointed roles within Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Government has completed the appointments of government pleaders and public prosecutors, chairpersons for various boards across government departments, with opportunities predominantly being extended to members of Vijay's TVK, while those from allied parties are being kept at bay. It is noteworthy that there has been a lack of adequate negotiations or consultations between the TVK and its coalition partners in this regard. Many senior and junior workers of the Congress who had been awaiting fair opportunities within the legal system have expressed significant disappointment regarding the outcomes of this process. The growing discontent among the Congress party members is becoming increasingly apparent. Several inquiries regarding the fairness of recent decisions are being directed towards the senior leadership of the Tamil Nadu Congress. When a potential candidate for a significant position approached the Congress ministers or the state leadership, they were unable to provide satisfactory responses. Furthermore, Parliamentarian Praveen Charavarthy, who was once considered an adroit negotiator with the TVK, now appears to lack a voice in these discussions. There is currently a lack of clarity regarding the reasons for the delay in appointing a convenor for the alliance and the rationale behind the approach of the TVK in filling government positions with only their own people. Is it to be perceived that the TVK leadership has conveyed to the Congress High Command in Delhi, as well as to the leadership of the other coalition parties, that their due share in power has already been allocated? How to seal the cracks? The way ahead for the TVK-led coalition... Chief Minister Joseph Vijay's electoral victory represents a significant milestone in the political landscape of Tamil Nadu. This achievement is noteworthy as it has contributed to liberating the Congress Party and other political entities from the popular perception among Dravidian parties that coalition governments are ill-suited for the state. Meanwhile, it is essential to recognize the potential risks associated with presenting the TVK as the preeminent force within the coalition, while characterizing allies (Congress, VCK, IUML) as mere numerical supporters. This imbalance in representation could jeopardize the integrity of the significant alliance-related commitments outlined by Chief Minister Vijay during his election campaigns. It is crucial to confront and address these issues and differences promptly. Tackling these issues will facilitate a more equitable recognition of all parties as valuable contributors to the coalition's objectives, particularly in anticipation of the forthcoming local body elections and the 2029 parliamentary elections. Therefore, the adoption of the longstanding Kerala model of coalition governance, along with the establishment of a structured alliance framework, is essential and should be prioritized. It is necessary to establish a new name for the alliance, appoint conveners at the state, district, and block levels, facilitate an equitable allocation of power, and advance discussions and consultations among all coalition partners in preparation for the local body elections. These actions are critical for promoting unity in the face of challenges posed by the Dravidian parties, within the state assembly and in the broader context. This strategy is not merely a choice; it is a vital commitment for coalition parties, particularly the Congress party in Tamil Nadu, to embrace the aspirations of their supporters and to celebrate the shared enthusiasm inspired by the leadership of the TVK. (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.)

The Congress is extremely unhappy over attempts by a section of the TVK to project Vijay as a possible PM candidate. That too, while being in alliance with the Congress, which has been pitching for India's Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi as the Prime Ministerial face.&nbsp;

Why are cracks appearing in the TVK-Congress alliance in Tamil Nadu?

The SCO Summit underway in Bishkek offers the world a unique opportunity to take advantage of India. It is wrong to say that India has no stance in conflicts. India definitely chose a side in the wars that broke out. And that position was its own strategic interests. In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, India chose peace. India does not have to become Russia’s supporter against the West. It also does not have to become America’s and Europe's supporter against Vladimir Putin.&nbsp;You see, India has always been non-west, not anti-west. And there's a difference between the two. On the other hand, India has civilizational and trade ties with Iran, but it also has a very strong relationship with Israel. Anyone who forces India to choose one side fails to understand the benefits of being in India's position. Why pressure India to choose sides when you can use it to get warring sides to the table?&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-members-converge-in-bishkek-amid-raging-wars-pm-modi-gives-message-of-peace-1788196798563/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-members-converge-in-bishkek-amid-raging-wars-pm-modi-gives-message-of-peace-1788196798563/embed</a>&nbsp;Why should India throw away one relationship for the other when it can sit with Russia, US, China, Iran and central Asian countries, and talk about issues that matter? The ability to talk to everyone is a skill that not many have. And in international politics, a country that can still talk to everyone can sometimes achieve what countries trapped inside rival camps cannot. India must use this position at the ongoing SCO Summit. It should push for practical cooperation on counter-terrorism, regional security, energy, trade and connectivity, rather than allowing the organisation to become another platform for countries to attack the West.&nbsp;Similarly, for the SCO, calling Pakistan out on spreading terrorism would reflect the group's commitment to action, instead of lip service. Let's be clear about one thing: no camp does not mean weakness. India can choose peace and still condemn terrorism. India can refuse to join a military camp and still defend its borders. India does not need permission to have an independent foreign policy. India is not sitting on the fence. It is standing its own ground. And for that, it should not be apologetic.&nbsp;&nbsp;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.

India’s strategic autonomy gives it the ability to engage Russia, the US, China, Iran and others while pushing peace, security and counter-terrorism

The SCO Summit underway in Bishkek offers the world a unique opportunity to take advantage of India. It is wrong to say that India has no stance in conflicts. India definitely chose a side in the wars that broke out. And that position was its own strategic interests. In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, India chose peace. India does not have to become Russia’s supporter against the West. It also does not have to become America’s and Europe's supporter against Vladimir Putin. You see, India has always been non-west, not anti-west. And there's a difference between the two. On the other hand, India has civilizational and trade ties with Iran, but it also has a very strong relationship with Israel. Anyone who forces India to choose one side fails to understand the benefits of being in India's position. Why pressure India to choose sides when you can use it to get warring sides to the table? https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-members-converge-in-bishkek-amid-raging-wars-pm-modi-gives-message-of-peace-1788196798563/embed Why should India throw away one relationship for the other when it can sit with Russia, US, China, Iran and central Asian countries, and talk about issues that matter? The ability to talk to everyone is a skill that not many have. And in international politics, a country that can still talk to everyone can sometimes achieve what countries trapped inside rival camps cannot. India must use this position at the ongoing SCO Summit. It should push for practical cooperation on counter-terrorism, regional security, energy, trade and connectivity, rather than allowing the organisation to become another platform for countries to attack the West. Similarly, for the SCO, calling Pakistan out on spreading terrorism would reflect the group's commitment to action, instead of lip service. Let's be clear about one thing: no camp does not mean weakness. India can choose peace and still condemn terrorism. India can refuse to join a military camp and still defend its borders. India does not need permission to have an independent foreign policy. India is not sitting on the fence. It is standing its own ground. And for that, it should not be apologetic. 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.

At the SCO Summit, India must use its strategic autonomy to promote peace, counter-terrorism, regional security and cooperation without choosing camps

The Verdict: India’s independent foreign policy is a strength, not a weakness

Conflict remains rampant across junta-led Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, collectively organised as the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), despite the formation of a joint military force to combat jihadists alongside Russian security forces. Data-tracking groups report more than 800 political violence and terrorist events across the three countries so far this year, disappointing citizens who had hoped for improved security following the expulsion of French and Western troops.&nbsp;Jihadist groups control vast swathes of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, turning the central Sahel into the world's deadliest epicentre for terrorism, accounting for over half of all global terrorism-related deaths, according to foreign relations and security monitoring groups. All three nations have withdrawn from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and remain suspended from the African Union (AU), leaving them uncommitted to regional assistance frameworks. Furthermore, their ongoing efforts to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) have deepened their international isolation.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nigeria-2027-elections-presidential-candidates-party-leaders-sign-national-peace-accord-in-abuja-1787146838145">Nigeria 2027 Elections: Presidential candidates, party leaders sign National Peace Accord in Abuja</a>&nbsp;An attack on August 29, described as a military mutiny, marked the third major assault in Niger this year. The violence targeted key infrastructure near the presidential palace, Diori Hamani International Airport, and Base 101 air force base. Although authorities report that normalcy has been restored, the clashes resulted in an unspecified number of casualties. The strategic airport had previously suffered major attacks in January and late June.&nbsp;The government reported that 20 assailants were killed during the January assault, while 11 soldiers and 22 attackers died in June. No official communiqués regarding Saturday's clashes have been issued by regional organisations such as ECOWAS or the AU, nor by neighbouring states, with Algeria being the sole African nation to publicly condemn the attack and express support for the Nigerien government. These extremist networks pose a threat to the entire continent, increasingly spilling into neighbouring countries that already face distinct security crises, such as Nigeria's struggle against Boko Haram and ISWAP.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nigerian-navy-disrupts-crude-oil-theft-operation-recovers-93-000-litres-in-bonny-1787399410204">Nigerian Navy disrupts crude oil theft operation, recovers 93,000 litres in Bonny</a>&nbsp;While Sahelian jihadist factions occasionally battle one another for territorial dominance, their primary objective remains establishing Islamic governance. Their aggression impacts both military personnel and civilians alike. The al-Qaeda-linked coalition Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) is responsible for approximately 76% of all militant-linked fatalities in the region, while the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), the Islamic State in the Sahel (EIS), and affiliated groups account for the remainder.

An analysis of the escalating conflict across Africa's Sahel region and how military juntas in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger struggle to contain rising jihadist violence.

Conflict remains rampant across junta-led Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, collectively organised as the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), despite the formation of a joint military force to combat jihadists alongside Russian security forces. Data-tracking groups report more than 800 political violence and terrorist events across the three countries so far this year, disappointing citizens who had hoped for improved security following the expulsion of French and Western troops. Jihadist groups control vast swathes of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, turning the central Sahel into the world's deadliest epicentre for terrorism, accounting for over half of all global terrorism-related deaths, according to foreign relations and security monitoring groups. All three nations have withdrawn from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and remain suspended from the African Union (AU), leaving them uncommitted to regional assistance frameworks. Furthermore, their ongoing efforts to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) have deepened their international isolation. Also read: Nigeria 2027 Elections: Presidential candidates, party leaders sign National Peace Accord in Abuja An attack on August 29, described as a military mutiny, marked the third major assault in Niger this year. The violence targeted key infrastructure near the presidential palace, Diori Hamani International Airport, and Base 101 air force base. Although authorities report that normalcy has been restored, the clashes resulted in an unspecified number of casualties. The strategic airport had previously suffered major attacks in January and late June. The government reported that 20 assailants were killed during the January assault, while 11 soldiers and 22 attackers died in June. No official communiqués regarding Saturday's clashes have been issued by regional organisations such as ECOWAS or the AU, nor by neighbouring states, with Algeria being the sole African nation to publicly condemn the attack and express support for the Nigerien government. These extremist networks pose a threat to the entire continent, increasingly spilling into neighbouring countries that already face distinct security crises, such as Nigeria's struggle against Boko Haram and ISWAP. Also read: Nigerian Navy disrupts crude oil theft operation, recovers 93,000 litres in Bonny While Sahelian jihadist factions occasionally battle one another for territorial dominance, their primary objective remains establishing Islamic governance. Their aggression impacts both military personnel and civilians alike. The al-Qaeda-linked coalition Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) is responsible for approximately 76% of all militant-linked fatalities in the region, while the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), the Islamic State in the Sahel (EIS), and affiliated groups account for the remainder.

An analysis of the escalating conflict across Africa's Sahel region and how military juntas in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger struggle to contain rising jihadist violence.

Raging deadly conflict in Sahel: The challenge of juntas

As BRICS prepares to meet in New Delhi, it would do well to understand not only what the United States is doing, but why.The reported American move to gain majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves may appear to be another dramatic episode in Washington’s relationship with Caracas. But it may also offer a window into a much larger transformation in American strategy.The United States is becoming increasingly concerned about its dependence on resources, technologies and supply chains that it does not control. In a world of intensifying geopolitical competition, Washington appears determined to secure the foundations of its economic, technological and military power.Oil is only one part of the equation.Critical minerals, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, electricity generation, shipping routes, data and financial infrastructure are becoming strategic assets. Venezuela’s oil, Greenland’s geography and mineral potential, the Middle East’s energy resources and the security of the Western Hemisphere may seem like separate issues. They are increasingly connected by a single concern: American vulnerability.Artificial intelligence makes this question even more important.The next technological revolution will require enormous quantities of electricity, computing capacity, data centres and advanced chips. Those chips depend on complex global supply chains and critical minerals. The competition over artificial intelligence is therefore also becoming a competition over energy, minerals, manufacturing capacity and technology.In this environment, dependence can become vulnerability.The same logic applies to finance.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-seeks-consensus-as-expanded-brics-prepares-for-new-delhi-summit-1787815256214">India seeks consensus as expanded BRICS prepares for New Delhi summit</a>After the Second World War, the United States did not simply inherit Britain’s position as the leading global power. It helped create an international system that embedded American economic strength within a wider architecture.Bretton Woods established the foundations of a monetary system centred on the dollar. The Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe. NATO institutionalised American security commitments. The United Nations provided a framework for international cooperation.The dollar subsequently became the principal currency of global trade and finance as British power and sterling declined.This was one of the great strategic achievements of the twentieth century. American power was multiplied because other countries had an interest in participating in the system.Today, however, that system is under pressure.China has emerged as an economic and technological competitor. Alternative payment mechanisms are developing. Countries are diversifying their reserves. Digital currencies, cryptocurrencies and stablecoins could eventually change the architecture of international payments.Washington therefore has a powerful incentive to ensure that the next generation of financial and technological infrastructure does not erode American influence.This brings us to the central strategic dilemma facing the United States.A great power that feels increasingly vulnerable naturally seeks greater control. It wants secure energy supplies, critical minerals, resilient supply chains, technological superiority and strategic access.Some of this is entirely rational.But there is a danger that the pursuit of security through ever greater control can create the insecurity it seeks to prevent.History provides some uncomfortable lessons.The British Empire possessed extraordinary naval, commercial and financial power. Yet the cost of maintaining a worldwide empire eventually became difficult to sustain.The Soviet Union possessed enormous military capabilities, but military power could not compensate indefinitely for economic and technological weaknesses.The United States after 1945 followed a different path. Rather than simply controlling territory and resources, it created institutions, alliances and markets through which American power could operate.That distinction matters today.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/from-xi-s-400-officials-to-putin-full-list-of-world-leaders-attending-brics-summit-2026-in-delhi-1787915779173">From Xi's 400 officials to Putin: Full list of world leaders attending BRICS Summit 2026 in Delhi</a>A great power that feels insecure naturally seeks greater control. It wants secure energy supplies, critical minerals, resilient supply chains, technological superiority and strategic access.But there is a danger in confusing security with possession.If every major power attempts to control the resources, technologies, markets and strategic routes on which its security depends, the world could fragment into competing economic and geopolitical fortresses.The emerging international environment already contains elements of several competing visions. Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” captures the cultural and political fragmentation of the world. Graham Allison’s “Thucydides Trap” describes the dangers inherent when a rising power challenges an established one. And the increasingly competitive struggle for resources and security can sometimes resemble the logic of Mad Max.The combination would be dangerous.This is where BRICS has an important role.As the grouping prepares to meet in Delhi, its members need to understand the American calculation before formulating their own response. It would be tempting to interpret Washington’s actions simply as an effort to contain China, preserve dollar dominance or prevent the emergence of a multipolar world.There is some truth in each interpretation.But the deeper concern is vulnerability.The United States fears dependence on foreign energy, minerals, technologies, supply chains and financial systems at precisely the moment when artificial intelligence and advanced technologies are transforming the meaning of national power.BRICS should therefore be careful not to respond by simply constructing another system of exclusive blocs.Its objective should be resilience rather than isolation: diversified supply chains, greater technological capability, secure energy networks and more efficient financial mechanisms, while preserving the channels of trade and dialogue that connect the major powers.India has a particularly important role to play.It has an interest in a genuinely multipolar international system, but it also has an interest in a stable relationship with the United States. India therefore has something that many other powers lack: the ability to understand both sides of the emerging strategic equation.Understanding American insecurity is as important as understanding American power.For Washington, meanwhile, there is an equally important lesson.America does not need to control everything to remain the world’s most important power. It possesses an extraordinary combination of military strength, financial depth, technological innovation, universities, entrepreneurial capacity, natural resources and alliances.Its greatest strategic asset may still be its ability to make other countries want to participate in a system shaped by American leadership.Washington should therefore distinguish between control and leadership.It should secure critical supply chains without necessarily monopolising them; maintain technological leadership while allowing allies to participate in innovation; strengthen energy security without turning every resource-rich country into a strategic possession; and preserve the dollar by maintaining the openness and credibility of American financial markets.Most importantly, it should invest in alliances and institutions.The United States does not need to retreat from the world. Nor should it ignore genuine vulnerabilities. The era in which economic interdependence was assumed automatically to overcome geopolitical rivalry is clearly over.But there is a fundamental difference between an empire that seeks to possess the world and a power that seeks to organise it.The United States will remain the world’s most important power for the foreseeable future. But its relative dominance is increasingly being challenged by the diffusion of economic, technological and military capabilities.Its answer should not be withdrawal.Nor should it be permanent expansion.The objective should be strategic primacy through an open system.That may also be the most important message for BRICS as it gathers in Delhi.The emerging international order will not be determined simply by who controls the most oil, minerals, technology or territory.It will ultimately be determined by who can build a system that others believe is worth participating in.The country that controls the system does not need to control everything within it.

As the grouping prepares to meet in Delhi, it would be tempting to interpret Washington’s actions simply as an effort to contain China, preserve dollar dominance or prevent the emergence of a multipolar world.

As BRICS prepares to meet in New Delhi, it would do well to understand not only what the United States is doing, but why. The reported American move to gain majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves may appear to be another dramatic episode in Washington’s relationship with Caracas. But it may also offer a window into a much larger transformation in American strategy. The United States is becoming increasingly concerned about its dependence on resources, technologies and supply chains that it does not control. In a world of intensifying geopolitical competition, Washington appears determined to secure the foundations of its economic, technological and military power. Oil is only one part of the equation. Critical minerals, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, electricity generation, shipping routes, data and financial infrastructure are becoming strategic assets. Venezuela’s oil, Greenland’s geography and mineral potential, the Middle East’s energy resources and the security of the Western Hemisphere may seem like separate issues. They are increasingly connected by a single concern: American vulnerability. Artificial intelligence makes this question even more important. The next technological revolution will require enormous quantities of electricity, computing capacity, data centres and advanced chips. Those chips depend on complex global supply chains and critical minerals. The competition over artificial intelligence is therefore also becoming a competition over energy, minerals, manufacturing capacity and technology. In this environment, dependence can become vulnerability. The same logic applies to finance. Also read | India seeks consensus as expanded BRICS prepares for New Delhi summit After the Second World War, the United States did not simply inherit Britain’s position as the leading global power. It helped create an international system that embedded American economic strength within a wider architecture. Bretton Woods established the foundations of a monetary system centred on the dollar. The Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe. NATO institutionalised American security commitments. The United Nations provided a framework for international cooperation. The dollar subsequently became the principal currency of global trade and finance as British power and sterling declined. This was one of the great strategic achievements of the twentieth century. American power was multiplied because other countries had an interest in participating in the system. Today, however, that system is under pressure. China has emerged as an economic and technological competitor. Alternative payment mechanisms are developing. Countries are diversifying their reserves. Digital currencies, cryptocurrencies and stablecoins could eventually change the architecture of international payments. Washington therefore has a powerful incentive to ensure that the next generation of financial and technological infrastructure does not erode American influence. This brings us to the central strategic dilemma facing the United States. A great power that feels increasingly vulnerable naturally seeks greater control. It wants secure energy supplies, critical minerals, resilient supply chains, technological superiority and strategic access. Some of this is entirely rational. But there is a danger that the pursuit of security through ever greater control can create the insecurity it seeks to prevent. History provides some uncomfortable lessons. The British Empire possessed extraordinary naval, commercial and financial power. Yet the cost of maintaining a worldwide empire eventually became difficult to sustain. The Soviet Union possessed enormous military capabilities, but military power could not compensate indefinitely for economic and technological weaknesses. The United States after 1945 followed a different path. Rather than simply controlling territory and resources, it created institutions, alliances and markets through which American power could operate. That distinction matters today. Also read | From Xi's 400 officials to Putin: Full list of world leaders attending BRICS Summit 2026 in Delhi A great power that feels insecure naturally seeks greater control. It wants secure energy supplies, critical minerals, resilient supply chains, technological superiority and strategic access. But there is a danger in confusing security with possession. If every major power attempts to control the resources, technologies, markets and strategic routes on which its security depends, the world could fragment into competing economic and geopolitical fortresses. The emerging international environment already contains elements of several competing visions. Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” captures the cultural and political fragmentation of the world. Graham Allison’s “Thucydides Trap” describes the dangers inherent when a rising power challenges an established one. And the increasingly competitive struggle for resources and security can sometimes resemble the logic of Mad Max. The combination would be dangerous. This is where BRICS has an important role. As the grouping prepares to meet in Delhi, its members need to understand the American calculation before formulating their own response. It would be tempting to interpret Washington’s actions simply as an effort to contain China, preserve dollar dominance or prevent the emergence of a multipolar world. There is some truth in each interpretation. But the deeper concern is vulnerability. The United States fears dependence on foreign energy, minerals, technologies, supply chains and financial systems at precisely the moment when artificial intelligence and advanced technologies are transforming the meaning of national power. BRICS should therefore be careful not to respond by simply constructing another system of exclusive blocs. Its objective should be resilience rather than isolation: diversified supply chains, greater technological capability, secure energy networks and more efficient financial mechanisms, while preserving the channels of trade and dialogue that connect the major powers. India has a particularly important role to play. It has an interest in a genuinely multipolar international system, but it also has an interest in a stable relationship with the United States. India therefore has something that many other powers lack: the ability to understand both sides of the emerging strategic equation. Understanding American insecurity is as important as understanding American power. For Washington, meanwhile, there is an equally important lesson. America does not need to control everything to remain the world’s most important power. It possesses an extraordinary combination of military strength, financial depth, technological innovation, universities, entrepreneurial capacity, natural resources and alliances. Its greatest strategic asset may still be its ability to make other countries want to participate in a system shaped by American leadership. Washington should therefore distinguish between control and leadership. It should secure critical supply chains without necessarily monopolising them; maintain technological leadership while allowing allies to participate in innovation; strengthen energy security without turning every resource-rich country into a strategic possession; and preserve the dollar by maintaining the openness and credibility of American financial markets. Most importantly, it should invest in alliances and institutions. The United States does not need to retreat from the world. Nor should it ignore genuine vulnerabilities. The era in which economic interdependence was assumed automatically to overcome geopolitical rivalry is clearly over. But there is a fundamental difference between an empire that seeks to possess the world and a power that seeks to organise it. The United States will remain the world’s most important power for the foreseeable future. But its relative dominance is increasingly being challenged by the diffusion of economic, technological and military capabilities. Its answer should not be withdrawal. Nor should it be permanent expansion. The objective should be strategic primacy through an open system. That may also be the most important message for BRICS as it gathers in Delhi. The emerging international order will not be determined simply by who controls the most oil, minerals, technology or territory. It will ultimately be determined by who can build a system that others believe is worth participating in. The country that controls the system does not need to control everything within it.

As the grouping prepares to meet in Delhi, it would be tempting to interpret Washington’s actions simply as an effort to contain China, preserve dollar dominance or prevent the emergence of a multipolar world.

America’s new strategy: Control the system, not the world

WASHINGTON – Six months into the war U.S. President Donald Trump launched on Iran, the conflict is at an impasse, and the American leader has switched his campaign for global dominance to a new target – Canada. At issue is trade between the two neighbours, who share the world’s longest border and in the past have been close and friendly allies. Canada is the second biggest trade partner of the United States, slightly behind Mexico. Since Trump came into office in his first term, he has repeatedly suggested that the United States annex Canada and turn it into the 51st U.S. state. Canadian governments and most of the public reject the idea and find it offensive, as they do Trump’s habit of calling Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and his predecessor Justin Trudeau “governors”. Trade negotiations, prompted by new U.S. tariffs on Canada (50 percent on hundreds of products), collapsed in the final hour of an August 21 deadline when the Americans added conditions to the deal the Canadians found unacceptable. The tariffs took effect the following day. Canada responded that it would retaliate “dollar for dollar” with tariffs to take effect on September 8, effectively the start of a full-blown trade war unless either side makes concessions. But that appears unlikely. No further meetings are scheduled. Trump’s taunts took on a sharper edge this week when he complained that “I deal with many countries and Canada is easily the most difficult and unreasonable.” To further irritate his northern neighbour, he issued an executive order renaming Lake Ontario to “Lake America.”Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-canada-trade-war-trump-orders-lake-ontario-renamed-lake-america-canada-hits-back-1787878478524">US-Canada trade war: Canada hits back as Trump orders Lake Ontario renamed 'Lake America'</a> The lake straddles the U.S.-Canadian border, and roughly 75 percent of its surface belongs to the Canadian province of Ontario. But other than stirring the anger of an already angry Canadian public, the name change has as little practical impact as Trump’s move, on the first day of his second term, to name the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Trump’s order applies to federal maps and databases from which a small army of Department of the Interior bureaucrats have to remove references to Lake Ontario. U.S. government agencies and official military or diplomatic communications must call the body of water Lake America. Individual states have no obligation to comply with the order. Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York State, the only American state that borders the lake, promptly declared she would ignore the name change. In a blistering televised speech after the collapse of the Washington talks, Carney reminded his citizens that after taking office in 2025, he had warned that “America is trying to break us so that they can own us. And I promised, ‘That will never, ever happen.’ We are keeping that promise.” It was a bold promise in a dispute that pitches Canada against a superpower neighbour with an economy 13 times larger and a population of 340 million (Canada has 40 million) that turns the U.S. into the world’s richest market. But despite this disparity, Canada looks unlikely to bend to Trump’s will.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-mojtaba-khamenei-alive-dead-iran-war-putting-on-show-mystery-1787800507116">'If he is dead, they're putting on a pretty good show': Trump casts fresh doubt over Mojtaba Khamenei's fate</a> Criticism of Trump’s tariff war has come from unexpected corners. The Wall Street Journal reminded its readers that Trump had complained about an editorial last year that called tariffs against Canada and Mexico “the dumbest trade war in history.” After the collapse of the negotiations, “it got dumber this weekend as Mr. Trump escalated with another round of border taxes on Canadian imports, a mere 10 weeks before midterm elections.” The reference is for elections on November 3 for Congress – all 435 seats of the House of Representatives and a number of contested seats in the Senate. Analysts predict that the Republican Party will lose its majority in the House, partly because of the deeply unpopular war against Iran. Unlike renaming a border lake, a presidential executive order cannot end the conflict with Iran. Iran responded to a furious bombing campaign by the U.S. and Israel by deploying a geographic weapon more powerful than a nuclear bomb: the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway that carried before the war 20 percent of the world’s oil, much of the world’s the world’s fertilizer, and 19 per cent of liquefied natural gas. Iran’s closure of the Strait prompted a profound crisis in the global economy, from a supply shock in energy markets and disruptions to global agriculture and food shortages. In the United States, it led to sharply higher prices for petrol and an overall higher cost of living. The deeply unpopular war and the way he handled it drove Trump’s approval rating down to 33 percent, its lowest in his two terms. Democrats hoping to take over the House have plenty of ammunition for the election campaign. That includes reminders that the president has consistently lied about the state of the war he announced with a pre-dawn social media posting on February 28. It said that war was necessary “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Today, on the 60th day since the start of the war, there still has not been a convincing explanation of what was ”imminent” about the threat from Iran. After all, Trump boasted about the “total and complete obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear capacities after a 12-day joint U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in June 2025. Within hours of the war posting, Trump announced that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, “one of the most evil people in History,” had been killed. That was followed four days later by “we have won.” Then came proclamations of victory on an almost weekly basis. Beginning on March 23, Trump said on 38 different occasions that the U.S. and Iran were close to a ceasefire agreement after the Iranians “begged” for talks. There were minor changes in the rhetoric: “We are very close” and “it’s practically done” and “just the final details are missing.” But the man who wrote “The Art of the Deal” was left without a deal. The Strait of Hormuz is no longer the open international waterway it was before February 28. Who controls it remains a matter of dispute. What is not in dispute is that the U.S. is stuck in a stalemate and the kind of open-ended Middle Eastern conflict Trump promised to avoid when he campaigned for his second term. He’ll face frequent reminders of that promise between now and November.

Beginning on March 23, Trump said on 38 different occasions that the U.S. and Iran were close to a ceasefire agreement after the Iranians “begged” for talks. There were minor changes in the rhetoric: “We are very close,” “it’s practically done,” and “just the final details are missing.”

WASHINGTON – Six months into the war U.S. President Donald Trump launched on Iran, the conflict is at an impasse, and the American leader has switched his campaign for global dominance to a new target – Canada. At issue is trade between the two neighbours, who share the world’s longest border and in the past have been close and friendly allies. Canada is the second biggest trade partner of the United States, slightly behind Mexico. Since Trump came into office in his first term, he has repeatedly suggested that the United States annex Canada and turn it into the 51st U.S. state. Canadian governments and most of the public reject the idea and find it offensive, as they do Trump’s habit of calling Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and his predecessor Justin Trudeau “governors”. Trade negotiations, prompted by new U.S. tariffs on Canada (50 percent on hundreds of products), collapsed in the final hour of an August 21 deadline when the Americans added conditions to the deal the Canadians found unacceptable. The tariffs took effect the following day. Canada responded that it would retaliate “dollar for dollar” with tariffs to take effect on September 8, effectively the start of a full-blown trade war unless either side makes concessions. But that appears unlikely. No further meetings are scheduled. Trump’s taunts took on a sharper edge this week when he complained that “I deal with many countries and Canada is easily the most difficult and unreasonable.” To further irritate his northern neighbour, he issued an executive order renaming Lake Ontario to “Lake America.” Also read | US-Canada trade war: Canada hits back as Trump orders Lake Ontario renamed 'Lake America' The lake straddles the U.S.-Canadian border, and roughly 75 percent of its surface belongs to the Canadian province of Ontario. But other than stirring the anger of an already angry Canadian public, the name change has as little practical impact as Trump’s move, on the first day of his second term, to name the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Trump’s order applies to federal maps and databases from which a small army of Department of the Interior bureaucrats have to remove references to Lake Ontario. U.S. government agencies and official military or diplomatic communications must call the body of water Lake America. Individual states have no obligation to comply with the order. Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York State, the only American state that borders the lake, promptly declared she would ignore the name change. In a blistering televised speech after the collapse of the Washington talks, Carney reminded his citizens that after taking office in 2025, he had warned that “America is trying to break us so that they can own us. And I promised, ‘That will never, ever happen.’ We are keeping that promise.” It was a bold promise in a dispute that pitches Canada against a superpower neighbour with an economy 13 times larger and a population of 340 million (Canada has 40 million) that turns the U.S. into the world’s richest market. But despite this disparity, Canada looks unlikely to bend to Trump’s will. Also read | 'If he is dead, they're putting on a pretty good show': Trump casts fresh doubt over Mojtaba Khamenei's fate Criticism of Trump’s tariff war has come from unexpected corners. The Wall Street Journal reminded its readers that Trump had complained about an editorial last year that called tariffs against Canada and Mexico “the dumbest trade war in history.” After the collapse of the negotiations, “it got dumber this weekend as Mr. Trump escalated with another round of border taxes on Canadian imports, a mere 10 weeks before midterm elections.” The reference is for elections on November 3 for Congress – all 435 seats of the House of Representatives and a number of contested seats in the Senate. Analysts predict that the Republican Party will lose its majority in the House, partly because of the deeply unpopular war against Iran. Unlike renaming a border lake, a presidential executive order cannot end the conflict with Iran. Iran responded to a furious bombing campaign by the U.S. and Israel by deploying a geographic weapon more powerful than a nuclear bomb: the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway that carried before the war 20 percent of the world’s oil, much of the world’s the world’s fertilizer, and 19 per cent of liquefied natural gas. Iran’s closure of the Strait prompted a profound crisis in the global economy, from a supply shock in energy markets and disruptions to global agriculture and food shortages. In the United States, it led to sharply higher prices for petrol and an overall higher cost of living. The deeply unpopular war and the way he handled it drove Trump’s approval rating down to 33 percent, its lowest in his two terms. Democrats hoping to take over the House have plenty of ammunition for the election campaign. That includes reminders that the president has consistently lied about the state of the war he announced with a pre-dawn social media posting on February 28. It said that war was necessary “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Today, on the 60th day since the start of the war, there still has not been a convincing explanation of what was ”imminent” about the threat from Iran. After all, Trump boasted about the “total and complete obliteration” of Iran’s nuclear capacities after a 12-day joint U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in June 2025. Within hours of the war posting, Trump announced that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, “one of the most evil people in History,” had been killed. That was followed four days later by “we have won.” Then came proclamations of victory on an almost weekly basis. Beginning on March 23, Trump said on 38 different occasions that the U.S. and Iran were close to a ceasefire agreement after the Iranians “begged” for talks. There were minor changes in the rhetoric: “We are very close” and “it’s practically done” and “just the final details are missing.” But the man who wrote “The Art of the Deal” was left without a deal. The Strait of Hormuz is no longer the open international waterway it was before February 28. Who controls it remains a matter of dispute. What is not in dispute is that the U.S. is stuck in a stalemate and the kind of open-ended Middle Eastern conflict Trump promised to avoid when he campaigned for his second term. He’ll face frequent reminders of that promise between now and November.

Beginning on March 23, Trump said on 38 different occasions that the U.S. and Iran were close to a ceasefire agreement after the Iranians “begged” for talks. There were minor changes in the rhetoric: “We are very close,” “it’s practically done,” and “just the final details are missing.”

Trump, self-proclaimed ‘peace president’, wages wars on multiple fronts

Donald Trump has mastered the politics of attention. Give him a controversy, a camera and a social-media account, and he can turn almost anything into a Trump headline. Now, even Lake Ontario has become part of the brand. Trump has formally ordered the US government to rename it Lake America, despite Canada making clear it will continue calling it Lake Ontario. The move comes amid an escalating trade fight with Ottawa.&nbsp;But here is the uncomfortable question: Is this governing, or marketing? Because Americans are not standing in grocery aisles wondering what the next landmark will be called. They are wondering why everything costs so much. They want affordability. They want stability. They want results. Instead, they are getting a presidency increasingly consumed by personal branding, confrontation and spectacle.&nbsp;Look at the Kennedy Center. Trump’s name has been placed at the center of another political and cultural battle, while fresh reporting suggests the institution’s finances deteriorated sharply following the takeover and name change. And that is the danger of making yourself the story. When every institution becomes a battlefield and every disagreement becomes personal, the presidency risks becoming less about governing and more about maintaining the Trump brand.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes, pandering works. It can energize a base. It can dominate the news cycle. It can turn frustration into political loyalty. But eventually, voters ask a more brutal question: What did all that noise actually deliver? And perhaps the clearest warning sign is coming from Corporate America. Companies that once cozied up to Trump are now cultivating relationships with Democrats ahead of the midterms, preparing for the possibility of a Democratic-controlled House, and the investigations and subpoenas that could follow.&nbsp;That is not necessarily ideological conversion. It is political insurance. And when corporate America starts hedging its bets, it suggests even Trump's most powerful allies understand that political power can change very quickly. So, Mr President, the question is no longer whether you can command attention. You clearly can.&nbsp;The question is whether attention is enough. Because America does not need a president who is constantly marketing himself. It needs a president who can make life better for the people being marketed to. The midterms may provide the answer. The brand is Trump. But the bill is America's.&nbsp;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.

Trump’s Lake America controversy raises questions about branding, governance, affordability, the Kennedy Center and shifting corporate support ahead of the midterms

Donald Trump has mastered the politics of attention. Give him a controversy, a camera and a social-media account, and he can turn almost anything into a Trump headline. Now, even Lake Ontario has become part of the brand. Trump has formally ordered the US government to rename it Lake America, despite Canada making clear it will continue calling it Lake Ontario. The move comes amid an escalating trade fight with Ottawa. But here is the uncomfortable question: Is this governing, or marketing? Because Americans are not standing in grocery aisles wondering what the next landmark will be called. They are wondering why everything costs so much. They want affordability. They want stability. They want results. Instead, they are getting a presidency increasingly consumed by personal branding, confrontation and spectacle. Look at the Kennedy Center. Trump’s name has been placed at the center of another political and cultural battle, while fresh reporting suggests the institution’s finances deteriorated sharply following the takeover and name change. And that is the danger of making yourself the story. When every institution becomes a battlefield and every disagreement becomes personal, the presidency risks becoming less about governing and more about maintaining the Trump brand.

Trump turns Lake Ontario into ‘Lake America’ as critics question whether his presidency is more about branding, controversy and spectacle than results

The Verdict: When the president becomes the brand

An ice-rock avalanche, a warming Himalaya and a nine-metre rise in river levels in just 30 minutes show why disaster management can no longer stop at national borders. The devastating flash floods that swept through central Nepal on August 26 are more than a Himalayan disaster. They are a warning for the entire South Asian region. More than 160 people have been reported dead, and nearly 500 remain missing, including 133 Indians, according to early assessments. The floods devastated settlements, washed away bridges, and damaged hydropower infrastructure across the affected areas.The speed of the disaster is particularly alarming. The flood wave travelled through the Bhote Koshi and Trishuli river systems, leaving little time for communities to respond. At Galchchi, water levels in the Trishuli reportedly rose by as much as nine metres in just 30 minutes. Several monitoring stations were damaged or washed away. That single statistic explains why the region needs a fundamentally different approach to disaster preparedness.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nepal-floods-157-dead-400-missing-us-india-china-world-bank-mobilise-aid-1787791144479">Nepal floods: Over 157 dead, 400 missing; US, India, China, World Bank mobilise aid</a><h2>What triggered the Nepal flash flood?</h2>Scientists are still investigating the precise sequence of events. But experts from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) say an ice-rock avalanche from a high-altitude area is the likely trigger. Preliminary assessments based on satellite information, videos and reports from affected areas indicate that a large volume of ice and rock debris may have entered the Lende Khola, a tributary of the Bhote Koshi. This could have generated a sudden and powerful surge carrying water, sediment and huge boulders downstream.The event's extraordinary speed is consistent with such a high-energy mountain hazard. Water levels at Galchchi rose by nine metres within half an hour, while levels at Malekhu reportedly increased by about seven metres over a similar period. There are also reports of seismic activity around the time of the event, and scientists are examining whether an earthquake may have contributed to the instability. Other possible mechanisms, including glacial processes and temporary river blockages, are also being investigated. It is therefore too early to attribute the disaster to a single cause with absolute certainty.What is increasingly clear, however, is that the cryosphere — the world's frozen regions of glaciers, snow and ice — is becoming a critical part of disaster-risk management.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/live-blog-nepal-flash-floods-live-updates-at-least-165-killed-hundreds-missing-as-rescue-operations-continue-1787800675570">Nepal floods LIVE: 165 killed, hundreds missing as rescue operations continue</a><h2>Is the damage confined to one country?</h2>The destruction has been severe. Villages and settlements were inundated, roads and bridges swept away and hydropower projects damaged. At least 19 bridges and around 40 km of roads were reported damaged in Nepal as rescue operations continued.But the bigger concern is geographical.Himalayan rivers cross political boundaries. The Trishuli enters India as the Gandak, eventually flowing through the densely populated plains of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. A sudden upstream event can therefore become a downstream emergency thousands of people away from its origin.This is why Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were placed on alert following the Nepal disaster. The safety of communities downstream depends partly on what happens upstream — often in terrain that is difficult to monitor in real time.<h2>Why Nepal, India, and China need to work together?</h2>The Himalayas are a shared geography, but disaster-management systems remain largely national. That needs to change. Nepal, India, and China should establish stronger mechanisms for real-time sharing of rainfall, river-flow, seismic, glacier, and satellite data. If an ice-rock avalanche or glacial lake event occurs in a remote high-altitude area, downstream authorities should receive an alert within minutes — not after floodwaters have already entered populated areas.<h2>Can technology make this increasingly possible?</h2>High-resolution satellites can monitor changes in glaciers and unstable slopes. Automated river gauges can detect sudden changes in water levels. Seismic sensors can identify disturbances associated with landslides and avalanches. Weather radar can track extreme precipitation. Artificial intelligence can combine these datasets and identify abnormal patterns much faster than conventional monitoring systems.The next step should be to connect these technologies across borders.A Himalayan Early Warning Network could integrate satellite imagery, ground sensors, river gauges, weather forecasts and AI-based risk models. Alerts could then be pushed directly to disaster-management authorities and vulnerable communities through cell broadcast, SMS, sirens and local communication networks. The objective should be simple: detect upstream, alert downstream and act before the flood arrives.<h2>Is Climate change making the risk harder to manage?</h2>It would be scientifically incorrect to say that climate change alone caused this particular flash flood. Mountain disasters are often produced by multiple factors — geology, earthquakes, rainfall, glacier instability and human settlement patterns. But climate change is changing the background conditions.The Himalayan region is warming, glaciers are retreating and glacial lakes are changing in size and stability. ICIMOD has repeatedly warned that increasing cryosphere-related hazards are creating new risks for mountain communities and downstream populations.The Nepal disaster is particularly significant because the region has experienced serious glacial and flash-flood events in recent years. A deadly flood in 2025 was linked to the sudden drainage of a supraglacial lake in Tibet, again demonstrating how an event originating upstream can rapidly become a cross-border crisis.This means South Asia cannot treat climate change as a distant environmental issue. It is increasingly a question of lives, infrastructure, food security, water security and economic stability.<h2>What can we do?</h2>The answer lies in a combination of science, technology, regional cooperation and climate action. Governments need to invest in glacier and river monitoring, climate-resilient infrastructure and stronger local disaster-response systems. Himalayan countries must improve data-sharing arrangements and conduct joint disaster simulations. Communities living along vulnerable rivers need evacuation routes, warning systems and regular preparedness exercises.At the same time, the region must contribute to the global effort to slow climate change through faster decarbonisation, cleaner energy, protection of forests and climate-resilient development. The Nepal flash flood has delivered a powerful message: nature does not respect borders, and neither does climate risk. The next disaster may begin on a glacier in one country, travel through a river in another and threaten millions downstream.The real test of South Asia's preparedness will therefore not be how quickly countries respond after a disaster. It will be whether they can share information quickly enough to warn people before the disaster reaches them.

At Galchchi, water levels in the Trishuli reportedly rose by as much as nine metres in just 30 minutes. Several monitoring stations were damaged or washed away. That single statistic explains why the region needs a fundamentally different approach to disaster preparedness.

An ice-rock avalanche, a warming Himalaya and a nine-metre rise in river levels in just 30 minutes show why disaster management can no longer stop at national borders. The devastating flash floods that swept through central Nepal on August 26 are more than a Himalayan disaster. They are a warning for the entire South Asian region. More than 160 people have been reported dead, and nearly 500 remain missing, including 133 Indians, according to early assessments. The floods devastated settlements, washed away bridges, and damaged hydropower infrastructure across the affected areas. The speed of the disaster is particularly alarming. The flood wave travelled through the Bhote Koshi and Trishuli river systems, leaving little time for communities to respond. At Galchchi, water levels in the Trishuli reportedly rose by as much as nine metres in just 30 minutes. Several monitoring stations were damaged or washed away. That single statistic explains why the region needs a fundamentally different approach to disaster preparedness. Also read | Nepal floods: Over 157 dead, 400 missing; US, India, China, World Bank mobilise aid What triggered the Nepal flash flood? Scientists are still investigating the precise sequence of events. But experts from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) say an ice-rock avalanche from a high-altitude area is the likely trigger. Preliminary assessments based on satellite information, videos and reports from affected areas indicate that a large volume of ice and rock debris may have entered the Lende Khola, a tributary of the Bhote Koshi. This could have generated a sudden and powerful surge carrying water, sediment and huge boulders downstream. The event's extraordinary speed is consistent with such a high-energy mountain hazard. Water levels at Galchchi rose by nine metres within half an hour, while levels at Malekhu reportedly increased by about seven metres over a similar period. There are also reports of seismic activity around the time of the event, and scientists are examining whether an earthquake may have contributed to the instability. Other possible mechanisms, including glacial processes and temporary river blockages, are also being investigated. It is therefore too early to attribute the disaster to a single cause with absolute certainty. What is increasingly clear, however, is that the cryosphere — the world's frozen regions of glaciers, snow and ice — is becoming a critical part of disaster-risk management. Also read | Nepal floods LIVE: 165 killed, hundreds missing as rescue operations continue Is the damage confined to one country? The destruction has been severe. Villages and settlements were inundated, roads and bridges swept away and hydropower projects damaged. At least 19 bridges and around 40 km of roads were reported damaged in Nepal as rescue operations continued. But the bigger concern is geographical. Himalayan rivers cross political boundaries. The Trishuli enters India as the Gandak, eventually flowing through the densely populated plains of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. A sudden upstream event can therefore become a downstream emergency thousands of people away from its origin. This is why Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were placed on alert following the Nepal disaster. The safety of communities downstream depends partly on what happens upstream — often in terrain that is difficult to monitor in real time. Why Nepal, India, and China need to work together? The Himalayas are a shared geography, but disaster-management systems remain largely national. That needs to change. Nepal, India, and China should establish stronger mechanisms for real-time sharing of rainfall, river-flow, seismic, glacier, and satellite data. If an ice-rock avalanche or glacial lake event occurs in a remote high-altitude area, downstream authorities should receive an alert within minutes — not after floodwaters have already entered populated areas. Can technology make this increasingly possible? High-resolution satellites can monitor changes in glaciers and unstable slopes. Automated river gauges can detect sudden changes in water levels. Seismic sensors can identify disturbances associated with landslides and avalanches. Weather radar can track extreme precipitation. Artificial intelligence can combine these datasets and identify abnormal patterns much faster than conventional monitoring systems. The next step should be to connect these technologies across borders. A Himalayan Early Warning Network could integrate satellite imagery, ground sensors, river gauges, weather forecasts and AI-based risk models. Alerts could then be pushed directly to disaster-management authorities and vulnerable communities through cell broadcast, SMS, sirens and local communication networks. The objective should be simple: detect upstream, alert downstream and act before the flood arrives. Is Climate change making the risk harder to manage? It would be scientifically incorrect to say that climate change alone caused this particular flash flood. Mountain disasters are often produced by multiple factors — geology, earthquakes, rainfall, glacier instability and human settlement patterns. But climate change is changing the background conditions. The Himalayan region is warming, glaciers are retreating and glacial lakes are changing in size and stability. ICIMOD has repeatedly warned that increasing cryosphere-related hazards are creating new risks for mountain communities and downstream populations. The Nepal disaster is particularly significant because the region has experienced serious glacial and flash-flood events in recent years. A deadly flood in 2025 was linked to the sudden drainage of a supraglacial lake in Tibet, again demonstrating how an event originating upstream can rapidly become a cross-border crisis. This means South Asia cannot treat climate change as a distant environmental issue. It is increasingly a question of lives, infrastructure, food security, water security and economic stability. What can we do? The answer lies in a combination of science, technology, regional cooperation and climate action. Governments need to invest in glacier and river monitoring, climate-resilient infrastructure and stronger local disaster-response systems. Himalayan countries must improve data-sharing arrangements and conduct joint disaster simulations. Communities living along vulnerable rivers need evacuation routes, warning systems and regular preparedness exercises. At the same time, the region must contribute to the global effort to slow climate change through faster decarbonisation, cleaner energy, protection of forests and climate-resilient development. The Nepal flash flood has delivered a powerful message: nature does not respect borders, and neither does climate risk. The next disaster may begin on a glacier in one country, travel through a river in another and threaten millions downstream. The real test of South Asia's preparedness will therefore not be how quickly countries respond after a disaster. It will be whether they can share information quickly enough to warn people before the disaster reaches them.

At Galchchi, water levels in the Trishuli reportedly rose by as much as nine metres in just 30 minutes. Several monitoring stations were damaged or washed away. That single statistic explains why the region needs a fundamentally different approach to disaster preparedness.

Why Nepal’s flash flood is a warning for South Asia: Explained

For decades, America has marketed itself as the land of opportunity—a destination where the world's brightest students and skilled professionals could study, work and build their futures. But under President Donald Trump, that promise is facing a major rethink. The Trump administration has proposed a $103,265 fee for new H-1B petitions, a dramatic jump from the fees historically charged for the programme. The proposal is still subject to the rule-making process and legal challenges.&nbsp;Washington says the objective is to protect American workers and prevent companies from using foreign labour to undercut domestic wages. But the policy could have consequences far beyond America's borders. India stands at the centre of this debate. Indian professionals accounted for about 71 percent of approved H-1B beneficiaries in FY2024, making them by far the largest group using the programme.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/short-videos/india-china-border-talks-nsa-doval-wang-yi-hold-talks-in-beijing-1787659831107">India-China border talks: NSA Doval, Wang Yi hold talks in Beijing</a>&nbsp;Add stricter vetting, increased scrutiny of applicants and uncertainty surrounding the broader student-to-work pipeline, and America's message to global talent is becoming increasingly complicated. For technology companies, the equation is changing too. If hiring foreign specialists in America becomes prohibitively expensive, companies can shift jobs overseas, expand their operations in countries such as India, or simply hire locally.That raises the bigger question: is America risking its position in the global race for talent?&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/anil-chauhan-china-intelligence-pakistan-operation-sindoor-1787742439190">China’s real-time intelligence support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor cannot be established: Former CDS Anil Chauhan</a>&nbsp;Trump is betting that putting American workers first will strengthen the domestic economy—and politically, that message resonates with voters who believe immigration has taken jobs away from Americans. But protectionism has a price. America has every right to enforce its immigration laws and protect its workforce. But it must also recognise that global talent has choices. If America becomes too expensive, too uncertain and too difficult, the world's brightest minds may simply stop choosing America.<h2>The Verdict?</h2>Protect American workers, Mr Trump. But don't protect them so aggressively that you push American innovation out the door.

President Donald Trump's proposed $103,265 H-1B visa fee threatens to disrupt the pipeline for foreign skilled talent 71% of which comes from India raising concerns that strict protectionism could drive tech jobs and global innovation away from the United States.

For decades, America has marketed itself as the land of opportunity—a destination where the world's brightest students and skilled professionals could study, work and build their futures. But under President Donald Trump, that promise is facing a major rethink. The Trump administration has proposed a $103,265 fee for new H-1B petitions, a dramatic jump from the fees historically charged for the programme. The proposal is still subject to the rule-making process and legal challenges. Washington says the objective is to protect American workers and prevent companies from using foreign labour to undercut domestic wages. But the policy could have consequences far beyond America's borders. India stands at the centre of this debate. Indian professionals accounted for about 71 percent of approved H-1B beneficiaries in FY2024, making them by far the largest group using the programme. Also read: India-China border talks: NSA Doval, Wang Yi hold talks in Beijing Add stricter vetting, increased scrutiny of applicants and uncertainty surrounding the broader student-to-work pipeline, and America's message to global talent is becoming increasingly complicated. For technology companies, the equation is changing too. If hiring foreign specialists in America becomes prohibitively expensive, companies can shift jobs overseas, expand their operations in countries such as India, or simply hire locally. That raises the bigger question: is America risking its position in the global race for talent? Also read: China’s real-time intelligence support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor cannot be established: Former CDS Anil Chauhan Trump is betting that putting American workers first will strengthen the domestic economy—and politically, that message resonates with voters who believe immigration has taken jobs away from Americans. But protectionism has a price. America has every right to enforce its immigration laws and protect its workforce. But it must also recognise that global talent has choices. If America becomes too expensive, too uncertain and too difficult, the world's brightest minds may simply stop choosing America. The Verdict? Protect American workers, Mr Trump. But don't protect them so aggressively that you push American innovation out the door.

President Donald Trump's proposed $103,265 H-1B visa fee threatens to disrupt the pipeline for foreign skilled talent 71% of which comes from India raising concerns that strict protectionism could drive tech jobs and global innovation away from the United States.

The Verdict | H-1B visa crackdown: Is America still worth it?

For many years India has built helicopters with real skill. The harder task has always been building the engine inside them. An aero engine is no ordinary part. It is the costliest and most closely guarded technology on any aircraft. That is why the fresh contract between Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Safran Helicopter Engines, and their joint company, SAFHAL, is far more than a business announcement. It is a serious step towards designing a powerful helicopter engine on Indian soil.&nbsp;The engine is named Aravalli, after one of the oldest mountain ranges in the country. It belongs to the 3,500 to 4,000 shaft horsepower class, much stronger than the Shakti engines that today fly the Dhruv, Prachanda and Light Utility Helicopter. Aravalli will power two future HAL machines—the 13-ton Indian Multi-Role Helicopter, or IMRH, and its naval version, the Deck-Based Multi-Role Helicopter, or DBMRH. Both are twin-engine, so their success rests on this engine.&nbsp;Signed on 26 August 2026, the contract covers the engine’s full life—design, development, manufacture, supply, and long-term support. HAL’s Director of Engineering and R&amp;D, Ajay Kumar Shrivastava, and Olivier Savin of SAFHAL signed the papers before HAL Chairman and Managing Director Ravi K and Safran Helicopter Engines CEO Cédric Goubet.&nbsp;India has worked with Safran for decades—first the Artouste engines of the Cheetah and Chetak, later the Shakti family for lighter helicopters. Those programmes taught Indian industry to manufacture, assemble and support engines, but never handed over the hardest skill, the original design of a high-power engine. Aravalli aims to change that. Indian engineers will sit with French engineers through design, testing and certification, gaining depth in the high-pressure compressor, power turbine, fuel and oil systems, accessory gearbox and the systems that keep an engine alive in heat, dust, salt air and thin mountain air.&nbsp;Such learning cannot be bought from a catalogue; it must be earned on a real programme. Safran says this is the first time it is co-developing an engine of this power class—a shift from “you build what we designed” to “we design together.”&nbsp;The IMRH fills a serious gap. The Air Force still depends on ageing Russian-origin Mi-17 helicopters, which cannot fly forever. A 13-ton Indian helicopter carrying troops, lifting loads, climbing mountains and working in punishing heat is a national need. The Navy’s DBMRH faces a harder life—ship decks, salt spray, tight space and rough seas. If India imports both helicopter and engine, dependence continues for decades. If it builds only the body, the dependence simply shifts from one box to another.&nbsp;A civilian side exists too. This engine class can later serve offshore oil flights, utility work and VVIP travel. After production comes maintenance, repair and overhaul, where lasting jobs and real industrial strength are created.&nbsp;HAL is no silent partner. It designs both helicopters, holds a 50:50 share in SAFHAL, and must turn drawings into machines the forces can trust. Under Chairman and Managing Director Ravi K, HAL is trying to grow from a production house into a design house. That road is tougher, because production can be planned while design brings risk, delay, failed tests and patient money. Ravi K has framed Aravalli as a step towards self-reliance in aero-engine technology and a stronger Indian aerospace ecosystem. His clear focus on design capability gives the programme direction and seriousness.&nbsp;An engine succeeds only when many firms rise with it — alloy makers, casting units, precision machine shops, electronics companies, test facilities and repair workshops. Karnataka sits at the centre of this story. Programme information shared with industry says the Aravalli manufacturing set-up is expected at Tumakuru, where HAL already has a large helicopter base. If that plan holds, Tumakuru will not merely assemble airframes; it will work on compressors, turbines and test beds, giving young engineers in the state a chance to learn real engine technology.&nbsp;Think of an engine as a small factory needing special alloys, finely cut blades, gearboxes, pumps, sensors, software and test cells. A long programme creates steady demand, and demand pushes companies to invest. Aravalli helps in five clear ways. It gives private firms a reason to enter high-end engine work. It trains engineers through design reviews, failure analysis and certification. It builds repair capability at home and saves foreign exchange. It gives HAL ownership of what it designs. And it prepares a team that will not start from zero on the next engine India needs.&nbsp;None of this is automatic. Development work is expected to run into the early 2030s, and both helicopters still await full government clearance. Engine programmes usually take longer than first promised. Honestly seen, this contract is the starting gun, not the finish line.&nbsp;The idea is simple. A helicopter without a dependable engine is only a beautiful body, and India long built the body better than the heart. The Aravalli hills are old, strong and still standing. This journey will also be long, but with HAL under Ravi K’s leadership and a manufacturing base expected in Tumakuru, it can build lasting skills, companies and confidence that will help India for many years to come.

The engine is named Aravalli, after one of the oldest mountain ranges in the country. It belongs to the 3,500 to 4,000 shaft horsepower class, much stronger than the Shakti engines that today fly the Dhruv, Prachanda and Light Utility Helicopter.

For many years India has built helicopters with real skill. The harder task has always been building the engine inside them. An aero engine is no ordinary part. It is the costliest and most closely guarded technology on any aircraft. That is why the fresh contract between Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Safran Helicopter Engines, and their joint company, SAFHAL, is far more than a business announcement. It is a serious step towards designing a powerful helicopter engine on Indian soil. The engine is named Aravalli, after one of the oldest mountain ranges in the country. It belongs to the 3,500 to 4,000 shaft horsepower class, much stronger than the Shakti engines that today fly the Dhruv, Prachanda and Light Utility Helicopter. Aravalli will power two future HAL machines—the 13-ton Indian Multi-Role Helicopter, or IMRH, and its naval version, the Deck-Based Multi-Role Helicopter, or DBMRH. Both are twin-engine, so their success rests on this engine. Signed on 26 August 2026, the contract covers the engine’s full life—design, development, manufacture, supply, and long-term support. HAL’s Director of Engineering and R&D, Ajay Kumar Shrivastava, and Olivier Savin of SAFHAL signed the papers before HAL Chairman and Managing Director Ravi K and Safran Helicopter Engines CEO Cédric Goubet. India has worked with Safran for decades—first the Artouste engines of the Cheetah and Chetak, later the Shakti family for lighter helicopters. Those programmes taught Indian industry to manufacture, assemble and support engines, but never handed over the hardest skill, the original design of a high-power engine. Aravalli aims to change that. Indian engineers will sit with French engineers through design, testing and certification, gaining depth in the high-pressure compressor, power turbine, fuel and oil systems, accessory gearbox and the systems that keep an engine alive in heat, dust, salt air and thin mountain air. Such learning cannot be bought from a catalogue; it must be earned on a real programme. Safran says this is the first time it is co-developing an engine of this power class—a shift from “you build what we designed” to “we design together.” The IMRH fills a serious gap. The Air Force still depends on ageing Russian-origin Mi-17 helicopters, which cannot fly forever. A 13-ton Indian helicopter carrying troops, lifting loads, climbing mountains and working in punishing heat is a national need. The Navy’s DBMRH faces a harder life—ship decks, salt spray, tight space and rough seas. If India imports both helicopter and engine, dependence continues for decades. If it builds only the body, the dependence simply shifts from one box to another. A civilian side exists too. This engine class can later serve offshore oil flights, utility work and VVIP travel. After production comes maintenance, repair and overhaul, where lasting jobs and real industrial strength are created. HAL is no silent partner. It designs both helicopters, holds a 50:50 share in SAFHAL, and must turn drawings into machines the forces can trust. Under Chairman and Managing Director Ravi K, HAL is trying to grow from a production house into a design house. That road is tougher, because production can be planned while design brings risk, delay, failed tests and patient money. Ravi K has framed Aravalli as a step towards self-reliance in aero-engine technology and a stronger Indian aerospace ecosystem. His clear focus on design capability gives the programme direction and seriousness. An engine succeeds only when many firms rise with it — alloy makers, casting units, precision machine shops, electronics companies, test facilities and repair workshops. Karnataka sits at the centre of this story. Programme information shared with industry says the Aravalli manufacturing set-up is expected at Tumakuru, where HAL already has a large helicopter base. If that plan holds, Tumakuru will not merely assemble airframes; it will work on compressors, turbines and test beds, giving young engineers in the state a chance to learn real engine technology. Think of an engine as a small factory needing special alloys, finely cut blades, gearboxes, pumps, sensors, software and test cells. A long programme creates steady demand, and demand pushes companies to invest. Aravalli helps in five clear ways. It gives private firms a reason to enter high-end engine work. It trains engineers through design reviews, failure analysis and certification. It builds repair capability at home and saves foreign exchange. It gives HAL ownership of what it designs. And it prepares a team that will not start from zero on the next engine India needs. None of this is automatic. Development work is expected to run into the early 2030s, and both helicopters still await full government clearance. Engine programmes usually take longer than first promised. Honestly seen, this contract is the starting gun, not the finish line. The idea is simple. A helicopter without a dependable engine is only a beautiful body, and India long built the body better than the heart. The Aravalli hills are old, strong and still standing. This journey will also be long, but with HAL under Ravi K’s leadership and a manufacturing base expected in Tumakuru, it can build lasting skills, companies and confidence that will help India for many years to come.

The engine is named Aravalli, after one of the oldest mountain ranges in the country. It belongs to the 3,500 to 4,000 shaft horsepower class, much stronger than the Shakti engines that today fly the Dhruv, Prachanda and Light Utility Helicopter.

Designing the beast: HAL and Safran unite to power India’s 13-ton copters

Mumbai has always been a bustling city, a place where migrants come to hustle for a living. Both my maternal and paternal grandfathers arrived here in the Maximum City to build their big dreams in the early 1940s. Senior Rai and Shetty, in their heyday, boarded steamer boats from Mangalore in coastal Karnataka to Bombay. Now, as the third generation, I speak Marathi not out of compulsion, but with comfort. Moreover, the local dialect of Hindi is dubbed ‘Bambaiya’, as it seamlessly incorporates bits of Marathi and Gujarati. Some may call it broken or improperly spoken, but when you live in a city of migrants, you know it is simply fluid.&nbsp;Over the years, fruit vendors from North India have comfortably adopted calling watermelon ‘kalingad’ (which is Marathi), despite knowing very well that it is called ‘tarbooj’ back home in the Hindi heartland. But why am I delving into the nuances of language? Because force may not be the best way to encourage its adoption. Are we all speaking Tulu or Konkani in coastal Karnataka? Many don't even know the former is a language, you mean Telugu, some enquire, unaware it is a distinct language. So, pushing for mandatory compliance might be stretching it a bit too far—or maybe not.&nbsp;Every time you travel to a new place, you try to pick up local words; it's perhaps human or just a way to belong. Whether it is ‘namaskar’, ‘namaskara’, or ‘namaste’, if it feels natural, you will comfortably speak it. No auto or taxi driver has ever refused to be instructed in Marathi; even if he isn't proficient in responding, he follows the directions to a T. So, who is our target audience here? The ones who outright reject the language - then it's all going in the right direction.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/unofficial-auto-strike-hits-mumbai-over-marathi-mandate-cm-fadnavis-calms-panic-1787661056561">Unofficial auto strike hits Mumbai over Marathi Mandate; CM Fadnavis calms panic</a><h3>Learn basics of the language in said time…</h3>&nbsp;On August 20, the Maharashtra Transport Department launched an initiative for auto and taxi drivers ferrying passengers across the city to learn the language. Over two days, RTO officials issued formal notices to 2,767 commercial passenger vehicle drivers across Maharashtra for lacking basic Marathi proficiency.&nbsp;&nbsp;Meanwhile, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated, “We are not trying to make our Hindi-speaking brothers experts in the Marathi language, but they should have a working knowledge of the language.”&nbsp;He assured, “Efforts are being made to help them learn the language. The deadline to learn the language has been extended three times now. Our Mahayuti government will not allow injustice based on language." But not all students are the same; not everybody learns at the same pace. A gentle nudge to adopt the language would not have harmed, as not everybody handles examination pressure the same way.<h2>My acquaintance with Marathi</h2>&nbsp;I have been singing Marathi songs since I was a toddler, and guess who taught me those, my Telugu-speaking neighbour, whom I call ‘ajji'. I practised my Marathi with Kanubai, our vegetable vendor, and so did my mother, not because we feared anyone would test our proficiency, but out of a genuine zest to learn. Some words are tricky; you roll your tongue incorrectly, it immediately gives away that you're not a native speaker. Though my father has that native speaker flair. But over the years, Mumbai has heard a variety of accents, yet she has accepted each as her own.&nbsp;&nbsp;Here, everyone savours vada pav, dabeli, and masala dosa; mind you, none except the first originate from this region. We watch plays in Marathi, Hindi, and English and still have an appetite for more.&nbsp;&nbsp;As the deadline nears, auto drivers have been attending these language classes; they are seen repeating after the teacher. From directions to basic communication, trust me, auto drivers have more to share. It almost seems as though they have navigation apps for breakfast, operating seamlessly sans them. Are they the only non-Marathi speakers who need these classes, or are others exempt? Can more notices be expected? A standardised test may not be the perfect yardstick to gauge fluency.&nbsp;(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.)&nbsp;

A reflection on Mumbai’s cultural fluidity, ancestral roots, and why forcing Marathi proficiency on auto and cab drivers may seemingly undermine organic integration.

Mumbai has always been a bustling city, a place where migrants come to hustle for a living. Both my maternal and paternal grandfathers arrived here in the Maximum City to build their big dreams in the early 1940s. Senior Rai and Shetty, in their heyday, boarded steamer boats from Mangalore in coastal Karnataka to Bombay. Now, as the third generation, I speak Marathi not out of compulsion, but with comfort. Moreover, the local dialect of Hindi is dubbed ‘Bambaiya’, as it seamlessly incorporates bits of Marathi and Gujarati. Some may call it broken or improperly spoken, but when you live in a city of migrants, you know it is simply fluid. Over the years, fruit vendors from North India have comfortably adopted calling watermelon ‘kalingad’ (which is Marathi), despite knowing very well that it is called ‘tarbooj’ back home in the Hindi heartland. But why am I delving into the nuances of language? Because force may not be the best way to encourage its adoption. Are we all speaking Tulu or Konkani in coastal Karnataka? Many don't even know the former is a language, you mean Telugu, some enquire, unaware it is a distinct language. So, pushing for mandatory compliance might be stretching it a bit too far—or maybe not. Every time you travel to a new place, you try to pick up local words; it's perhaps human or just a way to belong. Whether it is ‘namaskar’, ‘namaskara’, or ‘namaste’, if it feels natural, you will comfortably speak it. No auto or taxi driver has ever refused to be instructed in Marathi; even if he isn't proficient in responding, he follows the directions to a T. So, who is our target audience here? The ones who outright reject the language - then it's all going in the right direction. Also read: Unofficial auto strike hits Mumbai over Marathi Mandate; CM Fadnavis calms panic Learn basics of the language in said time… On August 20, the Maharashtra Transport Department launched an initiative for auto and taxi drivers ferrying passengers across the city to learn the language. Over two days, RTO officials issued formal notices to 2,767 commercial passenger vehicle drivers across Maharashtra for lacking basic Marathi proficiency. Meanwhile, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated, “We are not trying to make our Hindi-speaking brothers experts in the Marathi language, but they should have a working knowledge of the language.” He assured, “Efforts are being made to help them learn the language. The deadline to learn the language has been extended three times now. Our Mahayuti government will not allow injustice based on language." But not all students are the same; not everybody learns at the same pace. A gentle nudge to adopt the language would not have harmed, as not everybody handles examination pressure the same way. My acquaintance with Marathi I have been singing Marathi songs since I was a toddler, and guess who taught me those, my Telugu-speaking neighbour, whom I call ‘ajji'. I practised my Marathi with Kanubai, our vegetable vendor, and so did my mother, not because we feared anyone would test our proficiency, but out of a genuine zest to learn. Some words are tricky; you roll your tongue incorrectly, it immediately gives away that you're not a native speaker. Though my father has that native speaker flair. But over the years, Mumbai has heard a variety of accents, yet she has accepted each as her own. Here, everyone savours vada pav, dabeli, and masala dosa; mind you, none except the first originate from this region. We watch plays in Marathi, Hindi, and English and still have an appetite for more. As the deadline nears, auto drivers have been attending these language classes; they are seen repeating after the teacher. From directions to basic communication, trust me, auto drivers have more to share. It almost seems as though they have navigation apps for breakfast, operating seamlessly sans them. Are they the only non-Marathi speakers who need these classes, or are others exempt? Can more notices be expected? A standardised test may not be the perfect yardstick to gauge fluency. (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.)

A reflection on Mumbai’s cultural fluidity, ancestral roots, and why forcing Marathi proficiency on auto and cab drivers may seemingly undermine organic integration.

Mumbai language mandate: How city of migrants learned Marathi through genuine zest, not tests

Pakistan’s military has ruled from behind the curtain for decades. But under Field Marshal Asim Munir, that curtain is disappearing, and the backlash is growing. For nearly eight decades, Pakistan’s military has been more than an army. It has been the institution that could make governments, break governments, and, at times, become the government. But something is changing. The aura of untouchability is being challenged, and increasingly, the voices doing it are coming from within Pakistan itself. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, one of Pakistan’s most influential religious-political figures, has openly challenged Asim Munir, telling the army chief that if he wants to do politics, he should take off his uniform and face the voters.&nbsp;And just this week, Fazlur Rehman invoked the trauma of 1971, warning against repeating the mistakes that preceded the breakup of Pakistan. That is significant. Because Pakistan has seen this story before. Ayub Khan seized power. Yahya Khan inherited military rule, and presided over the catastrophe of 1971 and the creation of Bangladesh. Zia-ul-Haq turned another coup into more than a decade of military dictatorship.&nbsp;And Pervez Musharraf once again brought the army directly into politics after his 1999 coup. Different generals. Different eras.But the same fundamental problem: when the military stops protecting the state and starts defining the state. Today, Asim Munir occupies an extraordinary position. Constitutional changes have made him Chief of Defence Forces, placing the army, navy and air force under a unified command. New legislation has further expanded his authority over military operations and senior personnel. Critics say Pakistan is moving closer to a system where military power is no longer simply influential, it is constitutionally entrenched.&nbsp;And that is precisely why the backlash matters. From political opposition to regional grievances, challenges are emerging against an establishment that has spent decades presenting itself as the ultimate guardian of Pakistan. The irony is difficult to ignore.Pakistan has long portrayed India as its existential enemy. Yet India, despite its own enormous political, ethnic and security challenges, has maintained civilian political supremacy over its armed forces.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/is-pakistan-s-military-aura-finally-cracking-1787676968788/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/is-pakistan-s-military-aura-finally-cracking-1787676968788/embed</a>&nbsp;For many Pakistanis, that contrast raises an uncomfortable question: If the “enemy state” can preserve its constitutional order without generals ruling the country, why must Pakistan repeatedly return to military dominance? Perhaps this is why the current moment matters beyond Asim Munir himself. Because the real battle is not simply between one General and his critics.It is over whether Pakistan can finally separate the power of the military from the identity of the nation.&nbsp;So, the verdict: Asim Munir may command Pakistan’s most powerful institution. He may have more formal authority than any recent army chief. But history offers a warning: Generals can command soldiers. They can influence governments. They can even rewrite institutions. What they cannot manufacture indefinitely is public consent. And if Pakistan’s most powerful voices are finally beginning to challenge the uniform, the real question is no longer whether Munir controls Pakistan. It is how long Pakistan will allow the uniform to define it.&nbsp;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.

Asim Munir’s expanding military authority faces growing opposition in Pakistan, reviving fears of military dominance, civilian unrest, and a repeat of history

Pakistan’s military has ruled from behind the curtain for decades. But under Field Marshal Asim Munir, that curtain is disappearing, and the backlash is growing. For nearly eight decades, Pakistan’s military has been more than an army. It has been the institution that could make governments, break governments, and, at times, become the government. But something is changing. The aura of untouchability is being challenged, and increasingly, the voices doing it are coming from within Pakistan itself. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, one of Pakistan’s most influential religious-political figures, has openly challenged Asim Munir, telling the army chief that if he wants to do politics, he should take off his uniform and face the voters. And just this week, Fazlur Rehman invoked the trauma of 1971, warning against repeating the mistakes that preceded the breakup of Pakistan. That is significant. Because Pakistan has seen this story before. Ayub Khan seized power. Yahya Khan inherited military rule, and presided over the catastrophe of 1971 and the creation of Bangladesh. Zia-ul-Haq turned another coup into more than a decade of military dictatorship. And Pervez Musharraf once again brought the army directly into politics after his 1999 coup. Different generals. Different eras. But the same fundamental problem: when the military stops protecting the state and starts defining the state. Today, Asim Munir occupies an extraordinary position. Constitutional changes have made him Chief of Defence Forces, placing the army, navy and air force under a unified command. New legislation has further expanded his authority over military operations and senior personnel. Critics say Pakistan is moving closer to a system where military power is no longer simply influential, it is constitutionally entrenched. And that is precisely why the backlash matters. From political opposition to regional grievances, challenges are emerging against an establishment that has spent decades presenting itself as the ultimate guardian of Pakistan. The irony is difficult to ignore. Pakistan has long portrayed India as its existential enemy. Yet India, despite its own enormous political, ethnic and security challenges, has maintained civilian political supremacy over its armed forces. https://www.wionews.com/videos/is-pakistan-s-military-aura-finally-cracking-1787676968788/embed For many Pakistanis, that contrast raises an uncomfortable question: If the “enemy state” can preserve its constitutional order without generals ruling the country, why must Pakistan repeatedly return to military dominance? Perhaps this is why the current moment matters beyond Asim Munir himself. Because the real battle is not simply between one General and his critics. It is over whether Pakistan can finally separate the power of the military from the identity of the nation. So, the verdict: Asim Munir may command Pakistan’s most powerful institution. He may have more formal authority than any recent army chief. But history offers a warning: Generals can command soldiers. They can influence governments. They can even rewrite institutions. What they cannot manufacture indefinitely is public consent. And if Pakistan’s most powerful voices are finally beginning to challenge the uniform, the real question is no longer whether Munir controls Pakistan. It is how long Pakistan will allow the uniform to define it. 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.

Pakistan’s military power faces growing backlash as Asim Munir expands his authority, raising questions about civilian rule, democracy, and the country’s future

The Verdict | When generals rule: Why Asim Munir’s rise has Pakistan asking hard questions

Is Iran going to collapse? Is US President Donald Trump finally ending the war? Big questions with no clear answers. Iran is certainly more economically impacted and weaker than America. Yet, President Trump's new D-day sanctions may have become an old, rusted weapon. For more than 40 years, Washington has tried to force Tehran to change through economic pressure. It began after the 1979 hostage crisis, when President Jimmy Carter froze around $12 billion in Iranian assets. Then in the 1980s, US expanded trade restrictions. Then came sanctions targeting Iran's banks, oil industry, military and nuclear programme. &nbsp;Bit by bit, US has managed to pressure Iran, but never completely destroy it. America's biggest success though came before the 2015 nuclear deal. American, European and international sanctions cut deeply into Iranian economy, reduced its oil exports and isolated its banking system. That pressure helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. So, is Trump going to win against Iran this time? Well, so far he hasn't been able to.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-with-the-d-day-sanctions-all-eyes-are-on-how-iran-is-impacted-1787589665855/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-with-the-d-day-sanctions-all-eyes-are-on-how-iran-is-impacted-1787589665855/embed</a>&nbsp;When Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement in 2018, it expected Iran to give in. But the regime did not. It suffered enormously, but the regime survived. Now, Washington is trying again. Is Iran isolated? Not really. China can play spoiler in American strategy. You see, China is Iran's biggest oil customer. Even under heavy American pressure, Chinese buyers have continued purchasing Iranian crude oil. Vladimir putin is also Iran's ally. An increasing number of countries are questioning why America must decide for them. America's adversaries will not let Trump win.&nbsp;So, will these new sanctions hurt Iran? Yes. But will economic pain automatically bring political surrender? History reflects no. Essentially, the battle over Iran has become much more than Iran. It is now a battle of who gets to set the rules of the new world order, and America certainly seems to be losing that power.&nbsp;

Will Iran collapse under Trump’s new sanctions? Explore America’s economic pressure, China’s role, Iran’s resilience and the prospects of ending the war

Is Iran going to collapse? Is US President Donald Trump finally ending the war? Big questions with no clear answers. Iran is certainly more economically impacted and weaker than America. Yet, President Trump's new D-day sanctions may have become an old, rusted weapon. For more than 40 years, Washington has tried to force Tehran to change through economic pressure. It began after the 1979 hostage crisis, when President Jimmy Carter froze around $12 billion in Iranian assets. Then in the 1980s, US expanded trade restrictions. Then came sanctions targeting Iran's banks, oil industry, military and nuclear programme. Bit by bit, US has managed to pressure Iran, but never completely destroy it. America's biggest success though came before the 2015 nuclear deal. American, European and international sanctions cut deeply into Iranian economy, reduced its oil exports and isolated its banking system. That pressure helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. So, is Trump going to win against Iran this time? Well, so far he hasn't been able to. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-with-the-d-day-sanctions-all-eyes-are-on-how-iran-is-impacted-1787589665855/embed When Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement in 2018, it expected Iran to give in. But the regime did not. It suffered enormously, but the regime survived. Now, Washington is trying again. Is Iran isolated? Not really. China can play spoiler in American strategy. You see, China is Iran's biggest oil customer. Even under heavy American pressure, Chinese buyers have continued purchasing Iranian crude oil. Vladimir putin is also Iran's ally. An increasing number of countries are questioning why America must decide for them. America's adversaries will not let Trump win. So, will these new sanctions hurt Iran? Yes. But will economic pain automatically bring political surrender? History reflects no. Essentially, the battle over Iran has become much more than Iran. It is now a battle of who gets to set the rules of the new world order, and America certainly seems to be losing that power.

Trump’s Iran sanctions are intensifying economic pressure, but history, China and Russia raise doubts over whether Tehran will surrender or collapse

The Verdict: Is Trump ending the Iran war or starting a bigger economic battle?

For years, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been treated as a political phenomenon rather than a potential president. She was the young progressive who shocked the Democratic establishment in 2018, the congresswoman who could dominate a news cycle with a social-media post, and one of the most recognisable faces of the American left.Now, that assumption may be changing.&nbsp;At 36, Ocasio-Cortez is openly keeping her 2028 options alive. In an August 9 interview with ABC News, she declined to rule out either a presidential run or a challenge to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. Her comments came as polling and prediction markets increasingly placed her among the leading potential Democratic contenders. The question, therefore, is no longer simply whether AOC wants to be president. It is whether America is ready for her. And that is a much more complicated question.<h2>AOC is no longer the same politician</h2>The AOC who entered Congress in 2019 was easy for her critics to caricature. She was young, unapologetically progressive and closely associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Her politics were built around Medicare for All, climate action, economic inequality, workers' rights and a fundamental challenge to the political establishment.But six years in Washington have changed her.&nbsp;Ocasio-Cortez remains firmly on the progressive side of the Democratic Party, but she has also demonstrated a greater understanding of political power and coalition-building. Her ability to communicate directly with voters, particularly younger Americans, has become one of her biggest political assets. She is no longer simply the insurgent who defeated a veteran Democrat. She is part of the Democratic Party's national conversation about what comes next.&nbsp;That distinction matters. The Democratic Party is searching for a new identity after the Biden and Harris years, while progressives are increasingly testing whether their ideas can translate into electoral victories. AOC's growing national profile comes at precisely the moment when Democrats are debating whether the answer lies in moderation or a more aggressive progressive agenda.<h2>Her biggest strength may also be her biggest weakness</h2>There is an obvious reason AOC can excite Democrats. She knows how to command attention. In an era when political communication is increasingly conducted through Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and X rather than traditional campaign rallies, Ocasio-Cortez possesses something many conventional politicians spend millions trying to manufacture: an authentic digital following. She can speak to voters without sounding like a press release.&nbsp;That is particularly valuable with younger Americans, many of whom have little emotional connection to the political establishment. But presidential elections are not won on social media. They are won in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and other battlegrounds where candidates must build broad coalitions that extend far beyond their ideological base.&nbsp;And this is where the AOC question becomes difficult. Can someone identified so strongly with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party appeal to moderate voters, suburban voters, working-class voters and older Americans who may not share her politics? That is the test she has yet to pass.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-hormuz-passage-deal-reached-with-oman-reopening-tied-to-us-lifting-blockade-1786804702036">Iran says Hormuz passage deal reached with Oman, reopening tied to US lifting blockade</a><h2>America has changed, but not necessarily enough</h2>There is a temptation to look at AOC's rise and conclude that America has simply moved to the left. That would be too simplistic. America is not one electorate. It is a collection of competing political identities, economic anxieties, cultural fears and regional realities. The country is simultaneously becoming more comfortable with women in positions of power and more polarised over issues such as immigration, abortion, healthcare, race and the role of government.&nbsp;AOC represents one answer to those tensions. Her supporters see a politician prepared to challenge entrenched interests and speak openly about inequality. Her critics see a symbol of an ideological left that has moved too far from the political centre. Both perceptions matter. A presidential candidate does not get to choose which version of themselves voters see.<h2>The gender question cannot be ignored</h2>There is another uncomfortable reality. America has elected a Black president. It has elected women as vice-president. But it has never elected a woman president. Hillary Clinton came close in 2016. Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee in 2024 but failed to defeat Donald Trump. AOC would therefore enter a presidential race carrying two identities that have historically generated intense political reactions: she would be a woman and a progressive.&nbsp;Her recent decision to publicly discuss freezing her eggs has already demonstrated how differently female politicians can be scrutinised. Ocasio-Cortez has framed the issue around women's autonomy and the difficulty of balancing career and personal choices, while the disclosure has generated both support and political criticism. That episode may seem unrelated to presidential politics. It isn't. It is a reminder that if AOC eventually runs, almost every aspect of her life will become political ammunition. The question is whether she can withstand that scrutiny, and whether voters will ultimately judge her more by her policies than by the culture-war narratives built around her.<h2>The Democratic primary may be harder than the general election</h2>Ironically, AOC's first major challenge may not be Republicans. It may be Democrats. The party is likely to have a crowded 2028 field. Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Mark Kelly and other nationally recognised Democrats could all compete for the nomination.&nbsp;AOC would have to convince Democratic voters that she is not merely the most exciting progressive candidate, but the candidate capable of actually winning the White House. That means proving she can broaden her coalition. It also means answering difficult questions about foreign policy, national security, the economy, immigration and the country's role in the world, issues on which presidential candidates face a level of scrutiny that congressional politicians rarely experience. The early signals are encouraging for her.&nbsp;But early polls are not elections. Prediction markets can capture political momentum, but they do not put voters in polling booths. And a presidential campaign is an entirely different political ecosystem.<h2>Yet dismissing AOC could be an even bigger mistake</h2>This is where Democrats should be careful. It would be easy for party insiders to look at AOC and conclude that she is simply too progressive to win nationally. That argument may be increasingly outdated. The political environment that produced AOC in 2018 is not the same environment that exists today. Younger voters are more politically engaged, traditional media has less control over political narratives, and distrust of established institutions remains high.&nbsp;The Democratic Party cannot simply tell a new generation of voters that their preferred candidates are too radical.It has to understand why those voters are attracted to them in the first place. AOC's appeal is not solely ideological. It is also generational. She represents a generation that entered adulthood amid student debt, soaring housing costs, economic insecurity, climate anxiety and deep distrust of institutions. Whether one agrees with her solutions or not, she speaks directly to those frustrations. That is politically powerful.<h2>So, is America ready?</h2>Not yet, but perhaps that is the wrong question. America rarely announces that it is ready for a political transformation.It simply arrives at one. Barack Obama was once dismissed as too inexperienced. Donald Trump was once dismissed as too unconventional to become president. Hillary Clinton was once considered almost inevitable. Political history is full of candidates who appeared impossible until they weren't.&nbsp;AOC may or may not become president. She may decide to run for the Senate instead. She may ultimately conclude that 2028 is not her moment. She may enter the race and lose the Democratic nomination. But something important has already happened. The idea of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as president is no longer politically absurd.&nbsp;It is now a serious question. And perhaps the bigger question for America is not whether it is ready for AOC. It is whether the Democratic Party is ready to find out. Because if Ocasio-Cortez does run in 2028, she will not simply be asking Americans to vote for another Democrat. She will be asking them to decide what kind of Democrat, and what kind of America, they want next. That is a much bigger election than AOC alone.&nbsp;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.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is emerging as a potential 2028 presidential contender. Is America ready for AOC and her progressive political agenda?

For years, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been treated as a political phenomenon rather than a potential president. She was the young progressive who shocked the Democratic establishment in 2018, the congresswoman who could dominate a news cycle with a social-media post, and one of the most recognisable faces of the American left. Now, that assumption may be changing. At 36, Ocasio-Cortez is openly keeping her 2028 options alive. In an August 9 interview with ABC News, she declined to rule out either a presidential run or a challenge to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. Her comments came as polling and prediction markets increasingly placed her among the leading potential Democratic contenders. The question, therefore, is no longer simply whether AOC wants to be president. It is whether America is ready for her. And that is a much more complicated question. AOC is no longer the same politician The AOC who entered Congress in 2019 was easy for her critics to caricature. She was young, unapologetically progressive and closely associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Her politics were built around Medicare for All, climate action, economic inequality, workers' rights and a fundamental challenge to the political establishment. But six years in Washington have changed her. Ocasio-Cortez remains firmly on the progressive side of the Democratic Party, but she has also demonstrated a greater understanding of political power and coalition-building. Her ability to communicate directly with voters, particularly younger Americans, has become one of her biggest political assets. She is no longer simply the insurgent who defeated a veteran Democrat. She is part of the Democratic Party's national conversation about what comes next. That distinction matters. The Democratic Party is searching for a new identity after the Biden and Harris years, while progressives are increasingly testing whether their ideas can translate into electoral victories. AOC's growing national profile comes at precisely the moment when Democrats are debating whether the answer lies in moderation or a more aggressive progressive agenda. Her biggest strength may also be her biggest weakness There is an obvious reason AOC can excite Democrats. She knows how to command attention. In an era when political communication is increasingly conducted through Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and X rather than traditional campaign rallies, Ocasio-Cortez possesses something many conventional politicians spend millions trying to manufacture: an authentic digital following. She can speak to voters without sounding like a press release. That is particularly valuable with younger Americans, many of whom have little emotional connection to the political establishment. But presidential elections are not won on social media. They are won in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and other battlegrounds where candidates must build broad coalitions that extend far beyond their ideological base. And this is where the AOC question becomes difficult. Can someone identified so strongly with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party appeal to moderate voters, suburban voters, working-class voters and older Americans who may not share her politics? That is the test she has yet to pass. Also Read: Iran says Hormuz passage deal reached with Oman, reopening tied to US lifting blockade America has changed, but not necessarily enough There is a temptation to look at AOC's rise and conclude that America has simply moved to the left. That would be too simplistic. America is not one electorate. It is a collection of competing political identities, economic anxieties, cultural fears and regional realities. The country is simultaneously becoming more comfortable with women in positions of power and more polarised over issues such as immigration, abortion, healthcare, race and the role of government. AOC represents one answer to those tensions. Her supporters see a politician prepared to challenge entrenched interests and speak openly about inequality. Her critics see a symbol of an ideological left that has moved too far from the political centre. Both perceptions matter. A presidential candidate does not get to choose which version of themselves voters see. The gender question cannot be ignored There is another uncomfortable reality. America has elected a Black president. It has elected women as vice-president. But it has never elected a woman president. Hillary Clinton came close in 2016. Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee in 2024 but failed to defeat Donald Trump. AOC would therefore enter a presidential race carrying two identities that have historically generated intense political reactions: she would be a woman and a progressive. Her recent decision to publicly discuss freezing her eggs has already demonstrated how differently female politicians can be scrutinised. Ocasio-Cortez has framed the issue around women's autonomy and the difficulty of balancing career and personal choices, while the disclosure has generated both support and political criticism. That episode may seem unrelated to presidential politics. It isn't. It is a reminder that if AOC eventually runs, almost every aspect of her life will become political ammunition. The question is whether she can withstand that scrutiny, and whether voters will ultimately judge her more by her policies than by the culture-war narratives built around her. The Democratic primary may be harder than the general election Ironically, AOC's first major challenge may not be Republicans. It may be Democrats. The party is likely to have a crowded 2028 field. Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Mark Kelly and other nationally recognised Democrats could all compete for the nomination. AOC would have to convince Democratic voters that she is not merely the most exciting progressive candidate, but the candidate capable of actually winning the White House. That means proving she can broaden her coalition. It also means answering difficult questions about foreign policy, national security, the economy, immigration and the country's role in the world, issues on which presidential candidates face a level of scrutiny that congressional politicians rarely experience. The early signals are encouraging for her. But early polls are not elections. Prediction markets can capture political momentum, but they do not put voters in polling booths. And a presidential campaign is an entirely different political ecosystem. Yet dismissing AOC could be an even bigger mistake This is where Democrats should be careful. It would be easy for party insiders to look at AOC and conclude that she is simply too progressive to win nationally. That argument may be increasingly outdated. The political environment that produced AOC in 2018 is not the same environment that exists today. Younger voters are more politically engaged, traditional media has less control over political narratives, and distrust of established institutions remains high. The Democratic Party cannot simply tell a new generation of voters that their preferred candidates are too radical. It has to understand why those voters are attracted to them in the first place. AOC's appeal is not solely ideological. It is also generational. She represents a generation that entered adulthood amid student debt, soaring housing costs, economic insecurity, climate anxiety and deep distrust of institutions. Whether one agrees with her solutions or not, she speaks directly to those frustrations. That is politically powerful. So, is America ready? Not yet, but perhaps that is the wrong question. America rarely announces that it is ready for a political transformation. It simply arrives at one. Barack Obama was once dismissed as too inexperienced. Donald Trump was once dismissed as too unconventional to become president. Hillary Clinton was once considered almost inevitable. Political history is full of candidates who appeared impossible until they weren't. AOC may or may not become president. She may decide to run for the Senate instead. She may ultimately conclude that 2028 is not her moment. She may enter the race and lose the Democratic nomination. But something important has already happened. The idea of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as president is no longer politically absurd. It is now a serious question. And perhaps the bigger question for America is not whether it is ready for AOC. It is whether the Democratic Party is ready to find out. Because if Ocasio-Cortez does run in 2028, she will not simply be asking Americans to vote for another Democrat. She will be asking them to decide what kind of Democrat, and what kind of America, they want next. That is a much bigger election than AOC alone. 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.

AOC's potential 2028 White House bid is gaining momentum, but can her progressive politics, youth and polarising image win over America's voters?

Is America ready for President AOC? The question Democrats can no longer ignore

WASHINGTON – For much of Israel’s turbulent history, most Americans viewed the Jewish state as a force for good, deserving to be the largest recipient of U.S. economic and military assistance in the world. That attitude is becoming history, according to public opinion surveys.&nbsp;One of the most striking came from Gallup, one of the world’s most respected polling firms, which tracked American sympathies for the main players in the Middle East conflict since 1921. Earlier this year, it found that for the first time, more Americans sympathise more with Palestinians than with Israelis – 41% to 38%. &nbsp;&nbsp;Other surveys have come to similar results, and experts agree that this shift points to a profound generational divide. Americans aged between 18 and 34 hold significantly more negative views than older generations. The figures: 53 percent sympathise more with Palestinians, 23 percent more with Israelis. &nbsp;&nbsp;The Washington-based Pew Research Center describes this as a record low for Israel support for this age group. This contrasts with 49 percent of older Americans (55 and older) favouring Israel and 31 percent for Palestinians. The pollsters note that this means that for the first time in decades, less than half of older Americans side with Israel.&nbsp;Those numbers stand in stark contrast with decades of a relationship so close that unquestioned support for Israel was one of the few issues in divided America on which, with very few exceptions, Democrats and Republicans agreed.&nbsp;The relationship had an auspicious start: U.S. President Harry Truman was the first foreign leader to recognise Israel when it declared independence on May 14, 1948. Truman issued a statement granting U.S. recognition of the new state just 11 minutes after its proclamation in Tel Aviv.&nbsp;Although the “special relationship” the two countries established proved durable for decades, much to the frustration of its hostile Arab neighbours, it now seems truly over.&nbsp;The most striking example of how much has changed is the fact that New York City, home to as many Jews as Jerusalem, has a mayor so critical of Israel that he threatened to arrest Israel’s Prime Minister when he visits New York for September’s U.N. General Assembly meeting. &nbsp;&nbsp;Mayor Zohran Mamdami, who took office in January, cited an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2024 on charges of war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. Mamdami first issued the arrest threat when he was still campaigning to become mayor. He backed off 19 months later, saying the city had no legal authority to execute the arrest.&nbsp;A YouGov poll published in July found that 49 percent of Americans (68 percent Democrats, 55 percent Independents, and 24 percent Republicans) showed support for Mamdami’s arrest threat.&nbsp;More dissatisfaction with U.S. policies on Israel became apparent in Democratic primary races in advance of mid-term elections in November for the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. The one that made most headlines was in Michigan, where Abdul El-Sayed beat the pro-Israel Haley Stevens, who outspent her challenger by a 12-to1 margin.&nbsp;More than $31 million of her war chest came from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobby which has played a major role in past elections. &nbsp;&nbsp;What is the reason for the deep generational gap in views of Israel? Older Americans grew up with memories of the Holocaust still fresh. Israel was perceived as a beleaguered nation surrounded by hostile Arabs whose superior armies attacked the country twice, in the 1967 six-day war an again in 1973. &nbsp;&nbsp;Outgunned and outmanned, Israel won. Moshe Dayan, the eye-patched defence chief, became an internationally acclaimed hero for leading the David vs Goliath fight that ensured Israel’s survival and eventual role as the Middle East’s dominant military and economic power. &nbsp;&nbsp;Younger generations came of age during Israel’s occupation of land that had been slated to become a sovereign Palestinian state under a 1947 partition plan developed by the United Nations. But the “two-state” solution never became reality. The prolonged peace process of the 1990s failed, and the system Israel developed drew comparisons with South Africa’s Apartheid.&nbsp;An agreement to bring peace looks even more remote after the October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israeli communities by militants of Hamas, a Sunni Islamist group based in Gaza. The attackers broke through the border fence, killed 1,200 people, including hundreds attending a music festival, in an orgy of stomach-turning violence. Another 250 were abducted and taken as hostages to Gaza.&nbsp;Shifts in American public opinion were underway before the Hamas attack, but they sharpened when Israel struck back with a ferocious bombing campaign U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres described as collective punishment. It killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, according to local health authorities.&nbsp;Much of Gaza has been turned into fields of rubble, and the misery inflicted on civilians, livestreamed over social media for more than two years, has helped change perceptions even among committed backers of Israel.&nbsp;An anti-Israeli backlash has become a feature of U.S. domestic politics and will play a role in the mid-term elections. For years, calls for downgrading the relationships have come mainly from the political left, but recently prominent figures in the MAGA (Make America Great Again) sphere have spoken up, too.&nbsp;Once unthinkable for right-wingers like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Marjory Taylor-Green, their arguments mirror those of the left – Israel is dragging the United States into foreign wars that suck up resources America should use at home.&nbsp;Dissent on the right also comes from citizens who feel U.S. President Donald Trump broke most of the promises that helped him win a second term at the White House. They included “No more foreign wars”. Instead, Trump started a war against Iran. No end to that conflict, now in its sixth month, is in sight.

The most striking example of how much has changed is the fact that New York City, home to as many Jews as Jerusalem, has a mayor so critical of Israel that he threatened to arrest Israel’s Prime Minister when he visits New York for September’s U.N. General Assembly meeting.  


WASHINGTON – For much of Israel’s turbulent history, most Americans viewed the Jewish state as a force for good, deserving to be the largest recipient of U.S. economic and military assistance in the world. That attitude is becoming history, according to public opinion surveys. One of the most striking came from Gallup, one of the world’s most respected polling firms, which tracked American sympathies for the main players in the Middle East conflict since 1921. Earlier this year, it found that for the first time, more Americans sympathise more with Palestinians than with Israelis – 41% to 38%. Other surveys have come to similar results, and experts agree that this shift points to a profound generational divide. Americans aged between 18 and 34 hold significantly more negative views than older generations. The figures: 53 percent sympathise more with Palestinians, 23 percent more with Israelis. The Washington-based Pew Research Center describes this as a record low for Israel support for this age group. This contrasts with 49 percent of older Americans (55 and older) favouring Israel and 31 percent for Palestinians. The pollsters note that this means that for the first time in decades, less than half of older Americans side with Israel. Those numbers stand in stark contrast with decades of a relationship so close that unquestioned support for Israel was one of the few issues in divided America on which, with very few exceptions, Democrats and Republicans agreed. The relationship had an auspicious start: U.S. President Harry Truman was the first foreign leader to recognise Israel when it declared independence on May 14, 1948. Truman issued a statement granting U.S. recognition of the new state just 11 minutes after its proclamation in Tel Aviv. Although the “special relationship” the two countries established proved durable for decades, much to the frustration of its hostile Arab neighbours, it now seems truly over. The most striking example of how much has changed is the fact that New York City, home to as many Jews as Jerusalem, has a mayor so critical of Israel that he threatened to arrest Israel’s Prime Minister when he visits New York for September’s U.N. General Assembly meeting. Mayor Zohran Mamdami, who took office in January, cited an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2024 on charges of war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. Mamdami first issued the arrest threat when he was still campaigning to become mayor. He backed off 19 months later, saying the city had no legal authority to execute the arrest. A YouGov poll published in July found that 49 percent of Americans (68 percent Democrats, 55 percent Independents, and 24 percent Republicans) showed support for Mamdami’s arrest threat. More dissatisfaction with U.S. policies on Israel became apparent in Democratic primary races in advance of mid-term elections in November for the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. The one that made most headlines was in Michigan, where Abdul El-Sayed beat the pro-Israel Haley Stevens, who outspent her challenger by a 12-to1 margin. More than $31 million of her war chest came from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobby which has played a major role in past elections. What is the reason for the deep generational gap in views of Israel? Older Americans grew up with memories of the Holocaust still fresh. Israel was perceived as a beleaguered nation surrounded by hostile Arabs whose superior armies attacked the country twice, in the 1967 six-day war an again in 1973. Outgunned and outmanned, Israel won. Moshe Dayan, the eye-patched defence chief, became an internationally acclaimed hero for leading the David vs Goliath fight that ensured Israel’s survival and eventual role as the Middle East’s dominant military and economic power. Younger generations came of age during Israel’s occupation of land that had been slated to become a sovereign Palestinian state under a 1947 partition plan developed by the United Nations. But the “two-state” solution never became reality. The prolonged peace process of the 1990s failed, and the system Israel developed drew comparisons with South Africa’s Apartheid. An agreement to bring peace looks even more remote after the October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israeli communities by militants of Hamas, a Sunni Islamist group based in Gaza. The attackers broke through the border fence, killed 1,200 people, including hundreds attending a music festival, in an orgy of stomach-turning violence. Another 250 were abducted and taken as hostages to Gaza. Shifts in American public opinion were underway before the Hamas attack, but they sharpened when Israel struck back with a ferocious bombing campaign U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres described as collective punishment. It killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, according to local health authorities. Much of Gaza has been turned into fields of rubble, and the misery inflicted on civilians, livestreamed over social media for more than two years, has helped change perceptions even among committed backers of Israel. An anti-Israeli backlash has become a feature of U.S. domestic politics and will play a role in the mid-term elections. For years, calls for downgrading the relationships have come mainly from the political left, but recently prominent figures in the MAGA (Make America Great Again) sphere have spoken up, too. Once unthinkable for right-wingers like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Marjory Taylor-Green, their arguments mirror those of the left – Israel is dragging the United States into foreign wars that suck up resources America should use at home. Dissent on the right also comes from citizens who feel U.S. President Donald Trump broke most of the promises that helped him win a second term at the White House. They included “No more foreign wars”. Instead, Trump started a war against Iran. No end to that conflict, now in its sixth month, is in sight.

The most striking example of how much has changed is the fact that New York City, home to as many Jews as Jerusalem, has a mayor so critical of Israel that he threatened to arrest Israel’s Prime Minister when he visits New York for September’s U.N. General Assembly meeting. &nbsp;

Americans are falling out of love with Israel

The Gen-z are in an emergency, they have foreseen how bigger of a problem they are addressing could be for their younger brothers, sisters, cousins, relatives known as the Gen alpha, that's why they are brushing you off when you try to quell their anger by using their lingo and expressions, they don't get it and they won't get it, to them talk is cheap, they need action.&nbsp;Once the system acknowledges these grievances, noises, chants, the messaging on the placards, the emotional pleas, the feeble faces that have sacrificed their souls in endless hunger strikes, it means you are listening; that's all they want, nothing more, nothing less.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bjp-calls-for-statewide-shutdown-over-police-action-in-jharkhand-cm-hemant-soren-says-students-misled-for-political-gain-1786420365620">BJP calls for statewide shutdown over police action in Jharkhand, CM Hemant Soren says ‘students misled for political gain’</a>&nbsp;Even though actions may take time to actuate, you better start working on that now, and please stop making promises that you know may be broken or never achieved at all, because this generation doesn't take their hearts being broken lightly.&nbsp;And to the police, your job is to protect and serve, not maim and hurt. There is a constitutional provision that gives everyone the right to picket; students are not breaking the law by peaceful protesting; you are breaking the law instead by provoking, baton charging and spraying water on them. Think of them as your sons and daughters; serve and protect them.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-s-80th-independence-day-from-1947-to-2026-how-the-country-s-map-changed-over-80-years-1786422165717">India’s 80th Independence Day: From 1947 to 2026 - How the country's map changed</a>&nbsp;And to the students, act responsibly, be aware of your surroundings, of any miscreant elements seeping through and pretending to champion your cause, make it easier for you and the police, and say no to violence. Once you give in to that distraction, the message is lost.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/jharkhand-students-protest-jpsc-jssc-aspirants-march-to-assembly-heavy-security-deployed-1786361416140/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/jharkhand-students-protest-jpsc-jssc-aspirants-march-to-assembly-heavy-security-deployed-1786361416140/embed</a>

Today, WION's Eric Njoka is addressing the Jharkhand government or the so-called system. It's time to listen, change and implement your promises, because these protests by students or the Gen-z is not about agitation and rebellion; it's about showing you. 

The Gen-z are in an emergency, they have foreseen how bigger of a problem they are addressing could be for their younger brothers, sisters, cousins, relatives known as the Gen alpha, that's why they are brushing you off when you try to quell their anger by using their lingo and expressions, they don't get it and they won't get it, to them talk is cheap, they need action. Once the system acknowledges these grievances, noises, chants, the messaging on the placards, the emotional pleas, the feeble faces that have sacrificed their souls in endless hunger strikes, it means you are listening; that's all they want, nothing more, nothing less. Also read: BJP calls for statewide shutdown over police action in Jharkhand, CM Hemant Soren says ‘students misled for political gain’ Even though actions may take time to actuate, you better start working on that now, and please stop making promises that you know may be broken or never achieved at all, because this generation doesn't take their hearts being broken lightly. And to the police, your job is to protect and serve, not maim and hurt. There is a constitutional provision that gives everyone the right to picket; students are not breaking the law by peaceful protesting; you are breaking the law instead by provoking, baton charging and spraying water on them. Think of them as your sons and daughters; serve and protect them. Also read: India’s 80th Independence Day: From 1947 to 2026 - How the country's map changed And to the students, act responsibly, be aware of your surroundings, of any miscreant elements seeping through and pretending to champion your cause, make it easier for you and the police, and say no to violence. Once you give in to that distraction, the message is lost. https://www.wionews.com/videos/jharkhand-students-protest-jpsc-jssc-aspirants-march-to-assembly-heavy-security-deployed-1786361416140/embed

Today, WION's Eric Njoka is addressing the Jharkhand government or the so-called system. It's time to listen, change and implement your promises, because these protests by students or the Gen-z is not about agitation and rebellion; it's about showing you.&nbsp;

The verdict: Indian politicians need to stop mimicking Gen Zs; it won't work

When the Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Krishna Swaminathan, arrives in Port Louis from August 10 to 13, he will be stepping into a relationship that predates the modern Indian Navy's own blue-water ambitions. India and Mauritius established diplomatic relations in 1948, a year after Indian independence and two decades before Mauritius gained its own. Nearly 70 per cent of the island's 1.3 million people trace their ancestry to the Indian subcontinent — some 894,500 citizens whose forefathers crossed the same waters the two navies now patrol together.&nbsp;That history is not merely sentimental. In 1901, on his passage from South Africa to India, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi broke journey in Mauritius and left the island three counsels: pursue education, seek political empowerment, and stay connected with India. Mauritius honours that visit in the most direct way a nation can — its National Day falls on March 12, the date of the Dandi Salt March.&nbsp;It is fitting, too, that the officer making this visit is himself a product of sustained strategic scholarship rather than of command alone. Admiral Swaminathan holds an MA in Defence Studies from King's College, London, an MPhil in Strategic Studies and a PhD in International Studies, both from Mumbai University — credentials that place this visit in the hands of a Navy Chief who reads the Indian Ocean as a theorist as much as he commands it as an operational authority.&nbsp;<h2>Geography of consequence</h2>&nbsp;Mauritius has a land area of about 2,000 square kilometres. It also has an Exclusive Economic Zone of roughly 2.3 million square kilometres — the twentieth largest in the world. That ratio, a small landmass presiding over an ocean expanse the size of a subcontinent, is the single most important fact about Mauritian maritime security, and it explains why India's naval engagement there has been sustained across seven decades and every government in New Delhi.It was from Port Louis in 2015 that the prime minister, Narendra Modi, first articulated SAGAR — Security and Growth for All in the Region. It was from Port Louis again, in March 2025, that he expanded that framework into MAHASAGAR: Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions, and it was on that same visit that the two countries elevated their relationship to an Enhanced Strategic Partnership. The two frameworks now operate in tandem in New Delhi's own language: Mauritius, the Ministry of External Affairs has said, occupies a special place both in India's Neighbourhood First Policy and in its MAHASAGAR Vision — the former the older, proximity-and-obligation doctrine anchored in South Asia and the immediate Indian Ocean Region, the latter its 2025 expansion into a Global South-facing architecture of trade, capacity-building and security cooperation.Mauritius sits at the hinge of both: near enough to be neighbourhood, consequential enough to be strategy. That partnership was reaffirmed and deepened in September 2025, during the Mauritian Prime Minister Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam's state visit to India, when the two countries announced a Special Economic Package worth approximately $680 million, spanning healthcare, infrastructure and maritime security. Bilateral trade now stands at approximately $851 million.The Navy Chief's visit sits squarely within that arc — the maritime instrument of a partnership that political leadership has already defined, and now a serving scholar-officer's opportunity to give it operational depth.&nbsp;<h2>Ships that fly two flags</h2>&nbsp;India's contribution to Mauritius's maritime capability is not an abstraction; it floats. The first vessel, Guardian, was handed over in 1993 for EEZ surveillance. The inshore survey vessel Pathfinder followed in 2013. But the centrepiece is MCGS Barracuda, delivered in March 2015 — the first warship ever built to order in India for a foreign nation, constructed at Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers, Kolkata, for $58.5 million, of which $10 million was an outright Indian grant.Barracuda was followed by MCGS Victory in December 2016 and MCGS Valiant in August 2017, both from Goa Shipyard Limited, and by ten fast interceptor boats between 2016 and 2018. In the air, four Dornier maritime patrol aircraft, four Chetak helicopters and three Advanced Light Helicopters have equipped Mauritius with a maritime air arm capable of search-and-rescue and disaster response across its vast EEZ.Indian yards have also kept these ships at sea. Refits and life-extension work for the Mauritian fleet have been carried out at naval dockyards in Mumbai and Visakhapatnam and at Indian private yards.&nbsp;<h2>The deeper investment: people</h2>&nbsp;Over 1,000 personnel of the Mauritius National Coast Guard have been trained by the Indian Navy to date, and demand is rising sharply — vacancy requests have grown from 50 in 2021-22 to 195 in the current training year. This writer has watched that training relationship at close quarters over the years — among the officers who came up through sea training under my own charge aboard INS Sujata was Commandant Deepak Lakhabhay of the Mauritius National Coast Guard, one link in a chain of professional formation that now runs from wardrooms to command bridges across the island's fleet.Some of these milestones deserve wider notice than they have received. In 2025-26, the Naval Special Warfare Tactical Training Centre at Goa opened its doors to a foreign partner nation for the first time in its history, running customised courses for Mauritian personnel.In October 2025, Cadet Juggamah Prisita completed her comprehensive training course at the Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala — the first woman officer from the Mauritius National Coast Guard to be trained abroad anywhere. It is a small number with a long shadow.&nbsp;<h2>Charting the ocean, together</h2>&nbsp;Perhaps the least glamorous and most consequential strand of the relationship is hydrography. Under a memorandum of understanding first signed in 2005 and renewed in October 2025, Indian survey ships have deployed to Mauritian waters on 18 occasions and completed 47 surveys. Mauritius was accorded Producer Nation Status in March 2013, and the two countries have since jointly produced 13 paper charts and 15 electronic navigational charts.Those charts now sell commercially. In April 2026, on the sidelines of the ninth Indian Ocean Conference in Port Louis, the external affairs minister, Dr S Jaishankar, handed over a royalty cheque of $45,000 to the government of Mauritius from their sale — a partnership that began as assistance and has matured into revenue.&nbsp;<h2>From bilateral to regional</h2>&nbsp;Mauritius today is not merely a recipient of Indian naval engagement but a participant in the architecture India is helping build. It was among nine African and Indian Ocean nations at the inaugural edition of Exercise AIKEYME — Africa India Key Maritime Engagement — co-hosted with Tanzania in April 2025. Mauritian personnel have sailed on both editions of IOS SAGAR, the Indian Navy's flagship regional deployment. Mauritius is a member of the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium and hosts India's longest-serving international liaison officer at the Information Fusion Centre – Indian Ocean Region, in post since January 2022.A technical agreement on White Shipping Information Exchange, signed during the prime minister's March 2025 visit, now allows the two navies to share merchant traffic data. With Indian assistance, Mauritius is establishing a National Maritime Information Sharing Centre in Ebene, intended to become the island's own hub for maritime domain awareness and its node in the wider regional network.&nbsp;<h2>What the visit means</h2>&nbsp;Goodwill visits are easy to under-read. But Admiral Swaminathan travels to a country that has trained a thousand of its coast guardsmen in India, sails ships built in Indian yards, navigates by charts drawn jointly with Indian surveyors, and shares a maritime picture from Indian operations rooms. During the visit, the admiral is scheduled to call on the prime minister of Mauritius and other senior government officials. The visit affirms something true for fifty years and is worth restating in an ocean where the terms of security are being contested: India's engagement with Mauritius is not transactional, not recent, and not conditional.&nbsp;(Commodore (Dr.) Johnson Odakkal is a maritime scholar, strategic affairs analyst, and Indian Navy veteran. He is an expert faculty and IBDP Examiner in Global Politics and Theory of Knowledge and an Adjunct Faculty of Maritime and Strategic Studies at Naval War College, Goa.)

Admiral Krishna Swaminathan’s visit to Port Louis from August 10 to 13 is a goodwill call in name. In substance, it is a stocktaking of one of the Indian Ocean’s oldest and most durable maritime partnerships and a signal of where it goes next. 

When the Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Krishna Swaminathan, arrives in Port Louis from August 10 to 13, he will be stepping into a relationship that predates the modern Indian Navy's own blue-water ambitions. India and Mauritius established diplomatic relations in 1948, a year after Indian independence and two decades before Mauritius gained its own. Nearly 70 per cent of the island's 1.3 million people trace their ancestry to the Indian subcontinent — some 894,500 citizens whose forefathers crossed the same waters the two navies now patrol together. That history is not merely sentimental. In 1901, on his passage from South Africa to India, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi broke journey in Mauritius and left the island three counsels: pursue education, seek political empowerment, and stay connected with India. Mauritius honours that visit in the most direct way a nation can — its National Day falls on March 12, the date of the Dandi Salt March. It is fitting, too, that the officer making this visit is himself a product of sustained strategic scholarship rather than of command alone. Admiral Swaminathan holds an MA in Defence Studies from King's College, London, an MPhil in Strategic Studies and a PhD in International Studies, both from Mumbai University — credentials that place this visit in the hands of a Navy Chief who reads the Indian Ocean as a theorist as much as he commands it as an operational authority. Geography of consequence Mauritius has a land area of about 2,000 square kilometres. It also has an Exclusive Economic Zone of roughly 2.3 million square kilometres — the twentieth largest in the world. That ratio, a small landmass presiding over an ocean expanse the size of a subcontinent, is the single most important fact about Mauritian maritime security, and it explains why India's naval engagement there has been sustained across seven decades and every government in New Delhi. It was from Port Louis in 2015 that the prime minister, Narendra Modi, first articulated SAGAR — Security and Growth for All in the Region. It was from Port Louis again, in March 2025, that he expanded that framework into MAHASAGAR: Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions, and it was on that same visit that the two countries elevated their relationship to an Enhanced Strategic Partnership. The two frameworks now operate in tandem in New Delhi's own language: Mauritius, the Ministry of External Affairs has said, occupies a special place both in India's Neighbourhood First Policy and in its MAHASAGAR Vision — the former the older, proximity-and-obligation doctrine anchored in South Asia and the immediate Indian Ocean Region, the latter its 2025 expansion into a Global South-facing architecture of trade, capacity-building and security cooperation. Mauritius sits at the hinge of both: near enough to be neighbourhood, consequential enough to be strategy. That partnership was reaffirmed and deepened in September 2025, during the Mauritian Prime Minister Dr Navinchandra Ramgoolam's state visit to India, when the two countries announced a Special Economic Package worth approximately $680 million, spanning healthcare, infrastructure and maritime security. Bilateral trade now stands at approximately $851 million. The Navy Chief's visit sits squarely within that arc — the maritime instrument of a partnership that political leadership has already defined, and now a serving scholar-officer's opportunity to give it operational depth. Ships that fly two flags India's contribution to Mauritius's maritime capability is not an abstraction; it floats. The first vessel, Guardian, was handed over in 1993 for EEZ surveillance. The inshore survey vessel Pathfinder followed in 2013. But the centrepiece is MCGS Barracuda, delivered in March 2015 — the first warship ever built to order in India for a foreign nation, constructed at Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers, Kolkata, for $58.5 million, of which $10 million was an outright Indian grant. Barracuda was followed by MCGS Victory in December 2016 and MCGS Valiant in August 2017, both from Goa Shipyard Limited, and by ten fast interceptor boats between 2016 and 2018. In the air, four Dornier maritime patrol aircraft, four Chetak helicopters and three Advanced Light Helicopters have equipped Mauritius with a maritime air arm capable of search-and-rescue and disaster response across its vast EEZ. Indian yards have also kept these ships at sea. Refits and life-extension work for the Mauritian fleet have been carried out at naval dockyards in Mumbai and Visakhapatnam and at Indian private yards. The deeper investment: people Over 1,000 personnel of the Mauritius National Coast Guard have been trained by the Indian Navy to date, and demand is rising sharply — vacancy requests have grown from 50 in 2021-22 to 195 in the current training year. This writer has watched that training relationship at close quarters over the years — among the officers who came up through sea training under my own charge aboard INS Sujata was Commandant Deepak Lakhabhay of the Mauritius National Coast Guard, one link in a chain of professional formation that now runs from wardrooms to command bridges across the island's fleet. Some of these milestones deserve wider notice than they have received. In 2025-26, the Naval Special Warfare Tactical Training Centre at Goa opened its doors to a foreign partner nation for the first time in its history, running customised courses for Mauritian personnel. In October 2025, Cadet Juggamah Prisita completed her comprehensive training course at the Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala — the first woman officer from the Mauritius National Coast Guard to be trained abroad anywhere. It is a small number with a long shadow. Charting the ocean, together Perhaps the least glamorous and most consequential strand of the relationship is hydrography. Under a memorandum of understanding first signed in 2005 and renewed in October 2025, Indian survey ships have deployed to Mauritian waters on 18 occasions and completed 47 surveys. Mauritius was accorded Producer Nation Status in March 2013, and the two countries have since jointly produced 13 paper charts and 15 electronic navigational charts. Those charts now sell commercially. In April 2026, on the sidelines of the ninth Indian Ocean Conference in Port Louis, the external affairs minister, Dr S Jaishankar, handed over a royalty cheque of $45,000 to the government of Mauritius from their sale — a partnership that began as assistance and has matured into revenue. From bilateral to regional Mauritius today is not merely a recipient of Indian naval engagement but a participant in the architecture India is helping build. It was among nine African and Indian Ocean nations at the inaugural edition of Exercise AIKEYME — Africa India Key Maritime Engagement — co-hosted with Tanzania in April 2025. Mauritian personnel have sailed on both editions of IOS SAGAR, the Indian Navy's flagship regional deployment. Mauritius is a member of the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium and hosts India's longest-serving international liaison officer at the Information Fusion Centre – Indian Ocean Region, in post since January 2022. A technical agreement on White Shipping Information Exchange, signed during the prime minister's March 2025 visit, now allows the two navies to share merchant traffic data. With Indian assistance, Mauritius is establishing a National Maritime Information Sharing Centre in Ebene, intended to become the island's own hub for maritime domain awareness and its node in the wider regional network. What the visit means Goodwill visits are easy to under-read. But Admiral Swaminathan travels to a country that has trained a thousand of its coast guardsmen in India, sails ships built in Indian yards, navigates by charts drawn jointly with Indian surveyors, and shares a maritime picture from Indian operations rooms. During the visit, the admiral is scheduled to call on the prime minister of Mauritius and other senior government officials. The visit affirms something true for fifty years and is worth restating in an ocean where the terms of security are being contested: India's engagement with Mauritius is not transactional, not recent, and not conditional. (Commodore (Dr.) Johnson Odakkal is a maritime scholar, strategic affairs analyst, and Indian Navy veteran. He is an expert faculty and IBDP Examiner in Global Politics and Theory of Knowledge and an Adjunct Faculty of Maritime and Strategic Studies at Naval War College, Goa.)

Admiral Krishna Swaminathan’s visit to Port Louis from August 10 to 13 is a goodwill call in name. In substance, it is a stocktaking of one of the Indian Ocean’s oldest and most durable maritime partnerships and a signal of where it goes next.&nbsp;

Ocean of trust: Why the Navy Chief’s visit to Mauritius matters

On 7 August 2026, in the presence of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan signed the Mecca (Makkah) Joint Defence Agreement, a trilateral collective-defence compact declaring that an armed attack on any one of the three shall be treated as an attack on all. This is not a spontaneous diplomatic flourish. It builds on the September 2025 bilateral Saudi-Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, now widened to bring in Turkey's NATO-integrated military machine and its formidable defence-industrial base, chiefly Baykar's drone ecosystem and the KAAN fighter programme. What has emerged is a framework anchored in collective deterrence, joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, defence-industrial cooperation and interoperability — an arrangement its own architects describe, cautiously, as "purely defensive" and open to future members, but conspicuously silent on any nuclear dimension in its public text.&nbsp;This pact is less a finished alliance and more a strategic hedge (necessitated by gross insecurity of Saudi Arabia in ongoing war in West Asia) — three states insuring against uncertainty by pooling reputational and military weight, without yet building the institutional scaffolding that would make the guarantee credible like NATO (which itself is undergoing credibility crisis).&nbsp;<h2>Why Now: The Triggers Behind the Compact?</h2>&nbsp;The timing is not coincidental. Three converging pressures explain the "why now." First, the widening US-Israel-Iran confrontation since late February 2026 has rattled Gulf shipping lanes and exposed the limits of Washington's single-handed security umbrella over the Kingdom. Second, the post-October 7 regional recalibration pushed Riyadh toward diversifying its guarantors rather than depending on any one patron. Third, the three states bring genuinely complementary assets to the table: Saudi financial depth and geography astride Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb, Turkish NATO-standard military doctrine and an export-ready drone and naval industry, and Pakistani manpower plus the distinction of being the only nuclear-armed Muslim-majority state. What we are witnessing is less an ideological "Islamic NATO" awakening than a pragmatic risk-pooling exercise by states that no longer take American reliability for granted.&nbsp;<h2>Anatomy of the Agreement: Scope, Clauses and Obligations</h2>&nbsp;The public scope, as confirmed by officials, covers four pillars: a collective-deterrence clause modelled on Article 51 of the UN Charter rather than a bespoke treaty formula; joint training and military exercises; intelligence-sharing mechanisms; and defence-industrial integration, most visibly Turkish drone production tying into Saudi capacity. What is missing is equally instructive — no integrated command headquarters, no standing joint force, no common budget, and crucially, no explicit nuclear-sharing clause, a marked departure from speculation that surrounded the original bilateral Saudi-Pakistan text. A reported exclusionary clause further limits obligations: a member that initiates aggression, or permits its territory to be used to attack another state, forfeits the pact's protection. This single clause does more to define the compact's defensive character than any declaratory statement by its signatories.&nbsp;<h2>Not NATO's Article 5: A Deliberately Looser Construct</h2>&nbsp;Comparisons to NATO's Article 5 are journalistically tempting but analytically loose. NATO's guarantee rests on a standing treaty organisation, an integrated command structure, seven decades of tested doctrine, and an implicit nuclear umbrella. The Mecca pact has none of this. It rests on Article 51 self-defence logic, leaves the geographic scope and assistance triggers undefined, and grants each signatory discretion over how — or even whether — to respond.&nbsp;Turkish security analysts themselves have called it "a framework for closer coordination," explicitly declining the NATO comparison. My professional reading is that this ambiguity is a feature, not a flaw: it buys political flexibility for Ankara and Riyadh while avoiding the entangling automaticity that binds NATO members.&nbsp;<h2>Iran's Reaction: Dismissive Rhetoric, No Formal Response</h2>&nbsp;Tehran has issued no official statement from top leadership, but pointed criticism has come from parliamentary and clerical voices, mocking the fact that one sided defence agreements with America and Pakistan have not been able to protect Saudi Arabia so far in the ongoing war, advising them to reform their policies instead of begging for protection and promising that 'the roar of our missiles' will reach its signatories". Tehran is braving it by dismissing the pact as symbolic paper diplomacy rather than a credible deterrent.&nbsp;Iran's harder line likely reflects lived experience rather than just rhetoric. During the widening US-Israel-Iran war that escalated after February 28, 2026, Iran reportedly struck Saudi territory directly in retaliation for US/Israeli strikes, effectively testing whether Pakistan would honour its existing bilateral defence commitment to Riyadh. Pakistan's actual response was telling: rather than invoking the pact militarily, Islamabad "refrained from any direct military" retaliation against Iran, with no formal invocation of the agreement and no public commitment to military action, highlighting that these pacts "do not carry automatic trigger clauses" in practice. This history gives Tehran good reason to view the Mecca pact's deterrence value sceptically as a claim to be tested, even while taking its symbolism seriously enough to publicly denounce it.&nbsp;<h2>Ripples Into the West Asian War</h2>&nbsp;For the ongoing Iran-Israel-US confrontation, the pact functions technically as a deterrent signal to Tehran: any renewed major strike on Saudi Arabia now risks invoking a wider Sunnimilitary response involving Turkish and Pakistani capabilities. This raises the escalation ceiling for Iran's calculus but does not necessarily reduce the war's intensity — it may instead harden battle lines, making Iran more likely to rely on proxy and asymmetric options rather than direct confrontation with a Saudi state now backed by a broader coalition.&nbsp;However, the pact's defensive architecture and its aggression-exclusion clause make it unusable as a licence for Pakistan to initiate hostilities against Iran. Islamabad's actual conduct reinforces this reading — Pakistan has served as a mediator during the Iran-Israel-US conflict. Geography indicates a long, porous border through restive Baluchistan gives Pakistan every incentive to avoid provoking Tehran. The more plausible scenario in this case it’s USA which attacked Iran using Saudi bases; hence Pakistan is not obligated for military intervention to defend Saudi Arabia.<h2>An Indirect NATO Extension? Parsing the Overlap</h2>The pact is not a backdoor NATO extension in any legal sense — NATO's Article 5 binds only its 32 members, and Ankara's membership does not transfer that obligation to Riyadh or Islamabad. But the optics matter strategically. Turkey imports NATO-standard doctrine, interoperability, and Western-integrated hardware into a coalition with two long-standing American security partners, creating a "Sunni NATO in style, not structure" — a US-partner-heavy coalition of convenience rather than a treaty-bound extension of Western collective defence.&nbsp;<h2>Israel's Reaction: Official Silence, Unease Underneath of a "Hostile Sunni Axis"</h2>&nbsp;Israel has issued no official statement. But that silence masks significant strategic concern, and informal commentary from Israeli figures fills the gap left by official reticence. Two plausible reasons explain Israel's reticence. First, Turkish officials have stressed the pact is "purely defensive" and "not directed against any specific actor," giving Israel little pretext for a public rebuttal without any evidence of being targeted, instead of Iran. Second, Saudi Arabia's own framing "not linked to any nuclear ambitions or arms race" seems calibrated to avoid alarming Washington and Israel simultaneously.&nbsp;Despite formal silence, informal signals suggest real Israeli anxiety that it could be to build deterrence against Israel, besides deterring Tehran" — a framing that directly implicates Israel as a target of the deterrence logic, not just Iran. All three nations are known to have been particularly concerned about Israel's influence and recent growing attacks in the region.&nbsp;Former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett, in February 2026 described Turkey as "the new Iran" and accused Ankara of seeking to build a "hostile Sunni axis with nuclear Pakistan". The pact's core strategic effect on Israel is one of raised escalation risk rather than direct military constraint for now. Because the agreement's obligations remain unspecified — no country has detailed what military action it would actually take if a partner were attacked — Israel cannot yet calculate a precise deterrence threshold, which itself is a form of strategic pressure. Western media frames the pact chiefly as a warning to Iran, but the underlying rationale — deterring "aggressive military stances" from both Iran and Israel — means Israeli military planners will likely now factor in the possibility that action against any of the three signatories, particularly Turkey, could theoretically trigger wider entanglement.&nbsp;<h2>The View From Beijing, New Delhi and Moscow</h2>Beijing's response has been calculated silence, reflecting quiet satisfaction: a stabilised Pakistan and a Gulf-Pakistan security architecture protect China's Belt and Road investments without costing Beijing any political capital. New Delhi has responded with its now-familiar formula of "closely following the development," a deliberately non-committal posture that nonetheless masks real concern about Pakistan gaining diplomatic cover from Riyadh and Ankara during future crises, and about Turkey's known tilt toward Islamabad on Kashmir. Moscow, balancing its own strategic partnership with Iran against its interest in a Gulf less dependent on Washington, is likely to watch with pragmatic neutrality, benefiting from any dilution of US centrality in the region without alienating Tehran.&nbsp;<h2>Implications for India: Watching Is Not Good Enough!</h2>&nbsp;For India, "closely following" cannot remain the operative strategy for long. Three imperatives follow. First, New Delhi must insulate its bilateral relationship with Riyadh — built on energy, expatriate welfare and counterterrorism cooperation — from any spillover effect of Pakistan's elevated standing in Saudi calculations. Second, India should intensify defence and strategic engagement with Gulf states bilaterally, ensuring the Mecca pact does not translate into diplomatic isolation on Kashmir or cross-border terrorism narratives at multilateral forums. Third, India's own extended-neighbourhood posture — QUAD engagement, naval presence in the Indian Ocean, and defence diplomacy with Israel and moderate Arab states — should be calibrated to prevent this Sunni-bloc formation from consolidating into a coordinated diplomatic front against Indian interests.&nbsp;India also needs to handle the war of narrative related to it. India's MEA issued a "fake news" alert the same day, debunking a Turkish outlet's claim (sourced to anonymous Pakistani officials) that India had approached Israel for a defence pact in response to the Mecca agreement.<h2>Conclusion: A Framework in Flux</h2>&nbsp;The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement is best understood as a strategic hedge born of eroding faith in a single security guarantor, not a fully realised alliance. Its long-term significance will depend on whether it acquires institutional muscle — joint commands, expanded membership, defined triggers — or remains a symbolic pledge activated only in extremis. The history of such pacts has not been too encouraging as NATO used Article 5 only once in history in Afghanistan.&nbsp;For India, the credibility of this pact is no different than what Iran is testing regularly. The practical course to be adapted is neither alarm nor indifference, but sustained, calibrated diplomatic and defence engagement that ensures this compact reshapes West Asia's security map without reshaping New Delhi's strategic space. It needs to revisit some of its foreign policies as the geo-political landscape is changing in a manner not too favourable for India. The answers may lie within and outside West Asia.

This pact is less a finished alliance and more a strategic hedge - three states insuring against uncertainty by pooling reputational and military weight, without yet building the institutional scaffolding that would make the guarantee credible like NATO.

On 7 August 2026, in the presence of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan signed the Mecca (Makkah) Joint Defence Agreement, a trilateral collective-defence compact declaring that an armed attack on any one of the three shall be treated as an attack on all. This is not a spontaneous diplomatic flourish. It builds on the September 2025 bilateral Saudi-Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, now widened to bring in Turkey's NATO-integrated military machine and its formidable defence-industrial base, chiefly Baykar's drone ecosystem and the KAAN fighter programme. What has emerged is a framework anchored in collective deterrence, joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, defence-industrial cooperation and interoperability — an arrangement its own architects describe, cautiously, as "purely defensive" and open to future members, but conspicuously silent on any nuclear dimension in its public text. This pact is less a finished alliance and more a strategic hedge (necessitated by gross insecurity of Saudi Arabia in ongoing war in West Asia) — three states insuring against uncertainty by pooling reputational and military weight, without yet building the institutional scaffolding that would make the guarantee credible like NATO (which itself is undergoing credibility crisis). Why Now: The Triggers Behind the Compact? The timing is not coincidental. Three converging pressures explain the "why now." First, the widening US-Israel-Iran confrontation since late February 2026 has rattled Gulf shipping lanes and exposed the limits of Washington's single-handed security umbrella over the Kingdom. Second, the post-October 7 regional recalibration pushed Riyadh toward diversifying its guarantors rather than depending on any one patron. Third, the three states bring genuinely complementary assets to the table: Saudi financial depth and geography astride Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb, Turkish NATO-standard military doctrine and an export-ready drone and naval industry, and Pakistani manpower plus the distinction of being the only nuclear-armed Muslim-majority state. What we are witnessing is less an ideological "Islamic NATO" awakening than a pragmatic risk-pooling exercise by states that no longer take American reliability for granted. Anatomy of the Agreement: Scope, Clauses and Obligations The public scope, as confirmed by officials, covers four pillars: a collective-deterrence clause modelled on Article 51 of the UN Charter rather than a bespoke treaty formula; joint training and military exercises; intelligence-sharing mechanisms; and defence-industrial integration, most visibly Turkish drone production tying into Saudi capacity. What is missing is equally instructive — no integrated command headquarters, no standing joint force, no common budget, and crucially, no explicit nuclear-sharing clause, a marked departure from speculation that surrounded the original bilateral Saudi-Pakistan text. A reported exclusionary clause further limits obligations: a member that initiates aggression, or permits its territory to be used to attack another state, forfeits the pact's protection. This single clause does more to define the compact's defensive character than any declaratory statement by its signatories. Not NATO's Article 5: A Deliberately Looser Construct Comparisons to NATO's Article 5 are journalistically tempting but analytically loose. NATO's guarantee rests on a standing treaty organisation, an integrated command structure, seven decades of tested doctrine, and an implicit nuclear umbrella. The Mecca pact has none of this. It rests on Article 51 self-defence logic, leaves the geographic scope and assistance triggers undefined, and grants each signatory discretion over how — or even whether — to respond. Turkish security analysts themselves have called it "a framework for closer coordination," explicitly declining the NATO comparison. My professional reading is that this ambiguity is a feature, not a flaw: it buys political flexibility for Ankara and Riyadh while avoiding the entangling automaticity that binds NATO members. Iran's Reaction: Dismissive Rhetoric, No Formal Response Tehran has issued no official statement from top leadership, but pointed criticism has come from parliamentary and clerical voices, mocking the fact that one sided defence agreements with America and Pakistan have not been able to protect Saudi Arabia so far in the ongoing war, advising them to reform their policies instead of begging for protection and promising that 'the roar of our missiles' will reach its signatories". Tehran is braving it by dismissing the pact as symbolic paper diplomacy rather than a credible deterrent. Iran's harder line likely reflects lived experience rather than just rhetoric. During the widening US-Israel-Iran war that escalated after February 28, 2026, Iran reportedly struck Saudi territory directly in retaliation for US/Israeli strikes, effectively testing whether Pakistan would honour its existing bilateral defence commitment to Riyadh. Pakistan's actual response was telling: rather than invoking the pact militarily, Islamabad "refrained from any direct military" retaliation against Iran, with no formal invocation of the agreement and no public commitment to military action, highlighting that these pacts "do not carry automatic trigger clauses" in practice. This history gives Tehran good reason to view the Mecca pact's deterrence value sceptically as a claim to be tested, even while taking its symbolism seriously enough to publicly denounce it. Ripples Into the West Asian War For the ongoing Iran-Israel-US confrontation, the pact functions technically as a deterrent signal to Tehran: any renewed major strike on Saudi Arabia now risks invoking a wider Sunni military response involving Turkish and Pakistani capabilities. This raises the escalation ceiling for Iran's calculus but does not necessarily reduce the war's intensity — it may instead harden battle lines, making Iran more likely to rely on proxy and asymmetric options rather than direct confrontation with a Saudi state now backed by a broader coalition. However, the pact's defensive architecture and its aggression-exclusion clause make it unusable as a licence for Pakistan to initiate hostilities against Iran. Islamabad's actual conduct reinforces this reading — Pakistan has served as a mediator during the Iran-Israel-US conflict. Geography indicates a long, porous border through restive Baluchistan gives Pakistan every incentive to avoid provoking Tehran. The more plausible scenario in this case it’s USA which attacked Iran using Saudi bases; hence Pakistan is not obligated for military intervention to defend Saudi Arabia. An Indirect NATO Extension? Parsing the Overlap The pact is not a backdoor NATO extension in any legal sense — NATO's Article 5 binds only its 32 members, and Ankara's membership does not transfer that obligation to Riyadh or Islamabad. But the optics matter strategically. Turkey imports NATO-standard doctrine, interoperability, and Western-integrated hardware into a coalition with two long-standing American security partners, creating a "Sunni NATO in style, not structure" — a US-partner-heavy coalition of convenience rather than a treaty-bound extension of Western collective defence. Israel's Reaction: Official Silence, Unease Underneath of a "Hostile Sunni Axis" Israel has issued no official statement. But that silence masks significant strategic concern, and informal commentary from Israeli figures fills the gap left by official reticence. Two plausible reasons explain Israel's reticence. First, Turkish officials have stressed the pact is "purely defensive" and "not directed against any specific actor," giving Israel little pretext for a public rebuttal without any evidence of being targeted, instead of Iran. Second, Saudi Arabia's own framing "not linked to any nuclear ambitions or arms race" seems calibrated to avoid alarming Washington and Israel simultaneously. Despite formal silence, informal signals suggest real Israeli anxiety that it could be to build deterrence against Israel, besides deterring Tehran" — a framing that directly implicates Israel as a target of the deterrence logic, not just Iran. All three nations are known to have been particularly concerned about Israel's influence and recent growing attacks in the region. Former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett, in February 2026 described Turkey as "the new Iran" and accused Ankara of seeking to build a "hostile Sunni axis with nuclear Pakistan". The pact's core strategic effect on Israel is one of raised escalation risk rather than direct military constraint for now. Because the agreement's obligations remain unspecified — no country has detailed what military action it would actually take if a partner were attacked — Israel cannot yet calculate a precise deterrence threshold, which itself is a form of strategic pressure. Western media frames the pact chiefly as a warning to Iran, but the underlying rationale — deterring "aggressive military stances" from both Iran and Israel — means Israeli military planners will likely now factor in the possibility that action against any of the three signatories, particularly Turkey, could theoretically trigger wider entanglement. The View From Beijing, New Delhi and Moscow Beijing's response has been calculated silence, reflecting quiet satisfaction: a stabilised Pakistan and a Gulf-Pakistan security architecture protect China's Belt and Road investments without costing Beijing any political capital. New Delhi has responded with its now-familiar formula of "closely following the development," a deliberately non-committal posture that nonetheless masks real concern about Pakistan gaining diplomatic cover from Riyadh and Ankara during future crises, and about Turkey's known tilt toward Islamabad on Kashmir. Moscow, balancing its own strategic partnership with Iran against its interest in a Gulf less dependent on Washington, is likely to watch with pragmatic neutrality, benefiting from any dilution of US centrality in the region without alienating Tehran. Implications for India: Watching Is Not Good Enough! For India, "closely following" cannot remain the operative strategy for long. Three imperatives follow. First, New Delhi must insulate its bilateral relationship with Riyadh — built on energy, expatriate welfare and counterterrorism cooperation — from any spillover effect of Pakistan's elevated standing in Saudi calculations. Second, India should intensify defence and strategic engagement with Gulf states bilaterally, ensuring the Mecca pact does not translate into diplomatic isolation on Kashmir or cross-border terrorism narratives at multilateral forums. Third, India's own extended-neighbourhood posture — QUAD engagement, naval presence in the Indian Ocean, and defence diplomacy with Israel and moderate Arab states — should be calibrated to prevent this Sunni-bloc formation from consolidating into a coordinated diplomatic front against Indian interests. India also needs to handle the war of narrative related to it. India's MEA issued a "fake news" alert the same day, debunking a Turkish outlet's claim (sourced to anonymous Pakistani officials) that India had approached Israel for a defence pact in response to the Mecca agreement. Conclusion: A Framework in Flux The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement is best understood as a strategic hedge born of eroding faith in a single security guarantor, not a fully realised alliance. Its long-term significance will depend on whether it acquires institutional muscle — joint commands, expanded membership, defined triggers — or remains a symbolic pledge activated only in extremis. The history of such pacts has not been too encouraging as NATO used Article 5 only once in history in Afghanistan. For India, the credibility of this pact is no different than what Iran is testing regularly. The practical course to be adapted is neither alarm nor indifference, but sustained, calibrated diplomatic and defence engagement that ensures this compact reshapes West Asia's security map without reshaping New Delhi's strategic space. It needs to revisit some of its foreign policies as the geo-political landscape is changing in a manner not too favourable for India. The answers may lie within and outside West Asia.

This pact is less a finished alliance and more a strategic hedge - three states insuring against uncertainty by pooling reputational and military weight, without yet building the institutional scaffolding that would make the guarantee credible like NATO.

A new Sunni security architecture in West Asia: Decoding the Mecca pact and its fallout for India

As India marks the eightieth anniversary of its independence this month, it is worth returning to the opening words of Jawaharlal Nehru’s historic “Tryst with Destiny” speech. Few passages in modern political history speak as directly to India’s present aspirations as they do today.<blockquote>“Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.”</blockquote>Those words were not simply a celebration of freedom. They were a reminder that independence was only the beginning of a much larger national enterprise. The pledge had been redeemed only “very substantially.” The greater task still lay ahead.Nearly eight decades later, India’s aspiration of Viksit Bharat 2047, articulated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, can be viewed as the latest chapter in fulfilling that original promise. While India’s political landscape has changed dramatically since 1947, the country’s larger national mission has displayed remarkable continuity. Different leaders have pursued different priorities, but each has added to the long project of transforming India into a prosperous, confident and globally influential nation.Seen from neighbouring Sri Lanka, this continuity is perhaps one of the defining characteristics of modern India.Outside observers often focus on elections, ideological debates and changes of government. Yet beneath the robust contestation that characterises the world’s largest democracy lies a deeper national consensus: that India must steadily strengthen its economy, institutions, technological capabilities and global standing.Nehru’s generation secured political freedom, established democratic institutions and laid the foundations of a modern state. Later governments accelerated economic liberalisation, expanded infrastructure and integrated India with the global economy. Today, the emphasis has shifted towards advanced manufacturing, digital public infrastructure, innovation, defence capabilities and the ambition of becoming a fully developed nation by the centenary of independence in 2047.Each phase has reflected the needs of its time. Together, they tell a single story.For Sri Lanka, India’s evolution has never been a matter of distant observation. Geography ensures that India’s successes and setbacks inevitably shape our own prospects.A larger Indian economy means greater opportunities for Sri Lankan exports, tourism, investment and educational exchanges. India’s advances in digital public infrastructure, financial technology, renewable energy and manufacturing are already influencing the wider region. As India grows, neighbouring countries increasingly become participants in an expanding regional economic ecosystem rather than simply trading partners.This makes the success of Viksit Bharat relevant not only to India but to South Asia as a whole.Sri Lanka has experienced this first-hand. India’s support during our recent economic crisis, its humanitarian assistance following natural disasters, and its contributions to regional resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how a stronger India can serve as a source of stability for its neighbours. As India’s capabilities continue to grow, so too does its capacity to contribute to the prosperity and security of the wider region.Nehru’s speech, however, contained another message that deserves equal attention today.Its tone was one of responsibility rather than triumph.Freedom, he reminded his audience, brought “opportunities to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us.” Nation-building was presented as a continuous obligation requiring discipline, innovation and public purpose.That spirit remains equally relevant today.The aspiration of becoming a developed nation extends beyond economic growth. It also encompasses strong institutions, educational excellence, scientific innovation, efficient cities, environmental stewardship and ensuring that the benefits of prosperity are widely shared.The destination matters. So too does the character of the journey.These reflections resonate particularly strongly in Sri Lanka.In 2028, Sri Lanka will celebrate the eightieth anniversary of its own independence. Our national experience has been different from India’s, yet we too face the enduring challenge of translating political freedom into sustained economic and social transformation.Recent years have reminded us that independence is never a finished achievement. Every generation must renew the institutions, policies and national purpose that sustain it.In that sense, India’s present journey offers valuable lessons for the entire region.One lesson is the importance of thinking beyond electoral cycles. The aspiration of Viksit Bharat 2047 asks citizens to look across generations rather than governments. Such long-term national vision is difficult to sustain in any democracy, yet it is often the foundation of lasting transformation.Another lesson is the importance of confidence.When Nehru spoke on that midnight in August 1947, India faced poverty, illiteracy and immense uncertainty. Few would have imagined that within eight decades it would become one of the world’s largest economies, a leader in digital public infrastructure, a major space power and an increasingly influential voice in global affairs.The journey itself demonstrates what sustained national purpose can achieve.As India approaches the centenary of its independence, its greatest strength has been the continuity of its national mission. Successful nations build through continuity as much as through change. The institutions established by one generation, the reforms undertaken by another and the ambitions articulated by today’s leadership together shape the future.For Sri Lanka, this perspective is both reassuring and instructive.Our prosperity will increasingly depend on engaging with an India that is larger, wealthier, more innovative and more globally connected than ever before. Rather than viewing this transformation with anxiety, we should approach it with strategic confidence and imagination.If India fulfils its ambition of becoming a developed nation by 2047, the consequences will extend far beyond its borders. They will reshape South Asia’s economic landscape and create new opportunities for regional cooperation.Perhaps that is why Nehru’s opening words continue to resonate after eighty years. The “tryst with destiny” did not end at the stroke of midnight in 1947. It invited each generation to redeem the nation’s pledge more fully than the last. Seen from Sri Lanka, Viksit Bharat 2047 can be understood as a continuation of the aspirations that have guided India’s national journey since independence.

As India approaches the centenary of its independence, its greatest strength has been the continuity of its national mission. Successful nations build through continuity as much as through change. 

As India marks the eightieth anniversary of its independence this month, it is worth returning to the opening words of Jawaharlal Nehru’s historic “Tryst with Destiny” speech. Few passages in modern political history speak as directly to India’s present aspirations as they do today. “Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.” Those words were not simply a celebration of freedom. They were a reminder that independence was only the beginning of a much larger national enterprise. The pledge had been redeemed only “very substantially.” The greater task still lay ahead. Nearly eight decades later, India’s aspiration of Viksit Bharat 2047, articulated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, can be viewed as the latest chapter in fulfilling that original promise. While India’s political landscape has changed dramatically since 1947, the country’s larger national mission has displayed remarkable continuity. Different leaders have pursued different priorities, but each has added to the long project of transforming India into a prosperous, confident and globally influential nation. Seen from neighbouring Sri Lanka, this continuity is perhaps one of the defining characteristics of modern India. Outside observers often focus on elections, ideological debates and changes of government. Yet beneath the robust contestation that characterises the world’s largest democracy lies a deeper national consensus: that India must steadily strengthen its economy, institutions, technological capabilities and global standing. Nehru’s generation secured political freedom, established democratic institutions and laid the foundations of a modern state. Later governments accelerated economic liberalisation, expanded infrastructure and integrated India with the global economy. Today, the emphasis has shifted towards advanced manufacturing, digital public infrastructure, innovation, defence capabilities and the ambition of becoming a fully developed nation by the centenary of independence in 2047. Each phase has reflected the needs of its time. Together, they tell a single story. For Sri Lanka, India’s evolution has never been a matter of distant observation. Geography ensures that India’s successes and setbacks inevitably shape our own prospects. A larger Indian economy means greater opportunities for Sri Lankan exports, tourism, investment and educational exchanges. India’s advances in digital public infrastructure, financial technology, renewable energy and manufacturing are already influencing the wider region. As India grows, neighbouring countries increasingly become participants in an expanding regional economic ecosystem rather than simply trading partners. This makes the success of Viksit Bharat relevant not only to India but to South Asia as a whole. Sri Lanka has experienced this first-hand. India’s support during our recent economic crisis, its humanitarian assistance following natural disasters, and its contributions to regional resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how a stronger India can serve as a source of stability for its neighbours. As India’s capabilities continue to grow, so too does its capacity to contribute to the prosperity and security of the wider region. Nehru’s speech, however, contained another message that deserves equal attention today. Its tone was one of responsibility rather than triumph. Freedom, he reminded his audience, brought “opportunities to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us.” Nation-building was presented as a continuous obligation requiring discipline, innovation and public purpose. That spirit remains equally relevant today. The aspiration of becoming a developed nation extends beyond economic growth. It also encompasses strong institutions, educational excellence, scientific innovation, efficient cities, environmental stewardship and ensuring that the benefits of prosperity are widely shared. The destination matters. So too does the character of the journey. These reflections resonate particularly strongly in Sri Lanka. In 2028, Sri Lanka will celebrate the eightieth anniversary of its own independence. Our national experience has been different from India’s, yet we too face the enduring challenge of translating political freedom into sustained economic and social transformation. Recent years have reminded us that independence is never a finished achievement. Every generation must renew the institutions, policies and national purpose that sustain it. In that sense, India’s present journey offers valuable lessons for the entire region. One lesson is the importance of thinking beyond electoral cycles. The aspiration of Viksit Bharat 2047 asks citizens to look across generations rather than governments. Such long-term national vision is difficult to sustain in any democracy, yet it is often the foundation of lasting transformation. Another lesson is the importance of confidence. When Nehru spoke on that midnight in August 1947, India faced poverty, illiteracy and immense uncertainty. Few would have imagined that within eight decades it would become one of the world’s largest economies, a leader in digital public infrastructure, a major space power and an increasingly influential voice in global affairs. The journey itself demonstrates what sustained national purpose can achieve. As India approaches the centenary of its independence, its greatest strength has been the continuity of its national mission. Successful nations build through continuity as much as through change. The institutions established by one generation, the reforms undertaken by another and the ambitions articulated by today’s leadership together shape the future. For Sri Lanka, this perspective is both reassuring and instructive. Our prosperity will increasingly depend on engaging with an India that is larger, wealthier, more innovative and more globally connected than ever before. Rather than viewing this transformation with anxiety, we should approach it with strategic confidence and imagination. If India fulfils its ambition of becoming a developed nation by 2047, the consequences will extend far beyond its borders. They will reshape South Asia’s economic landscape and create new opportunities for regional cooperation. Perhaps that is why Nehru’s opening words continue to resonate after eighty years. The “tryst with destiny” did not end at the stroke of midnight in 1947. It invited each generation to redeem the nation’s pledge more fully than the last. Seen from Sri Lanka, Viksit Bharat 2047 can be understood as a continuation of the aspirations that have guided India’s national journey since independence.

As India approaches the centenary of its independence, its greatest strength has been the continuity of its national mission. Successful nations build through continuity as much as through change.&nbsp;

India at 80: From Nehru’s ‘Tryst with Destiny’ to Viksit Bharat 2047—A view from Sri Lanka

The rocket stage that hit the Moon on August 5 did not choose its target. Nobody was steering it. It had no fuel, no engine power and no plan. Travelling at about 8,700 kilometres per hour, the spent upper stage of a SpaceX Falcon 9 — leftover from the January 2025 launch of a lunar lander — struck the far edge of the Moon near Einstein crater, most likely throwing up a plume of dust and digging a fresh hole in the surface.&nbsp;It is a dramatic picture. But the real lesson is much closer to home, right above our heads.&nbsp;At this moment, more than 33,000 objects are being tracked in orbit around the Earth, moving at roughly 28,000 kilometres per hour. That is only what we can see and follow. Countless smaller bits are invisible to our instruments.&nbsp;A new study, The Space Debris Report (<a href="https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.accu.co.uk%2Fp%2F525-the-space-debris-report&amp;data=05%7C02%7CAjaypal.Choudhary%40wionews.com%7C1c16254212514d43d7f308def2d7800f%7Cd9454a4401f64fa99ad115ee73b1b80d%7C0%7C0%7C639215204536441993%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=reu8xRdPWXH6wzofGn6G99Yt5RrM5rkLTVmw2eh1wIQ%3D&amp;reserved=0">https://www.accu.co.uk/p/525-the-space-debris-report</a>), published by Accu Components, a precision engineering components supplier, has put numbers to this mess. The figures come from the Space-Track catalogue maintained by the US Space Surveillance Network, analysed by Accu, along with European Space Agency data showing about 15,800 tonnes of material trapped in orbit as of early 2026. Public catalogues today show slightly higher totals, since launches keep adding to the count month by month.&nbsp;Break the 33,269 tracked objects down and the picture becomes clearer. Of these, 17,682 are payloads, meaning working or dead satellites. Another 2,396 are rocket bodies — exactly the same category as the Falcon 9 stage that hit the Moon. A huge 12,550 are debris fragments, and 641 are unassigned.That means nearly 47 per cent of all tracked objects are junk. And since many satellites counted as payloads have stopped working, the real share of useless, uncontrollable objects is even higher. Put simply, for every 10 satellites in orbit there are 7 tracked pieces of rubbish.&nbsp;Why should this worry an ordinary person on the ground? Because these satellites are not distant toys. They run your phone's GPS, your weather forecasts, your television signal and, increasingly, your internet. A single collision can end a mission in a second.&nbsp;And size does not protect you. A tiny fleck of paint once chipped a window on the International Space Station. At orbital speed, even a small chip hits like a bullet. That is why spacecraft today must be built with heavier shielding and greater tolerance to impacts, which adds cost and weight to every launch.The most worrying part is that the problem feeds itself. Emily Sacchi, Aerodynamics Engineer at the Bath University Rocketry Team, warns that even if all launches stopped today, debris levels would keep rising, because collisions and break-ups create new fragments faster than old ones fall back and burn up.&nbsp;Who is responsible? The data shows the load is not shared equally, largely because of how long each actor has been launching and a few unusual events. Three actors account for 96 per cent of the 12,550 debris objects in orbit — China, the CIS (the former Soviet states) and the United States together account for 12,041 of them.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-hits-back-at-us-after-fresh-tariffs-blacklists-six-firms-curbs-drone-exports-1785925926486">China hits back at US after fresh tariffs, blacklists six firms, curbs drone exports</a>&nbsp;China's share comes largely from its 2007 anti-satellite weapons test, widely seen as one of the worst debris-creating events in the history of spaceflight. Thousands of fragments from that single test are still circling the Earth. The CIS figure reflects decades of Soviet-era activity. The American figure comes from a very long launch history plus the 2009 crash between the dead Russian satellite Kosmos 2251 and the working Iridium 33 satellite. That accident alone produced thousands of pieces, and hundreds were still in orbit more than a decade later.&nbsp;There is another useful way to read the data — the debris intensity score, meaning the number of debris objects in orbit for every active satellite an operator has. The global average is 0.71. China, France and the CIS have the highest scores, running three to five times above average, with China at close to 4. The European Space Agency, Canada, Germany and the UK show near-zero scores, suggesting a cleaner way of working.&nbsp;Solutions are being built. Under the idea of Active Debris Removal, engineers are testing laser brooms, magnetic capture systems and other methods to pull dead objects down. Ben Imber, Project Lead at Sheffield Hallam's Rocketry Team, says bigger organisations are already designing satellites that burn up fully on re-entry, or that plan their own exit path at the end of life.&nbsp;But he adds a caution. The field is still new and mostly limited to larger players. With many new companies entering, he says a common agreement or inspection process is needed as low Earth orbit becomes crowded.&nbsp;One question remains open. When debris burns up on re-entry, it does not vanish — it leaves fine metallic particles high in the atmosphere. Scientists are watching this closely because such particles may affect the ozone layer and cloud formation, and nobody yet knows how much the atmosphere can absorb.&nbsp;The Moon crash was the same story, only where we could see it plainly. Up there, one abandoned rocket found an empty crater. Down here, thousands of them are still circling — among satellites we use every day.

The Moon crash has highlighted the growing threat of space debris, with tens of thousands of objects orbiting Earth and raising concerns over satellite safety, future space missions and the long-term sustainability of space activities.

The rocket stage that hit the Moon on August 5 did not choose its target. Nobody was steering it. It had no fuel, no engine power and no plan. Travelling at about 8,700 kilometres per hour, the spent upper stage of a SpaceX Falcon 9 — leftover from the January 2025 launch of a lunar lander — struck the far edge of the Moon near Einstein crater, most likely throwing up a plume of dust and digging a fresh hole in the surface. It is a dramatic picture. But the real lesson is much closer to home, right above our heads. At this moment, more than 33,000 objects are being tracked in orbit around the Earth, moving at roughly 28,000 kilometres per hour. That is only what we can see and follow. Countless smaller bits are invisible to our instruments. A new study, The Space Debris Report (https://www.accu.co.uk/p/525-the-space-debris-report), published by Accu Components, a precision engineering components supplier, has put numbers to this mess. The figures come from the Space-Track catalogue maintained by the US Space Surveillance Network, analysed by Accu, along with European Space Agency data showing about 15,800 tonnes of material trapped in orbit as of early 2026. Public catalogues today show slightly higher totals, since launches keep adding to the count month by month. Break the 33,269 tracked objects down and the picture becomes clearer. Of these, 17,682 are payloads, meaning working or dead satellites. Another 2,396 are rocket bodies — exactly the same category as the Falcon 9 stage that hit the Moon. A huge 12,550 are debris fragments, and 641 are unassigned. That means nearly 47 per cent of all tracked objects are junk. And since many satellites counted as payloads have stopped working, the real share of useless, uncontrollable objects is even higher. Put simply, for every 10 satellites in orbit there are 7 tracked pieces of rubbish. Why should this worry an ordinary person on the ground? Because these satellites are not distant toys. They run your phone's GPS, your weather forecasts, your television signal and, increasingly, your internet. A single collision can end a mission in a second. And size does not protect you. A tiny fleck of paint once chipped a window on the International Space Station. At orbital speed, even a small chip hits like a bullet. That is why spacecraft today must be built with heavier shielding and greater tolerance to impacts, which adds cost and weight to every launch. The most worrying part is that the problem feeds itself. Emily Sacchi, Aerodynamics Engineer at the Bath University Rocketry Team, warns that even if all launches stopped today, debris levels would keep rising, because collisions and break-ups create new fragments faster than old ones fall back and burn up. Who is responsible? The data shows the load is not shared equally, largely because of how long each actor has been launching and a few unusual events. Three actors account for 96 per cent of the 12,550 debris objects in orbit — China, the CIS (the former Soviet states) and the United States together account for 12,041 of them. Also Read: China hits back at US after fresh tariffs, blacklists six firms, curbs drone exports China's share comes largely from its 2007 anti-satellite weapons test, widely seen as one of the worst debris-creating events in the history of spaceflight. Thousands of fragments from that single test are still circling the Earth. The CIS figure reflects decades of Soviet-era activity. The American figure comes from a very long launch history plus the 2009 crash between the dead Russian satellite Kosmos 2251 and the working Iridium 33 satellite. That accident alone produced thousands of pieces, and hundreds were still in orbit more than a decade later. There is another useful way to read the data — the debris intensity score, meaning the number of debris objects in orbit for every active satellite an operator has. The global average is 0.71. China, France and the CIS have the highest scores, running three to five times above average, with China at close to 4. The European Space Agency, Canada, Germany and the UK show near-zero scores, suggesting a cleaner way of working. Solutions are being built. Under the idea of Active Debris Removal, engineers are testing laser brooms, magnetic capture systems and other methods to pull dead objects down. Ben Imber, Project Lead at Sheffield Hallam's Rocketry Team, says bigger organisations are already designing satellites that burn up fully on re-entry, or that plan their own exit path at the end of life. But he adds a caution. The field is still new and mostly limited to larger players. With many new companies entering, he says a common agreement or inspection process is needed as low Earth orbit becomes crowded. One question remains open. When debris burns up on re-entry, it does not vanish — it leaves fine metallic particles high in the atmosphere. Scientists are watching this closely because such particles may affect the ozone layer and cloud formation, and nobody yet knows how much the atmosphere can absorb. The Moon crash was the same story, only where we could see it plainly. Up there, one abandoned rocket found an empty crater. Down here, thousands of them are still circling — among satellites we use every day.

The Moon crash has highlighted the growing threat of space debris, with tens of thousands of objects orbiting Earth and raising concerns over satellite safety, future space missions and the long-term sustainability of space activities.

Today's Moon crash: A warning we can't ignore

Pakistan's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting accused Al Jazeera of "yellow journalism" for its coverage of violence during the Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) elections. Users in Pakistan reported that access to the Qatari broadcaster's website had been blocked, though there is no formal government directive on this. This came days after a Pakistani general warned against Afghanistan-India ties, asking the Muslim-majority neighbour not to associate with 'kafirs', or disbelievers. But Al Jazeera is a channel from Qatar, a Muslim-majority nation with which Pakistan has traditionally enjoyed friendly relations. So it is not about ‘’kafirs". Then what is it?<h2>Kafir narrative punctured: Criticism of Pakistan is the problem</h2>On July 31, Pakistan Army spokesperson Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said: "Allah Almighty has made it very clear — do not take the kafirs [disbelievers] as your friends or protectors. If you do so, then you are no longer among the Muslims." Reacting to recent remarks by an Afghan Taliban minister that India and Afghanistan shared the same DNA, Chaudhry framed the relationship as one of master and slave. "RSS-BJP are masters, Taliban their slaves," he said, referring to India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological fountainhead, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).This is typical Pakistan, invoking a religious binary to explain geopolitical rivalries and casting itself as the defender of the Muslim world confronting hostile, non-Muslim adversaries.But none of this matters when Pakistan is killing or suppressing its own people, from PoJK to the regions along its border with Afghanistan, including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.If Pakistan can restrict, vilify, and delegitimise reporting by one of the most influential media organisations in the Islamic world, then kafirs are not its problem; scrutiny is.<h2>Don't kill the messenger: Nothing wrong with Al Jazeera reporting on PoJK violence</h2>The recent protests and their violent suppression in PoJK followed allegations of electoral irregularities and unrest surrounding the polls in the territory, which New Delhi does not recognise as part of Pakistan, maintaining that Jammu and Kashmir, including areas under Pakistan's illegal occupation, are inalienable parts of India.Pakistan could have responded with fact-based arguments addressing the substance of Al Jazeera's reportage through transparency or independent verification. Instead, its Ministry of Information and Broadcasting accused the broadcaster of "selective reporting" from "handpicked polling stations". It alleged that Al Jazeera had used "scripted statements" to serve "external actors with vested interests".It amounted to questioning, and then 'killing', the messenger rather than addressing the events on the ground, and asing the crucial question: Why are people in PoJK unhappy?There was no transparent, publicly notified prohibition on Al Jazeera issued by either the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) or the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, at the time of writing this.&nbsp; Instead, users reported that Al Jazeera's website had become inaccessible, suggesting an unofficial or extra-legal restriction rather than a formally declared ban.<h2>A Chinese model of digital censorship architecture: Pakistan's 'little Great Firewall'</h2>By the time you read this, access to the Al Jazeera website may well have been restored. And that is precisely the problem. In recent years, this has become a familiar pattern in Pakistan's digital censorship regime: websites disappear without formal orders, only to reappear later without explanation, making accountability almost impossible.That censorship is possible because Pakistan now has one of South Asia's — and perhaps the world's — most sophisticated systems of internet control, increasingly modelled on China's approach to censorship.Under Section 37 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), further strengthened through subsequent amendments, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) can block online content on broad and vaguely defined grounds such as "national security", "public order", or even the "glory of Islam".To facilitate this, Pakistan has deployed a Web Monitoring System, initially built around technology supplied by Sandvine.This has been expanded with capabilities comparable to China's internet filtering system, commonly referred to as the Great Firewall.&nbsp; Much like the Chinese model, Pakistan now possesses the technological capability to block URLs, filter keywords, inspect internet traffic through deep packet inspection, and compel online platforms to remove content within prescribed timelines.&nbsp; Circumventing these restrictions has become increasingly difficult because of VPN registration requirements and tighter licensing frameworks.<h2>Journalism, monitored: Pakistan's multipronged attack on media</h2>This digital control is reinforced by expanding bureaucratic oversight of journalism itself. The 2026 Foreign Media Facilitation Guidelines mandate that all foreign correspondents, freelancers, and stringers operating in Pakistan register with the government and obtain prior No Objection Certificates (NOCs) before reporting from most parts of the country outside Islamabad, Lahore, and Karachi.As reporting on PoJK increased amid the violence that killed dozens, the government tightened the implementation of these guidelines and further restricted access to sensitive areas.Clearly, the objective is to manage and suppress narratives, not enable independent reporting.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pok-violence-escalates-67-dead-as-india-rejects-pakistan-s-polls-as-a-cosmetic-exercise-gravitas-1785260044466">PoK violence escalates: 67 dead as India rejects Pakistan's polls as a 'cosmetic exercise' | Gravitas</a><h2>Pakistan's media blackouts are nothing new: Remember the Osama raid?</h2>The curbs on Al Jazeera are nothing new. Remember the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011? That single operation exposed the fact that the world's most wanted terrorist had been living for years inside Pakistan, close to a major military academy, raising uncomfortable questions that Islamabad struggled to answer for years.When the US Navy SEALs entered Pakistani territory to eliminate the al-Qaeda chief behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Pakistan asked international broadcasters, including CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera, Fox News, Voice of America, and Sky News, to halt live reporting and leave the area.Radio Mashaal was suspended in 2018 after being accused of anti-Pakistan reporting. The BBC has periodically faced restrictions. Local broadcasters such as Geo News have repeatedly been suspended or taken off air. Indian television channels remain banned. Numerous digital platforms critical of the government have been blocked or throttled.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/j-k-leaders-unite-to-condemn-crackdown-on-pok-protesters-call-for-dialogue-1785399859433">J&amp;K leaders unite to condemn crackdown on PoK protesters, call for dialogue</a><h2>Press freedom: A 'very serious' problem in Pakistan</h2>Pakistan ranks 153rd out of 180 countries in the 2026 World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), placing it in the "Very Serious" category. Freedom House classifies Pakistan as only "Partly Free" overall, while rating its internet environment as "Not Free".Military influence over the media, legal intimidation, digital censorship, enforced disappearances of journalists, and restrictions on independent reporting all contribute to these dubious distinctions.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pok-erupts-against-pakistan-protest-leader-declares-kashmir-is-occupied-territory-1784093238306/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/pok-erupts-against-pakistan-protest-leader-declares-kashmir-is-occupied-territory-1784093238306/embed</a><h2>Is external criticism ‘anti-Muslim’ for Pakistan?</h2>The Pakistani establishment — comprising the government, military, and intelligence apparatus — often invokes Islam as the defining faultline separating Pakistan from India.External criticism is frequently portrayed as an extension of prejudice against a Muslim state. Such religious framing collapses when critical reporting on Pakistan originates not from New Delhi, London, or Washington, but from Doha.Al Jazeera's reporting is not the work of a "kafir" state pursuing an anti-Islam agenda.<h2>So what's the moral of this story?</h2>States that are uncomfortable with independent journalism resort to crackdowns regardless of ideology, religion, or the geography of their critics.Discredit the reporter, question the channel's motives, invoke national security, tighten access, and restrict the flow of information.Pakistan's handling of Al Jazeera demonstrates precisely this instinct. It reveals that the Pakistani establishment's objection is not to criticism from non-Muslim countries.It is to criticism itself. It is about inconvenient truths.&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

Pakistan's restrictions on Al Jazeera over PoJK election coverage expose a pattern of media censorship, internet control and narrative management. This has nothing to do with its 'kafir' rhetoric against critics, as the broadcaster is from Qatar, a fellow Muslim nation. 

Pakistan's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting accused Al Jazeera of "yellow journalism" for its coverage of violence during the Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) elections. Users in Pakistan reported that access to the Qatari broadcaster's website had been blocked, though there is no formal government directive on this. This came days after a Pakistani general warned against Afghanistan-India ties, asking the Muslim-majority neighbour not to associate with 'kafirs', or disbelievers. But Al Jazeera is a channel from Qatar, a Muslim-majority nation with which Pakistan has traditionally enjoyed friendly relations. So it is not about ‘’kafirs". Then what is it? Kafir narrative punctured: Criticism of Pakistan is the problem On July 31, Pakistan Army spokesperson Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said: "Allah Almighty has made it very clear — do not take the kafirs [disbelievers] as your friends or protectors. If you do so, then you are no longer among the Muslims." Reacting to recent remarks by an Afghan Taliban minister that India and Afghanistan shared the same DNA, Chaudhry framed the relationship as one of master and slave. "RSS-BJP are masters, Taliban their slaves," he said, referring to India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological fountainhead, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). This is typical Pakistan, invoking a religious binary to explain geopolitical rivalries and casting itself as the defender of the Muslim world confronting hostile, non-Muslim adversaries. But none of this matters when Pakistan is killing or suppressing its own people, from PoJK to the regions along its border with Afghanistan, including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. If Pakistan can restrict, vilify, and delegitimise reporting by one of the most influential media organisations in the Islamic world, then kafirs are not its problem; scrutiny is. Don't kill the messenger: Nothing wrong with Al Jazeera reporting on PoJK violence The recent protests and their violent suppression in PoJK followed allegations of electoral irregularities and unrest surrounding the polls in the territory, which New Delhi does not recognise as part of Pakistan, maintaining that Jammu and Kashmir, including areas under Pakistan's illegal occupation, are inalienable parts of India. Pakistan could have responded with fact-based arguments addressing the substance of Al Jazeera's reportage through transparency or independent verification. Instead, its Ministry of Information and Broadcasting accused the broadcaster of "selective reporting" from "handpicked polling stations". It alleged that Al Jazeera had used "scripted statements" to serve "external actors with vested interests". It amounted to questioning, and then 'killing', the messenger rather than addressing the events on the ground, and asing the crucial question: Why are people in PoJK unhappy? There was no transparent, publicly notified prohibition on Al Jazeera issued by either the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) or the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, at the time of writing this. Instead, users reported that Al Jazeera's website had become inaccessible, suggesting an unofficial or extra-legal restriction rather than a formally declared ban. A Chinese model of digital censorship architecture: Pakistan's 'little Great Firewall' By the time you read this, access to the Al Jazeera website may well have been restored. And that is precisely the problem. In recent years, this has become a familiar pattern in Pakistan's digital censorship regime: websites disappear without formal orders, only to reappear later without explanation, making accountability almost impossible. That censorship is possible because Pakistan now has one of South Asia's — and perhaps the world's — most sophisticated systems of internet control, increasingly modelled on China's approach to censorship. Under Section 37 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), further strengthened through subsequent amendments, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) can block online content on broad and vaguely defined grounds such as "national security", "public order", or even the "glory of Islam". To facilitate this, Pakistan has deployed a Web Monitoring System, initially built around technology supplied by Sandvine. This has been expanded with capabilities comparable to China's internet filtering system, commonly referred to as the Great Firewall. Much like the Chinese model, Pakistan now possesses the technological capability to block URLs, filter keywords, inspect internet traffic through deep packet inspection, and compel online platforms to remove content within prescribed timelines. Circumventing these restrictions has become increasingly difficult because of VPN registration requirements and tighter licensing frameworks. Journalism, monitored: Pakistan's multipronged attack on media This digital control is reinforced by expanding bureaucratic oversight of journalism itself. The 2026 Foreign Media Facilitation Guidelines mandate that all foreign correspondents, freelancers, and stringers operating in Pakistan register with the government and obtain prior No Objection Certificates (NOCs) before reporting from most parts of the country outside Islamabad, Lahore, and Karachi. As reporting on PoJK increased amid the violence that killed dozens, the government tightened the implementation of these guidelines and further restricted access to sensitive areas. Clearly, the objective is to manage and suppress narratives, not enable independent reporting. Also read: PoK violence escalates: 67 dead as India rejects Pakistan's polls as a 'cosmetic exercise' | Gravitas Pakistan's media blackouts are nothing new: Remember the Osama raid? The curbs on Al Jazeera are nothing new. Remember the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011? That single operation exposed the fact that the world's most wanted terrorist had been living for years inside Pakistan, close to a major military academy, raising uncomfortable questions that Islamabad struggled to answer for years. When the US Navy SEALs entered Pakistani territory to eliminate the al-Qaeda chief behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Pakistan asked international broadcasters, including CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera, Fox News, Voice of America, and Sky News, to halt live reporting and leave the area. Radio Mashaal was suspended in 2018 after being accused of anti-Pakistan reporting. The BBC has periodically faced restrictions. Local broadcasters such as Geo News have repeatedly been suspended or taken off air. Indian television channels remain banned. Numerous digital platforms critical of the government have been blocked or throttled. Also read: J&K leaders unite to condemn crackdown on PoK protesters, call for dialogue Press freedom: A 'very serious' problem in Pakistan Pakistan ranks 153rd out of 180 countries in the 2026 World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), placing it in the "Very Serious" category. Freedom House classifies Pakistan as only "Partly Free" overall, while rating its internet environment as "Not Free". Military influence over the media, legal intimidation, digital censorship, enforced disappearances of journalists, and restrictions on independent reporting all contribute to these dubious distinctions. https://www.wionews.com/videos/pok-erupts-against-pakistan-protest-leader-declares-kashmir-is-occupied-territory-1784093238306/embed Is external criticism ‘anti-Muslim’ for Pakistan? The Pakistani establishment — comprising the government, military, and intelligence apparatus — often invokes Islam as the defining faultline separating Pakistan from India. External criticism is frequently portrayed as an extension of prejudice against a Muslim state. Such religious framing collapses when critical reporting on Pakistan originates not from New Delhi, London, or Washington, but from Doha. Al Jazeera's reporting is not the work of a "kafir" state pursuing an anti-Islam agenda. So what's the moral of this story? States that are uncomfortable with independent journalism resort to crackdowns regardless of ideology, religion, or the geography of their critics. Discredit the reporter, question the channel's motives, invoke national security, tighten access, and restrict the flow of information. Pakistan's handling of Al Jazeera demonstrates precisely this instinct. It reveals that the Pakistani establishment's objection is not to criticism from non-Muslim countries. It is to criticism itself. It is about inconvenient truths. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

Pakistan's restrictions on Al Jazeera over PoJK election coverage expose a pattern of media censorship, internet control and narrative management. This has nothing to do with its 'kafir' rhetoric against critics, as the broadcaster is from Qatar, a fellow Muslim nation.&nbsp;

Pakistan 'blocks' Al Jazeera website over PoJK reportage: So it's not about 'kafirs', is it?

opinions

Opinions & Blogs, News on Opinions & Blogs, stories on Opinions & Blogs, articles on Opinions & Blogs, Opinions & Blogs stories at Wion, Opinions & Blogs news, Opinions & Blogs latest news

opinions

The Verdict | Kill the leaders, save the regime? Why Iran refuses to fall

The Verdict: Can Pak be a peacemaker in Iran while using force in Afghanistan?

The Verdict | Putin is isolated — but not alone

The Verdict | Nepal wants climate reparations, but what about responsibility?