IND-W vs ZIM-W, 2nd ODI: Harmanpreet Kaur, Vaishnavi Sharma star in India's 121-run win

What is the real meaning behind Pete Hegseth's tattoos?

Telangana unveils AI avatar of IT minister D Sridhar Babu at Hyderabad DevFest 2026

'This is humiliation': Vijay Deverakonda under fire over controversial marriage proposal remark on Koffee With Karan 9

Pahalgam, Gulmarg record season’s first sub-zero temperatures as winter chill intensifies in Kashmir

Govinda breaks silence on divorce rumours with Sunita Ahuja, calls her his first love

Indian embassy warns nationals in Saudi Arabia against filming missile strikes

Can Putin cheat death? All about his daughter’s billion-dollar quest for immortality

Saudi says debris fell in Mecca, Medina after missile interceptions; Houthis deny targeting holy cities

Netanyahu warns Israelis of ‘existential threat’ from Iran, posts AI image of nuclear strike

Trump revives ‘shithouse countries’ slur, targets Abdul El-Sayed and Ilhan Omar at Georgia rally

Pakistan airline PIA unveils new crew uniforms, faces online criticism

Kerala judge's 17-year-old son allegedly driving Mercedes kills scooter rider

'Already tired of his 9-to-5': Baby born with a moustache becomes internet sensation, video goes viral | Watch

Bigg Boss 20: Rohit Shetty indirectly reacts to firing at his Mumbai home

Tiger Shroff’s team calls report on actor’s reaction to Mumbai attack ‘completely untrue’

Horrific video shows the moment 18-year-old fell to her death from Mexico amusement park ride

Russia-Ukraine drone attacks kill 6, injure 31 across both countries

'I promised Gautam & Kotak Sir that...': Tilak Varma opens up on match-winning mindset against NZ

‘Saddam Hussein opened a cheesecake factory’: Obama mocks Trump’s White House renovations; defends Abdul El-Sayed

Anthropic's leaked AI bill would act only at 50 deaths or $1bn in harm

China's dancing robot turns violent bodyguard, lifts cars and fights intruders - Watch

Why do some fighter jets have two engines while others use one?

Byeon Woo Seok makes first public appearance as Sung Jin Woo for Solo Leveling at Netflix Korea’s 10th anniversary event

New Friday OTT releases (October 23, 2026): Gajab Raat, Dorothy, Chaar Yaar- Watch these 6 new movies and TV shows on Netflix, Prime Video and more

'Clear overkill': Putin rejects claims Russia is behind mass protests in Europe

'If it was up to me, it wouldn't have ended like this': James Anderson opens up on Lancashire exit

‘Do I make a deal or finish them off’: What Trump said on resuming Iran strikes

Javed Akhtar backs Rashmika Mandanna after Koffee With Karan 9 accent trolling, calls out ‘linguistic superiority’

WATCH | Langur walks into Odisha repair shop, hugs shopkeeper; internet reacts to heartwarming video

Nagpur man fails to pay rent, allegedly prints fake Rs 500 notes worth Rs 37 lakh

Venezuelan opposition leader María Machado returns home after over 10 months in exile

‘Modi ka baap bhi jayega,’ Kharge loses cool at party event in Patna; BJP slams him

Why Europe’s protests are about more than austerity and rising costs

Kim Kardashian, Kris Jenner turn heads with Bold looks at All’s Fair season 2 premiere in Rome

Protests have spread this autumn from France to Belgium, Italy, Spain, Greece and Albania, with some turning violent. They are not centrally organised, and the grievances differ from school conditions, tuition, housing, living costs. The common thread is the sense of public provision thinning out.&nbsp;Governments across Europe are cutting deficits. France's draft 2027 budget contains €54 billion in cuts and savings, with education funding rising below inflation. Belgium is seeking €10 billion in savings. Spending per French secondary student was slightly lower in 2024 than in 2010, according to ministry data. Welfare programmes have not been abolished, but the pressure shows as frozen benefits, unfilled posts and decaying buildings. In Albania, the protest started against US billionaire Jared Kushner's luxury resort project. They then broadened to corruption and a shrinking social welfare net, now demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama.&nbsp;<h2>Western welfare states built in Soviet Shadow</h2>Several studies argue that Western welfare states expanded partly because of Cold War competition. Obinger and Schmitt found that regime competition raised social spending on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Petersen describes expansion as an anti-communist strategy, and Sant'Anna and Weller find that communist parties could push redistribution mainly when elites felt threatened. Michael Dover argues that elite support for welfare spending fell faster after 1991 as the USSR collapsed. Data compiled by economists like Thomas Piketty and networks like the World Inequality Database validate this sinister picture.&nbsp;The logic is that the Soviet Union, and strong communist parties and unions at home, gave Western elites a reason to buy social peace. When that rival system collapsed, so did the incentive. The thesis is contested, as welfare states also grew from domestic labour movements and national settlements, and the Cold War effect is hard to isolate statistically. This could further explain the protest across Europe being driven by the labour unions and left mobilisations. Nevertheless, it offers a useful vantage point for understanding the recent developments. Broad social provision was partly sustained by the need to preserve political legitimacy, and as the pressure diminished, governments face renewed demands for fiscal restraint.<h2>Social reproduction of elites</h2>Pierre Bourdieu developed the idea of cultural capital while studying the French education system. He argued that schools, although presented as meritocratic, reproduce class structure. Families transmit language, habits and familiarity with "legitimate" culture, which schools reward and the advantage is then converted into credentials and then into economic and social capital. In his work on elite institutions, he described how this process helps produce a governing class. .This framework explains who is affected when budgets tighten, and why schools become flashpoints. The Concours Général is France's most prestigious national high school academic prize; it deliberately sets tests on material outside the standard national curriculum, and the most comprehensive coaching for this is provided in elite public schools and wealthy private schools. The exam is required to get into good colleges, which has become deliberate screening based on the social location of childrenIf education is where advantage is passed on, then underfunded classrooms in poor areas and gatekept university admissions are not just service failures: they widen the gap between those who accumulate capital and those who do not. Students in several countries are protesting precisely about access, crowding and cost. The problem becomes more acute when these inequalities intersect with generational divisions.According to Pew, the global median age of national leaders is 63, while the current global median age is 31.1 years old, according to the latest United Nations demographic data. It is a representation gap: the people governing are about twice as old as the people governed.&nbsp;The world was and still is grappling with gerontocracy, as capital is reproduced and transmitted from one generation to another without a change in the composition of elites. The political authority remains concentrated among older generations even as the youth faces uncertainty over education, employment and housing.<h2>Capitalism and the ouroboros moment</h2>Capitalism needs a continuous loop of production and consumption. AI disrupts this loop by creating a structural paradox within the relationship. If companies successfully implement AI transformation and automate most of blue-collar and white-collar jobs, that loop of production and consumption loosens. Because workers are also consumers, a jobless economy leaves no one with the purchasing power to buy the very product that AI efficiently produces.However, it would be an oversimplification to ignore that these protests have specific reasons respective to their national politics, which are being worsened by the energy crisis and rising fuel prices seeping into core inflation. This evolving material condition across Europe will also increase the scope of resistance more and more in future.Bourdieu explains how social production of elites concentrates wealth and power. Where public provision thins, families with little cultural or economic capital lose the most, while those who already hold capital can buy private alternatives or navigate gatekept systems more easily.Combined, they suggest a sequence. The political pressure that once protected broad access to public goods fades, the reproduction of advantage becomes more visible, and the groups with the least capital turn to the street because they have fewer institutional channels and legitimate authority. Young people, who are entering systems of education and work with the least accumulated capital, are a natural group to mobilise.&nbsp;

Europe’s protests over austerity, public services and rising living costs expose deeper tensions over welfare states, elite reproduction and generational inequality.

Protests have spread this autumn from France to Belgium, Italy, Spain, Greece and Albania, with some turning violent. They are not centrally organised, and the grievances differ from school conditions, tuition, housing, living costs. The common thread is the sense of public provision thinning out. Governments across Europe are cutting deficits. France's draft 2027 budget contains €54 billion in cuts and savings, with education funding rising below inflation. Belgium is seeking €10 billion in savings. Spending per French secondary student was slightly lower in 2024 than in 2010, according to ministry data. Welfare programmes have not been abolished, but the pressure shows as frozen benefits, unfilled posts and decaying buildings. In Albania, the protest started against US billionaire Jared Kushner's luxury resort project. They then broadened to corruption and a shrinking social welfare net, now demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama. Western welfare states built in Soviet Shadow Several studies argue that Western welfare states expanded partly because of Cold War competition. Obinger and Schmitt found that regime competition raised social spending on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Petersen describes expansion as an anti-communist strategy, and Sant'Anna and Weller find that communist parties could push redistribution mainly when elites felt threatened. Michael Dover argues that elite support for welfare spending fell faster after 1991 as the USSR collapsed. Data compiled by economists like Thomas Piketty and networks like the World Inequality Database validate this sinister picture. The logic is that the Soviet Union, and strong communist parties and unions at home, gave Western elites a reason to buy social peace. When that rival system collapsed, so did the incentive. The thesis is contested, as welfare states also grew from domestic labour movements and national settlements, and the Cold War effect is hard to isolate statistically. This could further explain the protest across Europe being driven by the labour unions and left mobilisations. Nevertheless, it offers a useful vantage point for understanding the recent developments. Broad social provision was partly sustained by the need to preserve political legitimacy, and as the pressure diminished, governments face renewed demands for fiscal restraint. Social reproduction of elites Pierre Bourdieu developed the idea of cultural capital while studying the French education system. He argued that schools, although presented as meritocratic, reproduce class structure. Families transmit language, habits and familiarity with "legitimate" culture, which schools reward and the advantage is then converted into credentials and then into economic and social capital. In his work on elite institutions, he described how this process helps produce a governing class. . This framework explains who is affected when budgets tighten, and why schools become flashpoints. The Concours Général is France's most prestigious national high school academic prize; it deliberately sets tests on material outside the standard national curriculum, and the most comprehensive coaching for this is provided in elite public schools and wealthy private schools. The exam is required to get into good colleges, which has become deliberate screening based on the social location of children If education is where advantage is passed on, then underfunded classrooms in poor areas and gatekept university admissions are not just service failures: they widen the gap between those who accumulate capital and those who do not. Students in several countries are protesting precisely about access, crowding and cost. The problem becomes more acute when these inequalities intersect with generational divisions. According to Pew, the global median age of national leaders is 63, while the current global median age is 31.1 years old, according to the latest United Nations demographic data. It is a representation gap: the people governing are about twice as old as the people governed. The world was and still is grappling with gerontocracy, as capital is reproduced and transmitted from one generation to another without a change in the composition of elites. The political authority remains concentrated among older generations even as the youth faces uncertainty over education, employment and housing. Capitalism and the ouroboros moment Capitalism needs a continuous loop of production and consumption. AI disrupts this loop by creating a structural paradox within the relationship. If companies successfully implement AI transformation and automate most of blue-collar and white-collar jobs, that loop of production and consumption loosens. Because workers are also consumers, a jobless economy leaves no one with the purchasing power to buy the very product that AI efficiently produces. However, it would be an oversimplification to ignore that these protests have specific reasons respective to their national politics, which are being worsened by the energy crisis and rising fuel prices seeping into core inflation. This evolving material condition across Europe will also increase the scope of resistance more and more in future. Bourdieu explains how social production of elites concentrates wealth and power. Where public provision thins, families with little cultural or economic capital lose the most, while those who already hold capital can buy private alternatives or navigate gatekept systems more easily. Combined, they suggest a sequence. The political pressure that once protected broad access to public goods fades, the reproduction of advantage becomes more visible, and the groups with the least capital turn to the street because they have fewer institutional channels and legitimate authority. Young people, who are entering systems of education and work with the least accumulated capital, are a natural group to mobilise.

Europe’s protests over austerity, public services and rising living costs expose deeper tensions over welfare states, elite reproduction and generational inequality.

Durga Puja 2026 will be remembered as the year when West Bengal was stripped of its cultural ethos. A festival that celebrates good over evil, &nbsp;worships a goddess with limitless powers, and her homecoming, Durga Puja this year was in the news not for its stunning pandals, intricate idols, or the social messages represented through art each year. It was, instead, in the news for diktats, tragic deaths, hooliganism, and the death of intellect.&nbsp;Bengal, a land of artists and people known for their intellectual acumen, has been celebrating Durga Puja for centuries. The festival is as much a celebration of the goddess as it is a celebration of the state’s art and culture, and the collective intellect of its people. For Bengalis, Pujo is not just about devotion but also about feasting, pandal hopping, devouring the newest Pujo Sankhyas (Puja magazines), and reading a long-pending Tagore classic on a late afternoon post-bhog. In 2026, however, things considered staple by Bengalis saw intervention from the outside.&nbsp;Months after the BJP government came to power in the state for the first time, there has been a significant cultural shift, including about the way the party wants the people of Bengal to celebrate its beloved festival.<h2>The Veg Diktat: Imposing Norms on a Feasting Culture</h2>Weeks before iron rods were planted and blueprints carved into the ground for grand, state-wide pandals, the VHP threw a wrench into preparations with a startling decree. The Hindu group, along with Bageshwar Dham’s Dhirendra Krishna Shastri, urged pandal organisers to observe strict vegetarianism within pandals and keep vendors serving non-vegetarian food away from them. Some leaders also urged residents of the state to consume vegetarian food.&nbsp;One of the defining features of Durga Puja celebrations lies in Bengal’s cultural synthesis and inclusivity. Unlike the rest of India, where nine days of Navratri are observed with strict vegetarianism, Bengal celebrates Durga Puja as a feast, enjoying non-vegetarian culinary delights as they welcome the Goddess home.&nbsp;Thus, for many, the diktat felt like an indoctrination. The question was, how could some people or groups- that included those from outside the state - &nbsp;dictate dietary rules during the most-awaited festival of the year? The public pushback was almost immediate, as a feeling grew that it was an attempt to impose external religious norms on Bengal’s otherwise liberal socio-cultural customs. To many, it felt like an attack on individual freedom and the religious heritage that the festival historically embodied.<h2>Redefining Mahalaya: A Grand Spectacle That Missed the Mark</h2>&nbsp;As CM Suvendu Adhikari cleared Shastri’s stance, terming it only a ‘request’, his government faced fresh allegations of north-Indianizing the Mahalaya celebrations at Eden Gardens.&nbsp;Mahalaya, which marks the beginning of Devipaksha in the Hindu calendar, has been considered sacred for Bengalis from time immemorial. Scores of Bengalis across the world wake up in the wee hours of Mahalaya to hear the booming voice of Birendra Krishna Bhadra chanting the Chandi Path on the radio. It is a ritual that heralds the festivities six days later. Mahalaya has always been about remembering forefathers, accompanied by Bhadra’s voice setting the tone for the season.&nbsp;<blockquote>This year, Adhikari’s government decided to ‘open’ the Durga Utsav with an expansive cultural show at Eden Gardens—a holy place for cricket lovers in India. Imagine a Christmas carnival being celebrated at Lord’s? Yes, unthinkable.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;In Kolkata, Eden became the stage for an extravagance complete with a drone show and loud cheering. There is nothing inherently wrong with the show, except that it fundamentally misread Bengali culture. Somehow, the administration did not understand that Mahalaya is about paying respect and celebration in quiet reverence, not with pyrotechnics.&nbsp;&nbsp;The event met with sharp criticism on social media, with many feeling the ‘crass’ celebration gave Mahalaya a Diwali filter, complete with fireworks. Puritans squirmed: fireworks on the day of Mahalaya? Since when?&nbsp;<h2>The Chorbagan Tragedy: Systemic Neglect and the Cost of Grandiosity</h2>While the Bengali community rued the increasing North Indian influence on the revered festival, the deepest shock came during the main festival days. The tragic stampede in Chorbagan on Saptami evening claimed the lives of 19 people—mostly women and children—and left dozens injured. The Chorbagan pandal was one of the major draws of this year’s Durga Puja in Kolkata. Hundreds of thousands visited the pandal daily, but organizers evidently lacked emergency preparedness.&nbsp;The tragedy exposed severe lapses in crowd management, structural planning, and evacuation protocols. Critics argued that the emphasis on hyper-commercialisation, massive footfalls, and spectacular grandiosity overshadowed basic safety and public welfare. The organisers, comprising several BJP MLAs and leaders, went silent in subsequent days. On the day of the tragedy, eyewitnesses recounted that police personnel were missing at the venue while locals stepped up to handle rescue operations.<h2>Silencing the Written Word: The Vandalism of Literary Stalls</h2> So where was the police? They were ransacking and uprooting bookstalls across the city. The CPI(M) party traditionally puts up bookstalls during the festival, featuring not just books on communism, but also works by Tagore, Sarat Chandra, and more. Viral videos showed political goons ransacking and throwing books onto the road, destroying stalls even as police stood mute at a distance.&nbsp;<blockquote>Just as new clothes embody the spirit of Pujo, new books have long been the soul of Bengali heritage. Imagine a state famed for its intellectuals—a land built on the written word—now surrendering to thugs who relentlessly ransacked bookstalls, flinging the legacy of Tagore and Bengal’s other literary legends into street mud. All the while, state machinery stood by in cowardly silence, refusing to stain its hands as centuries of cultural pride were ground into the dirt.&nbsp;</blockquote>As the BJP came to power, many had breathed a sigh of relief, hoping it was finally the end of the TMC’s 'gunda raj.' But what transpired on the streets of Kolkata—accusing the Left of tarnishing culture and policing ideology via books—was nothing less than hooliganism. The deliberate attack on bookstalls symbolising Bengal’s intelligentsia hinted at changing times within the state where mob culture takes precedence over democratic institutions.&nbsp;In the months since Adhikari was sworn in as Chief Minister, the people of Bengal have witnessed multiple changes—from forced vegetarianism and shifting the fabric of puja celebrations to a tragedy where the state refuses to take accountability.&nbsp;It’s not that the state flourished under TMC rule; clashes between TMC, Left, and right-wing groups were reported during past Pujas, but they were mostly isolated incidents. However, one could witness that crowd management under the previous government during Durga Puja was far better.<h2>Reclaiming the Spirit of Sharodotsav</h2> The confluence of food diktats, the tragic loss of human lives due to systemic neglect, and the silencing of literary spaces left many arguing that Durga Puja 2026 lost touch with its founding spirit. For decades, Bengal’s celebration of the goddess has superseded religion, caste, and class. It is a celebration for all, by all. However, this year, instead of serving as a unifying celebration of art, intellect, and community, the festival became a battleground for political polarisation, commercial excess, and administrative failure.&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.)

From urging people to eat vegetarian food to vandalising book stalls and putting a Diwali filter on Mahalaya at Eden, Durga Puja in Bengal in 2026 witnessed a significant shift. Marred by the tragic stampede at Kolkata's Chorbagan, the festival made news this year for all wrong reasons. 

Durga Puja 2026 will be remembered as the year when West Bengal was stripped of its cultural ethos. A festival that celebrates good over evil, worships a goddess with limitless powers, and her homecoming, Durga Puja this year was in the news not for its stunning pandals, intricate idols, or the social messages represented through art each year. It was, instead, in the news for diktats, tragic deaths, hooliganism, and the death of intellect. Bengal, a land of artists and people known for their intellectual acumen, has been celebrating Durga Puja for centuries. The festival is as much a celebration of the goddess as it is a celebration of the state’s art and culture, and the collective intellect of its people. For Bengalis, Pujo is not just about devotion but also about feasting, pandal hopping, devouring the newest Pujo Sankhyas (Puja magazines), and reading a long-pending Tagore classic on a late afternoon post-bhog. In 2026, however, things considered staple by Bengalis saw intervention from the outside. Months after the BJP government came to power in the state for the first time, there has been a significant cultural shift, including about the way the party wants the people of Bengal to celebrate its beloved festival. The Veg Diktat: Imposing Norms on a Feasting Culture Weeks before iron rods were planted and blueprints carved into the ground for grand, state-wide pandals, the VHP threw a wrench into preparations with a startling decree. The Hindu group, along with Bageshwar Dham’s Dhirendra Krishna Shastri, urged pandal organisers to observe strict vegetarianism within pandals and keep vendors serving non-vegetarian food away from them. Some leaders also urged residents of the state to consume vegetarian food. One of the defining features of Durga Puja celebrations lies in Bengal’s cultural synthesis and inclusivity. Unlike the rest of India, where nine days of Navratri are observed with strict vegetarianism, Bengal celebrates Durga Puja as a feast, enjoying non-vegetarian culinary delights as they welcome the Goddess home. Thus, for many, the diktat felt like an indoctrination. The question was, how could some people or groups- that included those from outside the state - dictate dietary rules during the most-awaited festival of the year? The public pushback was almost immediate, as a feeling grew that it was an attempt to impose external religious norms on Bengal’s otherwise liberal socio-cultural customs. To many, it felt like an attack on individual freedom and the religious heritage that the festival historically embodied. Redefining Mahalaya: A Grand Spectacle That Missed the Mark As CM Suvendu Adhikari cleared Shastri’s stance, terming it only a ‘request’, his government faced fresh allegations of north-Indianizing the Mahalaya celebrations at Eden Gardens. Mahalaya, which marks the beginning of Devipaksha in the Hindu calendar, has been considered sacred for Bengalis from time immemorial. Scores of Bengalis across the world wake up in the wee hours of Mahalaya to hear the booming voice of Birendra Krishna Bhadra chanting the Chandi Path on the radio. It is a ritual that heralds the festivities six days later. Mahalaya has always been about remembering forefathers, accompanied by Bhadra’s voice setting the tone for the season. This year, Adhikari’s government decided to ‘open’ the Durga Utsav with an expansive cultural show at Eden Gardens—a holy place for cricket lovers in India. Imagine a Christmas carnival being celebrated at Lord’s? Yes, unthinkable. In Kolkata, Eden became the stage for an extravagance complete with a drone show and loud cheering. There is nothing inherently wrong with the show, except that it fundamentally misread Bengali culture. Somehow, the administration did not understand that Mahalaya is about paying respect and celebration in quiet reverence, not with pyrotechnics. The event met with sharp criticism on social media, with many feeling the ‘crass’ celebration gave Mahalaya a Diwali filter, complete with fireworks. Puritans squirmed: fireworks on the day of Mahalaya? Since when? The Chorbagan Tragedy: Systemic Neglect and the Cost of Grandiosity While the Bengali community rued the increasing North Indian influence on the revered festival, the deepest shock came during the main festival days. The tragic stampede in Chorbagan on Saptami evening claimed the lives of 19 people—mostly women and children—and left dozens injured. The Chorbagan pandal was one of the major draws of this year’s Durga Puja in Kolkata. Hundreds of thousands visited the pandal daily, but organizers evidently lacked emergency preparedness. The tragedy exposed severe lapses in crowd management, structural planning, and evacuation protocols. Critics argued that the emphasis on hyper-commercialisation, massive footfalls, and spectacular grandiosity overshadowed basic safety and public welfare. The organisers, comprising several BJP MLAs and leaders, went silent in subsequent days. On the day of the tragedy, eyewitnesses recounted that police personnel were missing at the venue while locals stepped up to handle rescue operations. Silencing the Written Word: The Vandalism of Literary Stalls So where was the police? They were ransacking and uprooting bookstalls across the city. The CPI(M) party traditionally puts up bookstalls during the festival, featuring not just books on communism, but also works by Tagore, Sarat Chandra, and more. Viral videos showed political goons ransacking and throwing books onto the road, destroying stalls even as police stood mute at a distance. Just as new clothes embody the spirit of Pujo, new books have long been the soul of Bengali heritage. Imagine a state famed for its intellectuals—a land built on the written word—now surrendering to thugs who relentlessly ransacked bookstalls, flinging the legacy of Tagore and Bengal’s other literary legends into street mud. All the while, state machinery stood by in cowardly silence, refusing to stain its hands as centuries of cultural pride were ground into the dirt. As the BJP came to power, many had breathed a sigh of relief, hoping it was finally the end of the TMC’s 'gunda raj.' But what transpired on the streets of Kolkata—accusing the Left of tarnishing culture and policing ideology via books—was nothing less than hooliganism. The deliberate attack on bookstalls symbolising Bengal’s intelligentsia hinted at changing times within the state where mob culture takes precedence over democratic institutions. In the months since Adhikari was sworn in as Chief Minister, the people of Bengal have witnessed multiple changes—from forced vegetarianism and shifting the fabric of puja celebrations to a tragedy where the state refuses to take accountability. It’s not that the state flourished under TMC rule; clashes between TMC, Left, and right-wing groups were reported during past Pujas, but they were mostly isolated incidents. However, one could witness that crowd management under the previous government during Durga Puja was far better. Reclaiming the Spirit of Sharodotsav The confluence of food diktats, the tragic loss of human lives due to systemic neglect, and the silencing of literary spaces left many arguing that Durga Puja 2026 lost touch with its founding spirit. For decades, Bengal’s celebration of the goddess has superseded religion, caste, and class. It is a celebration for all, by all. However, this year, instead of serving as a unifying celebration of art, intellect, and community, the festival became a battleground for political polarisation, commercial excess, and administrative failure. (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.)

From urging people to eat vegetarian food to vandalising book stalls and putting a Diwali filter on Mahalaya at Eden, Durga Puja in Bengal in 2026 witnessed a significant shift. Marred by the tragic stampede at Kolkata's Chorbagan, the festival made news this year for all wrong reasons.&nbsp;

Durga Puja in peril: From food diktats, tragic lapses to attacks on Bengal’s sensibilities

To provide historical context to the peculiar relationship between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, let’s take a stroll down memory lane, back to 2018 and Helsinki, where Trump’s courtship of the Russian dictator began in earnest. At a news conference after an unusually secretive two-hour meeting, not even note-takers were allowed, the question of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections came up.&nbsp;US intelligence concluded in 2016 that Russia was behind an effort to tip the election in Trump’s favour with a state-authorised campaign of cyber attacks against Hillary Clinton. A reporter asked whether he believed his own intelligence agencies or Putin, who had denied any kind of interference. “President Putin says it’s not Russian,” Trump responded. “I don’t see any reason why it would be.” Reaction from American officials on both sides of the political divide was fierce. Arizona Republican John McCain, one of the most senior and experienced members of Congress, termed the response a “disgraceful performance” and said “no prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant.”&nbsp;Similar harsh comment came from several other senior Republicans. The Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said that siding with Putin against American law enforcement and American intelligence agencies was “thoughtless, dangerous and weak.” Just hours after the joint press conference, a prominent Kremlin critic, Bill Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, coined the phrase “Putin is playing Trump like a fiddle.” The phrase went viral on the Internet and shaped the perceptions of many in the foreign policy community.&nbsp;The phrase gained fresh currency in October, when critics of both parties objected to Trump easing sanctions on Russia and concluding a deal with Putin to import hundreds of thousand tons of Russian diesel. Its high price is a prominent topic in the campaign for control of Congress in mid-term elections next month. (Nov.3)&nbsp;Widespread anger over high prices for diesel, gasoline and grocery are widely expected to cost the Republicans their slim majority in the 435-seat House of Representative and possibly the Senate as well. The sharp rise in the cost of living is largely the result of Trump’s war of choice on Iran which retaliated by closing the Strait of Hormuz which carries a fifth of the world’s oil. The resulting shortages have affected economies around the world.&nbsp;Trump is not known for accepting responsibility for anything that goes wrong and therefore is trying to rewrite history, blaming Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries for the high price of fuel. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, social media postings and impromptu remarks have left little doubt that in the longest war in Europe since World War Two, the American president’s sympathies have been more with Putin than with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky.&nbsp;In the alternative reality of the White House, Zelensky provoked the war and missed multiple opportunities to end the fighting. Putin is the victim in the conflict. “Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” Trump told reporters. “They haven’t been doing much.” This is a hard story to sell, particularly as Russia has been hammering Ukraine’s power grid with 170 attacks since mid-October. Neither Russia nor Ukraine observed a three-day “energy ceasefire” Trump declared they had agreed on. Rather than being an agreement between the two, the “ceasefire” looked like a unilateral declaration by Trump.&nbsp;His erratic handling of the Russia-Ukraine war deepened the anger of several Republicans enough to speak out. On CNN, Republican senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said: “Russians are lying. Putin is lying. Putin is playing Trump like a fiddle. And history is not going to look good on an America that failed to rise up and defend the Western world if Putin actually gets his way.”&nbsp;Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire echoed the “playing like a fiddle” theme. Foreign policy topics tend to have little impact on American voters. But they do when filling up their cars cost two dollars more per gallon than before the Iran war. A steep drop in Trump’s approval rating reflects their disenchantment. At 31 percent, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, it is the lowest since he took office in his first term.&nbsp;How worried Trump is about the elections has been highlighted by the fact that he has campaigned for Republican candidates even in deeply conservative states, including Kansas. The last time Kansas elected a Democratic senator was in 1932. But despite the bleak outlook for Trump’s party, he told a rally in North Carolina he was confident that the Republicans would defy history and the midterm odds. What are they? The incumbent party has lost seats in the House of Representatives in 36 of the last 39 midterm elections since 1946.

Donald Trump faces criticism over his ties with Vladimir Putin, Russia policy and Ukraine war as rising fuel prices, falling approval ratings and midterm election concerns threaten Republican control of Congress

To provide historical context to the peculiar relationship between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, let’s take a stroll down memory lane, back to 2018 and Helsinki, where Trump’s courtship of the Russian dictator began in earnest. At a news conference after an unusually secretive two-hour meeting, not even note-takers were allowed, the question of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections came up. US intelligence concluded in 2016 that Russia was behind an effort to tip the election in Trump’s favour with a state-authorised campaign of cyber attacks against Hillary Clinton. A reporter asked whether he believed his own intelligence agencies or Putin, who had denied any kind of interference. “President Putin says it’s not Russian,” Trump responded. “I don’t see any reason why it would be.” Reaction from American officials on both sides of the political divide was fierce. Arizona Republican John McCain, one of the most senior and experienced members of Congress, termed the response a “disgraceful performance” and said “no prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant.” Similar harsh comment came from several other senior Republicans. The Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said that siding with Putin against American law enforcement and American intelligence agencies was “thoughtless, dangerous and weak.” Just hours after the joint press conference, a prominent Kremlin critic, Bill Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, coined the phrase “Putin is playing Trump like a fiddle.” The phrase went viral on the Internet and shaped the perceptions of many in the foreign policy community. The phrase gained fresh currency in October, when critics of both parties objected to Trump easing sanctions on Russia and concluding a deal with Putin to import hundreds of thousand tons of Russian diesel. Its high price is a prominent topic in the campaign for control of Congress in mid-term elections next month. (Nov.3) Widespread anger over high prices for diesel, gasoline and grocery are widely expected to cost the Republicans their slim majority in the 435-seat House of Representative and possibly the Senate as well. The sharp rise in the cost of living is largely the result of Trump’s war of choice on Iran which retaliated by closing the Strait of Hormuz which carries a fifth of the world’s oil. The resulting shortages have affected economies around the world. Trump is not known for accepting responsibility for anything that goes wrong and therefore is trying to rewrite history, blaming Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries for the high price of fuel. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, social media postings and impromptu remarks have left little doubt that in the longest war in Europe since World War Two, the American president’s sympathies have been more with Putin than with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky. In the alternative reality of the White House, Zelensky provoked the war and missed multiple opportunities to end the fighting. Putin is the victim in the conflict. “Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” Trump told reporters. “They haven’t been doing much.” This is a hard story to sell, particularly as Russia has been hammering Ukraine’s power grid with 170 attacks since mid-October. Neither Russia nor Ukraine observed a three-day “energy ceasefire” Trump declared they had agreed on. Rather than being an agreement between the two, the “ceasefire” looked like a unilateral declaration by Trump. His erratic handling of the Russia-Ukraine war deepened the anger of several Republicans enough to speak out. On CNN, Republican senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said: “Russians are lying. Putin is lying. Putin is playing Trump like a fiddle. And history is not going to look good on an America that failed to rise up and defend the Western world if Putin actually gets his way.” Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire echoed the “playing like a fiddle” theme. Foreign policy topics tend to have little impact on American voters. But they do when filling up their cars cost two dollars more per gallon than before the Iran war. A steep drop in Trump’s approval rating reflects their disenchantment. At 31 percent, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, it is the lowest since he took office in his first term. How worried Trump is about the elections has been highlighted by the fact that he has campaigned for Republican candidates even in deeply conservative states, including Kansas. The last time Kansas elected a Democratic senator was in 1932. But despite the bleak outlook for Trump’s party, he told a rally in North Carolina he was confident that the Republicans would defy history and the midterm odds. What are they? The incumbent party has lost seats in the House of Representatives in 36 of the last 39 midterm elections since 1946.

Trump faces mounting criticism over his Russia policy, Ukraine war stance and rising fuel prices as declining approval ratings threaten Republicans ahead of midterms

US-Russia relations: Is Putin playing Trump 'like a fiddle'?

What happens when the timing of a potential military offensive appears to depend as much on elections as on national security? That is the uncomfortable question confronting Washington and Tel Aviv amid fresh reports that the United States and Israel are preparing for another round of strikes against Iran. According to reporting by the Financial Times and New York Times, military preparations are underway for possible renewed attacks, with Iran's nuclear infrastructure, missile facilities and other strategic sites reportedly under consideration. But the timing is politically explosive. Israel holds parliamentary elections on October 27. The United States follows with its midterm elections on November 3. Reports suggest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought renewed strikes earlier this month, but President Donald Trump opposed military action before the American vote. The distinction matters. Military preparations do not establish that an attack has been authorised. Nor does electoral timing, by itself, prove that either leader is manufacturing a conflict for political gain. Nevertheless, the reports raise legitimate questions about how domestic politics influences decisions with potentially devastating international consequences.&nbsp;https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-netanyahu-iran-is-war-waiting-for-the-midterms-1792686032406/embed Trump has publicly endorsed Netanyahu's re-election, describing the Israeli leader as a crucial partner against Iran. Yet Vice President JD Vance has declined to offer a similar endorsement, insisting that his immediate priority is America's own election.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="-">France reports first human case of livestock virus Shamonda, patient dies; what we know so far</a>&nbsp;Meanwhile, Tehran has threatened retaliation if attacked again. The risks extend beyond Israel and Iran. Another major confrontation could destabilise energy markets, threaten maritime trade, deepen the region's humanitarian crises and draw additional countries into the conflict. Iran's nuclear programme and ballistic missile capabilities present genuine security challenges. Governments have a responsibility to assess those threats and protect their populations. But the justification for military action must rest on credible evidence, necessity and lawful objectives, not electoral convenience. The question is not simply whether Washington and Tel Aviv possess the military capacity to strike Iran again. It is whether the political calculations surrounding that decision are receiving the scrutiny they deserve. Elections have deadlines. Wars have consequences that can last generations. And when the two become intertwined, the world has every reason to demand answers.

Reports of possible renewed US-Israeli strikes on Iran ahead of key elections raise questions about the influence of domestic political calculations on military decisions and their wider global consequences.

What happens when the timing of a potential military offensive appears to depend as much on elections as on national security? That is the uncomfortable question confronting Washington and Tel Aviv amid fresh reports that the United States and Israel are preparing for another round of strikes against Iran. According to reporting by the Financial Times and New York Times, military preparations are underway for possible renewed attacks, with Iran's nuclear infrastructure, missile facilities and other strategic sites reportedly under consideration. But the timing is politically explosive. Israel holds parliamentary elections on October 27. The United States follows with its midterm elections on November 3. Reports suggest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought renewed strikes earlier this month, but President Donald Trump opposed military action before the American vote. The distinction matters. Military preparations do not establish that an attack has been authorised. Nor does electoral timing, by itself, prove that either leader is manufacturing a conflict for political gain. Nevertheless, the reports raise legitimate questions about how domestic politics influences decisions with potentially devastating international consequences. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-netanyahu-iran-is-war-waiting-for-the-midterms-1792686032406/embed Trump has publicly endorsed Netanyahu's re-election, describing the Israeli leader as a crucial partner against Iran. Yet Vice President JD Vance has declined to offer a similar endorsement, insisting that his immediate priority is America's own election. Also Read: France reports first human case of livestock virus Shamonda, patient dies; what we know so far Meanwhile, Tehran has threatened retaliation if attacked again. The risks extend beyond Israel and Iran. Another major confrontation could destabilise energy markets, threaten maritime trade, deepen the region's humanitarian crises and draw additional countries into the conflict. Iran's nuclear programme and ballistic missile capabilities present genuine security challenges. Governments have a responsibility to assess those threats and protect their populations. But the justification for military action must rest on credible evidence, necessity and lawful objectives, not electoral convenience. The question is not simply whether Washington and Tel Aviv possess the military capacity to strike Iran again. It is whether the political calculations surrounding that decision are receiving the scrutiny they deserve. Elections have deadlines. Wars have consequences that can last generations. And when the two become intertwined, the world has every reason to demand answers.

Reports of possible renewed US-Israeli strikes on Iran ahead of key elections raise questions about the influence of domestic political calculations on military decisions and their wider global consequences.

War on the ballot? Trump, Netanyahu and the politics of attacking Iran | The verdict

Three leaders, three competing priorities and one proposed summit that could have far-reaching consequences for global security.The possibility of an unprecedented meeting between US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping has triggered fresh debate over the future of international diplomacy.The Kremlin has acknowledged discussions about a potential trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, China, on November 18 and 19.Trump has expressed willingness to participate, but no formal agreement has been reached.And already, the three powers appear to have different priorities.According to reports, Putin has proposed using the meeting to explore a settlement to the war in Ukraine. Trump, however, has suggested that nuclear disarmament would be a principal objective, alongside possible discussions on trade.Beijing has not confirmed the proposed gathering.The most immediate controversy concerns Ukraine.Ukrainian officials have strongly criticised the prospect of negotiations about their country's future without Kyiv's participation.Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha warned that a meeting involving Washington, Moscow and Beijing could encourage Russia to continue the war rather than accelerate peace.The diplomatic developments also come amid fresh Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, leaving hundreds of thousands of households without electricity.Meanwhile, Trump's recent decision to ease certain sanctions on Moscow and his criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have intensified disagreements between Washington and Kyiv.China faces a different calculation.Beijing maintains close strategic ties with Moscow while simultaneously seeking economic stability in its relations with Washington and Europe.It has also questioned proposals for trilateral nuclear disarmament talks, arguing that its nuclear arsenal remains considerably smaller than those of Russia and the United States.For the wider international community, the proposed meeting raises questions extending beyond Ukraine.Could three competing powers negotiate meaningful arms-control agreements? Would their diplomatic engagement reduce geopolitical tensions? And what role would smaller countries and established alliances play in decisions affecting their security?Supporters of renewed great-power dialogue may see an opportunity to reduce confrontation. Critics fear that negotiations conducted without directly affected countries could undermine their sovereignty and confidence in international diplomacy.For now, the summit remains hypothetical.But the debate surrounding it has already exposed a central tension in contemporary geopolitics: the difference between negotiating with powerful states and negotiating on behalf of those whose futures are at stake.Three superpowers may eventually sit at one table. The question is whether their discussions will produce a more stable international order — and whose voices will help shape it.

For the global community, the proposed meeting raises questions extending beyond Ukraine. Supporters of renewed great-power dialogue see an opportunity to reduce confrontation. But critics fear that negotiations conducted without directly affected countries could undermine their sovereignty.

Three leaders, three competing priorities and one proposed summit that could have far-reaching consequences for global security. The possibility of an unprecedented meeting between US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping has triggered fresh debate over the future of international diplomacy. The Kremlin has acknowledged discussions about a potential trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, China, on November 18 and 19. Trump has expressed willingness to participate, but no formal agreement has been reached. And already, the three powers appear to have different priorities. According to reports, Putin has proposed using the meeting to explore a settlement to the war in Ukraine. Trump, however, has suggested that nuclear disarmament would be a principal objective, alongside possible discussions on trade. Beijing has not confirmed the proposed gathering. The most immediate controversy concerns Ukraine. Ukrainian officials have strongly criticised the prospect of negotiations about their country's future without Kyiv's participation. Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha warned that a meeting involving Washington, Moscow and Beijing could encourage Russia to continue the war rather than accelerate peace. The diplomatic developments also come amid fresh Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, leaving hundreds of thousands of households without electricity. Meanwhile, Trump's recent decision to ease certain sanctions on Moscow and his criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have intensified disagreements between Washington and Kyiv. China faces a different calculation. Beijing maintains close strategic ties with Moscow while simultaneously seeking economic stability in its relations with Washington and Europe. It has also questioned proposals for trilateral nuclear disarmament talks, arguing that its nuclear arsenal remains considerably smaller than those of Russia and the United States. For the wider international community, the proposed meeting raises questions extending beyond Ukraine. Could three competing powers negotiate meaningful arms-control agreements? Would their diplomatic engagement reduce geopolitical tensions? And what role would smaller countries and established alliances play in decisions affecting their security? Supporters of renewed great-power dialogue may see an opportunity to reduce confrontation. Critics fear that negotiations conducted without directly affected countries could undermine their sovereignty and confidence in international diplomacy. For now, the summit remains hypothetical. But the debate surrounding it has already exposed a central tension in contemporary geopolitics: the difference between negotiating with powerful states and negotiating on behalf of those whose futures are at stake. Three superpowers may eventually sit at one table. The question is whether their discussions will produce a more stable international order — and whose voices will help shape it.

For the global community, the proposed meeting raises questions extending beyond Ukraine. Supporters of renewed great-power dialogue see an opportunity to reduce confrontation. But critics fear that negotiations conducted without directly affected countries could undermine their sovereignty.

The Verdict | Trump, Putin and Xi: A superpower triangle that could reshape global diplomacy

Picture a young jawan posted on a wind-lashed ridge in Ladakh, with nothing but rock and ice between him and the nearest town. For him, the difference between isolation and safety is a single thing: a working link to his commanders. By the middle of 2028, that link is expected to come from a satellite the Indian Army can finally call its own.&nbsp;Today, oddly enough, the Army has no such satellite. The Air Force and the Navy each have one, but the Army has been sharing the Air Force's satellite, GSAT-7A. Think of it as several families drawing water from one neighbour's tap. It works, but there is only so much to go around, and the owner's needs come first. For a force with lakhs of personnel scattered across deserts, jungles and the highest mountains on Earth, that arrangement has long felt inadequate.&nbsp;Senior officials said on Monday, 19 October, that ISRO is expected to launch the Army’s first dedicated communication satellite around mid-2028. Named GSAT-7B, it was originally due in November 2027, but technical difficulties have pushed the launch back by about six months. The groundwork was laid in March 2023, when the Ministry of Defence signed a ₹3,000-crore contract with NewSpace India Limited, better known as NSIL, the commercial company through which ISRO builds satellites for paying customers. That contract answered a need the Army had been raising for years.&nbsp;What will this satellite actually do? At five tonnes, or 5,000 kilograms, it will be the heaviest communication satellite India has ever built. It will sit in what engineers call a geostationary orbit, which simply means it travels around the Earth at exactly the speed the planet turns, so from the ground it seems to hang motionless over the same spot, like a lamp post fixed high above the subcontinent. From that height, a radio message can be bounced off the satellite from one valley to another, leaping over the mountains that ordinarily block signals. It will connect soldiers, units, weapon systems, aircraft and other essential equipment, letting commanders issue orders, coordinate troops and manage both routine duties and battlefield operations around the clock, securely and without interruption, even at the remotest border post.&nbsp;The real test, officials say, comes in war. One of the first things an enemy does is cut the ground communication lines, by striking towers and cutting cables. A satellite overhead keeps the conversation going when everything below has gone silent.&nbsp;But there is a catch, and it has a name: China. Beijing is rapidly expanding its space capabilities and already has jammers, which are devices that flood a satellite's frequency with electronic noise, much like shouting over someone to drown out their voice. It is also known to be developing weapons meant to disable or destroy satellites altogether. The lesson for India is sobering. Owning a satellite is only half the task; the other half is keeping it safe.&nbsp;GSAT-7B is one piece of a larger plan. The Navy received its new satellite, GSAT-7R, last November, when ISRO launched it to replace the ageing Rukmini. Built entirely in India, it lets warships, submarines, aircraft and shore-based control centres talk securely across the open sea. Just last week, the Ministry of Defence signed a second contract with NSIL, worth ₹2,563 crore, for a fresh Air Force satellite called GSAT-7C, also fully Indian-made, so that aircraft and ground systems can stay in constant touch. In short, each service will soon have its own voice in space.&nbsp;Talking is one thing; watching is another. Alongside these communication satellites, India is building a separate fleet of satellites whose job is to observe the ground, in effect unblinking watchmen above the planet. In October 2024, the Cabinet Committee on Security, the Prime Minister's top body for security decisions, approved the third phase of the Space Based Surveillance programme. The ₹26,968-crore plan will put 52 military satellites into orbit over the next three years. It is run by the Defence Space Agency, which sits under the Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff, the office that helps the three services work as one. ISRO will build and launch 21 of these satellites, and private Indian companies will supply the remaining 31.&nbsp;All of this rests on a shared rulebook. Last September, at the Combined Commanders' Conference in Kolkata, the armed forces released the Joint Military Space Doctrine, which lays out how the Army, Navy and Air Force should use space together. A National Military Space Policy is now being drafted to protect India's satellites and prepare for threats beyond the atmosphere.&nbsp;For the soldier on that frozen ridge, every policy and programme comes down to one assurance: when he calls, someone will hear.

GSAT-7B is one piece of a larger plan. The Navy received its new satellite, GSAT-7R, last November, when ISRO launched it to replace the ageing Rukmini. Built entirely in India, it lets warships, submarines, aircraft and shore-based control centres talk securely across the open sea. 

Picture a young jawan posted on a wind-lashed ridge in Ladakh, with nothing but rock and ice between him and the nearest town. For him, the difference between isolation and safety is a single thing: a working link to his commanders. By the middle of 2028, that link is expected to come from a satellite the Indian Army can finally call its own. Today, oddly enough, the Army has no such satellite. The Air Force and the Navy each have one, but the Army has been sharing the Air Force's satellite, GSAT-7A. Think of it as several families drawing water from one neighbour's tap. It works, but there is only so much to go around, and the owner's needs come first. For a force with lakhs of personnel scattered across deserts, jungles and the highest mountains on Earth, that arrangement has long felt inadequate. Senior officials said on Monday, 19 October, that ISRO is expected to launch the Army’s first dedicated communication satellite around mid-2028. Named GSAT-7B, it was originally due in November 2027, but technical difficulties have pushed the launch back by about six months. The groundwork was laid in March 2023, when the Ministry of Defence signed a ₹3,000-crore contract with NewSpace India Limited, better known as NSIL, the commercial company through which ISRO builds satellites for paying customers. That contract answered a need the Army had been raising for years. What will this satellite actually do? At five tonnes, or 5,000 kilograms, it will be the heaviest communication satellite India has ever built. It will sit in what engineers call a geostationary orbit, which simply means it travels around the Earth at exactly the speed the planet turns, so from the ground it seems to hang motionless over the same spot, like a lamp post fixed high above the subcontinent. From that height, a radio message can be bounced off the satellite from one valley to another, leaping over the mountains that ordinarily block signals. It will connect soldiers, units, weapon systems, aircraft and other essential equipment, letting commanders issue orders, coordinate troops and manage both routine duties and battlefield operations around the clock, securely and without interruption, even at the remotest border post. The real test, officials say, comes in war. One of the first things an enemy does is cut the ground communication lines, by striking towers and cutting cables. A satellite overhead keeps the conversation going when everything below has gone silent. But there is a catch, and it has a name: China. Beijing is rapidly expanding its space capabilities and already has jammers, which are devices that flood a satellite's frequency with electronic noise, much like shouting over someone to drown out their voice. It is also known to be developing weapons meant to disable or destroy satellites altogether. The lesson for India is sobering. Owning a satellite is only half the task; the other half is keeping it safe. GSAT-7B is one piece of a larger plan. The Navy received its new satellite, GSAT-7R, last November, when ISRO launched it to replace the ageing Rukmini. Built entirely in India, it lets warships, submarines, aircraft and shore-based control centres talk securely across the open sea. Just last week, the Ministry of Defence signed a second contract with NSIL, worth ₹2,563 crore, for a fresh Air Force satellite called GSAT-7C, also fully Indian-made, so that aircraft and ground systems can stay in constant touch. In short, each service will soon have its own voice in space. Talking is one thing; watching is another. Alongside these communication satellites, India is building a separate fleet of satellites whose job is to observe the ground, in effect unblinking watchmen above the planet. In October 2024, the Cabinet Committee on Security, the Prime Minister's top body for security decisions, approved the third phase of the Space Based Surveillance programme. The ₹26,968-crore plan will put 52 military satellites into orbit over the next three years. It is run by the Defence Space Agency, which sits under the Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff, the office that helps the three services work as one. ISRO will build and launch 21 of these satellites, and private Indian companies will supply the remaining 31. All of this rests on a shared rulebook. Last September, at the Combined Commanders' Conference in Kolkata, the armed forces released the Joint Military Space Doctrine, which lays out how the Army, Navy and Air Force should use space together. A National Military Space Policy is now being drafted to protect India's satellites and prepare for threats beyond the atmosphere. For the soldier on that frozen ridge, every policy and programme comes down to one assurance: when he calls, someone will hear.

GSAT-7B is one piece of a larger plan. The Navy received its new satellite, GSAT-7R, last November, when ISRO launched it to replace the ageing Rukmini. Built entirely in India, it lets warships, submarines, aircraft and shore-based control centres talk securely across the open sea.&nbsp;

Skyborne sentinels: How GSAT-7B gives the Indian Army its own eye in orbit

The French Revolution began with a promise to remake politics in the name of liberty and equality. Within a few years, some of its most fervent champions had gone to the guillotine, the republic was struggling to survive, and a general was preparing to concentrate power in his own hands. The revolution that challenged arbitrary authority had helped create the conditions for a new form of it.&nbsp;Nearly 250 years later, its warning remains relevant: overthrowing an order and constructing a durable political alternative are very different undertakings.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/close-up-your-borders-trump-blames-immigration-for-france-unrest-urges-macron-to-tighten-border-policies-1792443945584">'Paris is going to be a Muslim city very soon': Trump blames immigration for France unrest, urges Macron to tighten border policies</a>&nbsp;The revolutionaries were not all cynical opportunists. Maximilien Robespierre invoked civic virtue and equality; Georges Danton was a forceful revolutionary leader; Louis Antoine de Saint-Just pursued an uncompromising vision of republican virtue. Jean-Paul Marat gave voice to popular anger, while Jacques Hébert championed radical popular politics. Their convictions and methods differed, but they operated in an increasingly unforgiving political environment.&nbsp;Hébert was executed in March 1794, Danton in April, and Robespierre and Saint-Just in July. Marat had been assassinated the previous year. Their fates reveal a central paradox: a revolution can become so consumed by ideological purity and the identification of internal enemies that it destroys its own leadership. Yesterday’s champions become tomorrow’s suspects, and the struggle to defend the revolution becomes a struggle over who has the right to define it.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/those-who-have-destroyed-must-pay-macron-says-france-feels-anger-and-shame-over-protest-violence-1792350196466">'Those who have destroyed must pay': Macron says France feels 'anger and shame' over protest violence</a>&nbsp;France faced threats from within and beyond its borders. Royalists and other counter-revolutionary forces challenged the new order, including through major uprisings. The conflict in the Vendée became an especially brutal civil war. European monarchies, alarmed by the overthrow of the French monarchy and the treatment of the royal family, formed military coalitions against revolutionary France.&nbsp;Some threats were real. Yet the Reign of Terror demonstrated how emergency powers could acquire a momentum of their own. Suspicion became an instrument of political control, repression widened, and the distinction between defending the republic and eliminating its opponents grew increasingly blurred. A revolution that promised freedom found itself sacrificing liberty in the name of survival.&nbsp;The American Revolution offers an illuminating comparison. The Marquis de Lafayette participated in both revolutionary struggles, and France supported the American colonistsagainst Britain, partly to weaken its rival. Ironically, the financial cost of that intervention aggravated the French monarchy’s already severe fiscal crisis, contributing to the pressures that preceded revolution at home.&nbsp;Yet the two revolutions unfolded in different circumstances. The American struggle centred on independence from imperial rule and eventually produced a constitutional republic, although its founding ideals coexisted with slavery and restricted political participation. France confronted the more disruptive task of dismantling an established social and political order within its own borders. Its revolution became entangled with civil war, ideological purges and foreign invasion.&nbsp;Neither experience was simple or bloodless. Their contrast illustrates that revolutionary ideals do not determine political outcomes by themselves. Institutions, social structures, leadership, financial capacity and the external environment all matter. A compelling moral purpose cannot substitute for the foundations needed to build a durable political settlement.&nbsp;France’s passage from revolution to authoritarian rule was not inevitable. But the instability of the Directory, continuing war and public exhaustion with political disorder created an opening for Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1799, he seized power in a coup. The revolution that challenged inherited authority ultimately helped produce a new concentration of it.&nbsp;Later revolutionary leaders also studied earlier upheavals. Lenin drew lessons from the French Revolution, particularly the Jacobin experience, in thinking about how revolutionary movements acquire and exercise power. Ho Chi Minh developed his political outlook during his years in France, where he became involved in socialist and anti-colonial politics. Mao Zedong argued that the experience of earlier revolutionary wars should be studied and adapted to present circumstances, not copied mechanically. Yet historical knowledge is no guarantee against historical error: revolutionary movements can still produce coercion and concentrated power.&nbsp;Today, mass mobilisation is a powerful feature of politics across South Asia and beyond, including in France itself. Economic insecurity, inequality and declining confidence in established institutions can bring together citizens who might otherwise have little in common. Digital networks accelerate mobilisation, but the ability to bring large numbers into the streets does not automatically confer a mandate to govern.&nbsp;What unites people in opposition may not unite them in government. A student demanding opportunity, a worker seeking economic security, a professional calling for accountability and a political organisation pursuing power may march together while imagining very different futures. Agreement about what must end is easily mistaken for agreement about what should follow.&nbsp;This does not diminish the legitimacy of peaceful protest or the need for fundamental reform. Institutions that systematically fail their citizens must change. The distinction is between dismantling abuses and dismantling the safeguards that prevent new abuses. Political accountability can become vengeance; removing a leadership can leave a vacuum that the best-organised faction or an opportunist promising order is ready to fill.&nbsp;Every mass movement needs a credible political endgame. How will power be transferred and the transition managed? How will competing interests be reconciled, minorities protected and accountability pursued without turning justice into vengeance? These are not questions to postpone until victory; they are essential to defining it.&nbsp;The French Revolution changed the world, but its legacy cannot be reduced either to its ideals or its violence. It demonstrated the capacity of popular movements to challenge entrenched privilege, but also the danger of allowing the struggle for political purity to overwhelm restraint. Napoleon’s rise was not inevitable, yet it exposed the consequences of a political order unable to secure a stable and legitimate settlement.&nbsp;Winston Churchill is often associated with the observation that studying history is essential to statecraft. History offers no ready-made blueprint, and contemporary movements should not be forced into the mould of eighteenth-century France. But it reveals recurring dangers that political enthusiasm can obscure.&nbsp;The central question for any mass movement is not simply how to bring an old order to an end. It is what kind of order will replace it, and whether those leading the struggle possess the wisdom, discipline and institutional imagination to build it.&nbsp;The ability to mobilise a crowd is not the same as the ability to govern a country. That is a lesson France paid dearly to learn—and one contemporary politics would be unwise to forget.&nbsp;Milinda Moragoda is a former Cabinet Minister and diplomat from Sri Lanka and founder of the Pathfinder Foundation, a strategic affairs think tank.&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.)

Started with ideals of liberty, the French Revolution ended in dictatorship—a timeless warning that overthrowing an old regime is far easier than building a durable political alternative.

The French Revolution began with a promise to remake politics in the name of liberty and equality. Within a few years, some of its most fervent champions had gone to the guillotine, the republic was struggling to survive, and a general was preparing to concentrate power in his own hands. The revolution that challenged arbitrary authority had helped create the conditions for a new form of it. Nearly 250 years later, its warning remains relevant: overthrowing an order and constructing a durable political alternative are very different undertakings. Also read: 'Paris is going to be a Muslim city very soon': Trump blames immigration for France unrest, urges Macron to tighten border policies The revolutionaries were not all cynical opportunists. Maximilien Robespierre invoked civic virtue and equality; Georges Danton was a forceful revolutionary leader; Louis Antoine de Saint-Just pursued an uncompromising vision of republican virtue. Jean-Paul Marat gave voice to popular anger, while Jacques Hébert championed radical popular politics. Their convictions and methods differed, but they operated in an increasingly unforgiving political environment. Hébert was executed in March 1794, Danton in April, and Robespierre and Saint-Just in July. Marat had been assassinated the previous year. Their fates reveal a central paradox: a revolution can become so consumed by ideological purity and the identification of internal enemies that it destroys its own leadership. Yesterday’s champions become tomorrow’s suspects, and the struggle to defend the revolution becomes a struggle over who has the right to define it. Also read: 'Those who have destroyed must pay': Macron says France feels 'anger and shame' over protest violence France faced threats from within and beyond its borders. Royalists and other counter-revolutionary forces challenged the new order, including through major uprisings. The conflict in the Vendée became an especially brutal civil war. European monarchies, alarmed by the overthrow of the French monarchy and the treatment of the royal family, formed military coalitions against revolutionary France. Some threats were real. Yet the Reign of Terror demonstrated how emergency powers could acquire a momentum of their own. Suspicion became an instrument of political control, repression widened, and the distinction between defending the republic and eliminating its opponents grew increasingly blurred. A revolution that promised freedom found itself sacrificing liberty in the name of survival. The American Revolution offers an illuminating comparison. The Marquis de Lafayette participated in both revolutionary struggles, and France supported the American colonists against Britain, partly to weaken its rival. Ironically, the financial cost of that intervention aggravated the French monarchy’s already severe fiscal crisis, contributing to the pressures that preceded revolution at home. Yet the two revolutions unfolded in different circumstances. The American struggle centred on independence from imperial rule and eventually produced a constitutional republic, although its founding ideals coexisted with slavery and restricted political participation. France confronted the more disruptive task of dismantling an established social and political order within its own borders. Its revolution became entangled with civil war, ideological purges and foreign invasion. Neither experience was simple or bloodless. Their contrast illustrates that revolutionary ideals do not determine political outcomes by themselves. Institutions, social structures, leadership, financial capacity and the external environment all matter. A compelling moral purpose cannot substitute for the foundations needed to build a durable political settlement. France’s passage from revolution to authoritarian rule was not inevitable. But the instability of the Directory, continuing war and public exhaustion with political disorder created an opening for Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1799, he seized power in a coup. The revolution that challenged inherited authority ultimately helped produce a new concentration of it. Later revolutionary leaders also studied earlier upheavals. Lenin drew lessons from the French Revolution, particularly the Jacobin experience, in thinking about how revolutionary movements acquire and exercise power. Ho Chi Minh developed his political outlook during his years in France, where he became involved in socialist and anti-colonial politics. Mao Zedong argued that the experience of earlier revolutionary wars should be studied and adapted to present circumstances, not copied mechanically. Yet historical knowledge is no guarantee against historical error: revolutionary movements can still produce coercion and concentrated power. Today, mass mobilisation is a powerful feature of politics across South Asia and beyond, including in France itself. Economic insecurity, inequality and declining confidence in established institutions can bring together citizens who might otherwise have little in common. Digital networks accelerate mobilisation, but the ability to bring large numbers into the streets does not automatically confer a mandate to govern. What unites people in opposition may not unite them in government. A student demanding opportunity, a worker seeking economic security, a professional calling for accountability and a political organisation pursuing power may march together while imagining very different futures. Agreement about what must end is easily mistaken for agreement about what should follow. This does not diminish the legitimacy of peaceful protest or the need for fundamental reform. Institutions that systematically fail their citizens must change. The distinction is between dismantling abuses and dismantling the safeguards that prevent new abuses. Political accountability can become vengeance; removing a leadership can leave a vacuum that the best-organised faction or an opportunist promising order is ready to fill. Every mass movement needs a credible political endgame. How will power be transferred and the transition managed? How will competing interests be reconciled, minorities protected and accountability pursued without turning justice into vengeance? These are not questions to postpone until victory; they are essential to defining it. The French Revolution changed the world, but its legacy cannot be reduced either to its ideals or its violence. It demonstrated the capacity of popular movements to challenge entrenched privilege, but also the danger of allowing the struggle for political purity to overwhelm restraint. Napoleon’s rise was not inevitable, yet it exposed the consequences of a political order unable to secure a stable and legitimate settlement. Winston Churchill is often associated with the observation that studying history is essential to statecraft. History offers no ready-made blueprint, and contemporary movements should not be forced into the mould of eighteenth-century France. But it reveals recurring dangers that political enthusiasm can obscure. The central question for any mass movement is not simply how to bring an old order to an end. It is what kind of order will replace it, and whether those leading the struggle possess the wisdom, discipline and institutional imagination to build it. The ability to mobilise a crowd is not the same as the ability to govern a country. That is a lesson France paid dearly to learn—and one contemporary politics would be unwise to forget. Milinda Moragoda is a former Cabinet Minister and diplomat from Sri Lanka and founder of the Pathfinder Foundation, a strategic affairs think tank. (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.)

Started with ideals of liberty, the French Revolution ended in dictatorship—a timeless warning that overthrowing an old regime is far easier than building a durable political alternative.

When revolutions consume their own: Lessons from France for a restless world

France is burning, Europe is protesting, and US President Donald Trump believes he has identified the culprit: immigration. But as French cities count the cost of widespread violence, an uncomfortable question is emerging. Is immigration responsible for the unrest, or has it become a convenient explanation for a much deeper crisis of governance, economic pressure and public frustration? The demonstrations began with students demanding improvements in education. Poor school facilities, teacher shortages and deteriorating conditions sparked protests that soon expanded into a nationwide movement over the cost of living, wages, inequality and public services. By the weekend, hundreds of thousands had taken to the streets. Most demonstrations were peaceful, but violence erupted in several cities. In Paris, Marseille, Lyon and elsewhere, rioters attacked police, vandalised businesses and set buildings ablaze. The historic city hall in Limoges was among the buildings damaged by fire. More than 1,800 arrests were reported, while hundreds of emergency personnel were injured. There can be no justification for arson, looting or assaults on police officers. The right to protest does not extend to destroying public institutions or terrorising communities. But condemning violence should not mean ignoring the grievances that brought people onto the streets. President Emmanuel Macron faces mounting questions over his government's response. On Monday, he rejected Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez's offer to resign, while demanding action to restore order and transparency over failures in security preparation and intelligence. The mayors of Paris, Marseille and Lyon have also criticised the authorities, saying sections of their cities were left inadequately protected. For Macron, the unrest arrives at a particularly difficult moment. France is grappling with mounting debt, economic pressures, budget challenges and growing public dissatisfaction ahead of its next presidential election. Yet from Washington, Trump offered a very different diagnosis. In a post on Truth Social, the US president declared that France was burning, blamed people arriving from different cultural backgrounds and urged the country to close its borders. Vice President JD Vance advanced a similar argument, criticising Europe's approach to migration and integration. Immigration is a legitimate subject for public debate. Governments have a responsibility to manage borders, enforce the law and address integration challenges.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/netanyahu-rival-benny-gantz-quits-israel-election-race-vows-to-push-for-unity-government-1792424498362">Netanyahu rival Benny Gantz quits Israel election race, vows to push for unity government</a>&nbsp;But those responsibilities do not establish that immigrants caused France's present unrest. The protests emerged from documented complaints about schools, living costs and public services.&nbsp;Blaming an entire population for the violence without evidence risks replacing serious analysis with political scapegoating. There is another contradiction. The economic pressures troubling France are not confined to France. In Italy, protesters have rallied against rising fuel costs and government policies. In Portugal, housing affordability and living expenses have driven demonstrations. Belgium and Albania have also experienced protests linked to economic and governance concerns. These movements differ in their origins, demands and intensity. They should not be presented as one coordinated European uprising. Nevertheless, they expose a shared challenge confronting political leaders: the growing distance between what governments promise and what citizens experience. Across much of Europe, ordinary households are struggling with affordability, public services and uncertainty over their economic futures. The war in Iran and its effects on energy prices have added further pressure. In that environment, reducing every protest to immigration risks overlooking the very issues that elected governments are expected to address. It also raises a question for Washington. If Trump is genuinely concerned about France's stability, why not acknowledge the demands of French students, workers and families alongside the violence? Why is immigration presented as the explanation before responsibility for the riots has been established? Political leaders have every right to argue for tougher migration policies. But they also have an obligation to distinguish evidence from rhetoric. France must investigate the violence, prosecute those responsible and protect the right to peaceful protest. Macron's government must confront the public-service failures and economic grievances that helped fuel the demonstrations. And Europe's leaders must recognise that discontent over affordability and governance cannot be dismissed indefinitely. As for Trump, his diagnosis deserves the same scrutiny as any other political claim. France needs accountability. Europe needs answers. And Donald Trump needs evidence. Because blaming outsiders may be politically convenient. But it will not put out the fire.

France’s unrest has reignited the immigration debate, but the protests also highlight deeper concerns over economic pressures, public services and governance across Europe.

France is burning, Europe is protesting, and US President Donald Trump believes he has identified the culprit: immigration. But as French cities count the cost of widespread violence, an uncomfortable question is emerging. Is immigration responsible for the unrest, or has it become a convenient explanation for a much deeper crisis of governance, economic pressure and public frustration? The demonstrations began with students demanding improvements in education. Poor school facilities, teacher shortages and deteriorating conditions sparked protests that soon expanded into a nationwide movement over the cost of living, wages, inequality and public services. By the weekend, hundreds of thousands had taken to the streets. Most demonstrations were peaceful, but violence erupted in several cities. In Paris, Marseille, Lyon and elsewhere, rioters attacked police, vandalised businesses and set buildings ablaze. The historic city hall in Limoges was among the buildings damaged by fire. More than 1,800 arrests were reported, while hundreds of emergency personnel were injured. There can be no justification for arson, looting or assaults on police officers. The right to protest does not extend to destroying public institutions or terrorising communities. But condemning violence should not mean ignoring the grievances that brought people onto the streets. President Emmanuel Macron faces mounting questions over his government's response. On Monday, he rejected Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez's offer to resign, while demanding action to restore order and transparency over failures in security preparation and intelligence. The mayors of Paris, Marseille and Lyon have also criticised the authorities, saying sections of their cities were left inadequately protected. For Macron, the unrest arrives at a particularly difficult moment. France is grappling with mounting debt, economic pressures, budget challenges and growing public dissatisfaction ahead of its next presidential election. Yet from Washington, Trump offered a very different diagnosis. In a post on Truth Social, the US president declared that France was burning, blamed people arriving from different cultural backgrounds and urged the country to close its borders. Vice President JD Vance advanced a similar argument, criticising Europe's approach to migration and integration. Immigration is a legitimate subject for public debate. Governments have a responsibility to manage borders, enforce the law and address integration challenges. Also Read: Netanyahu rival Benny Gantz quits Israel election race, vows to push for unity government But those responsibilities do not establish that immigrants caused France's present unrest. The protests emerged from documented complaints about schools, living costs and public services. Blaming an entire population for the violence without evidence risks replacing serious analysis with political scapegoating. There is another contradiction. The economic pressures troubling France are not confined to France. In Italy, protesters have rallied against rising fuel costs and government policies. In Portugal, housing affordability and living expenses have driven demonstrations. Belgium and Albania have also experienced protests linked to economic and governance concerns. These movements differ in their origins, demands and intensity. They should not be presented as one coordinated European uprising. Nevertheless, they expose a shared challenge confronting political leaders: the growing distance between what governments promise and what citizens experience. Across much of Europe, ordinary households are struggling with affordability, public services and uncertainty over their economic futures. The war in Iran and its effects on energy prices have added further pressure. In that environment, reducing every protest to immigration risks overlooking the very issues that elected governments are expected to address. It also raises a question for Washington. If Trump is genuinely concerned about France's stability, why not acknowledge the demands of French students, workers and families alongside the violence? Why is immigration presented as the explanation before responsibility for the riots has been established? Political leaders have every right to argue for tougher migration policies. But they also have an obligation to distinguish evidence from rhetoric. France must investigate the violence, prosecute those responsible and protect the right to peaceful protest. Macron's government must confront the public-service failures and economic grievances that helped fuel the demonstrations. And Europe's leaders must recognise that discontent over affordability and governance cannot be dismissed indefinitely. As for Trump, his diagnosis deserves the same scrutiny as any other political claim. France needs accountability. Europe needs answers. And Donald Trump needs evidence. Because blaming outsiders may be politically convenient. But it will not put out the fire.

France’s unrest has reignited the immigration debate, but the protests also highlight deeper concerns over economic pressures, public services and governance across Europe.

France is burning. Trump blames immigrants. But who is answering Europe's real questions? | The Verdict

From Delhi to Mumbai, youth-led demonstrations have reignited debate over electoral accountability, civil liberties and the constitutional right to protest. But as political demands grow louder and police restrictions face scrutiny, a larger question emerges: can India's Gen Z translate street mobilisation into lasting change? India's youth-led political activism has entered another consequential phase. At the centre of the latest demonstrations is the Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP, whose campaign over electoral transparency has drawn attention to the boundaries between peaceful dissent and public-order enforcement. The movement has dubbed its latest march “Lehra Do Tiranga” — Let the Tricolour Fly, presenting the Tiranga Yatra as a demonstration of democratic expression and national identity. Its immediate demands include electoral accountability and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Some voices in the wider protest movement have also called for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to resign. However, those broader demands should not be confused with the CJP's stated immediate objective. The distinction is important because calls for accountability, demands for political resignation and attempts to change a government involve different political and constitutional processes.<h2>Delhi and Mumbai: One movement, two police responses</h2>The contrasting treatment of demonstrations in Delhi and Mumbai has become central to the debate. Mumbai Police permitted a Tiranga rally at Azad Maidan, while Delhi Police restricted a proposed gathering at Connaught Place, citing public-order concerns and the potential disruption of commercial activity. Ahead of the Delhi demonstration, police officers visited the residence where CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke was staying and served him a notice concerning the planned march. The notice referred to restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Dipke questioned the intervention, arguing that peaceful demonstrations involving the national flag should not be treated as unlawful political activity. Police, however, maintained that gatherings must comply with restrictions intended to preserve public order. Reports subsequently indicated that Dipke was placed in preventive detention ahead of the proposed march. The dispute raises a fundamental question: when does legitimate regulation of public gatherings become a disproportionate restriction on peaceful political expression?&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ankita-bhandari-murder-case-parents-meet-cbi-seek-impartial-investigation-1792175230656">Ankita Bhandari murder case: Parents meet CBI, seek impartial investigation</a><h2>What does India's Constitution guarantee?</h2>Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. These protections are fundamental to democratic participation. However, the right to assembly is subject to reasonable restrictions, including those imposed in the interests of public order. This means that protesters do not possess an unrestricted right to occupy any public location at any time. Equally, authorities must exercise their regulatory powers within constitutional limits. The Supreme Court has been asked to examine disputes connected to the demonstrations, including restrictions affecting protest sites and allegations concerning police conduct. Judicial scrutiny does not automatically establish wrongdoing by either protesters or police. It provides a mechanism for determining whether competing claims have been handled lawfully and proportionately.<h2>The politics behind the protests</h2>The controversy surrounding electoral-roll revisions has attracted opposition parties, student organisations and civil society groups. Opposition leaders have questioned the removal of large numbers of names from voter lists, warning that eligible citizens could be excluded. The Election Commission rejects allegations of political manipulation and maintains that revisions are necessary to improve electoral accuracy. The broader mobilisation has also drawn participation from Left-associated student organisations and political activists. That support gives the issue greater national visibility. But it also raises questions about the relationship between independent youth activism and established political parties. Movements often bring together groups that share particular grievances without agreeing on every political objective. The presence of opposition parties does not, by itself, mean that every demonstrator supports calls for regime change.<h2>Can India follow Bangladesh or Nepal?</h2>Comparisons with youth-led political upheavals in Bangladesh and Nepal have become part of the discussion. Both countries have experienced major political consequences from sustained mobilisation. Yet India's circumstances differ substantially. Its parliamentary democracy, federal system, population, regional political diversity and established electoral institutions create a distinct political environment. A successful demonstration can generate attention and compel public discussion. But national political transformation generally requires more than crowd mobilisation or social media engagement. It demands organisation, sustained participation, clear objectives and engagement with constitutional institutions. Calls for the resignation of elected leaders are legitimate forms of peaceful political expression. However, replacing a government requires lawful constitutional mechanisms. The experience of neighbouring countries therefore offers lessons about the influence of youth activism, not a predetermined roadmap for India's political future.<h2>The challenge facing India's Gen Z</h2>The immediate impact of the protests is visible in the national debate surrounding electoral transparency and civil liberties.&nbsp;Their longer-term consequences remain uncertain.&nbsp;For the movement, a central challenge will be translating public anger into achievable reforms. For authorities, the challenge is maintaining public order without imposing unnecessary restrictions on peaceful expression. For political parties, it is responding to legitimate grievances without reducing youth activism to a partisan contest. And for India's institutions, the test is whether public concerns can be addressed through credible, transparent and accountable processes.<h2>The Verdict</h2>The Lehra Do Tiranga campaign has brought together questions about national identity, democratic participation and the limits of state authority. Its political significance cannot be measured by crowd size alone. Nor should its future be judged solely by whether protesters secure the resignation of individual officials. A more meaningful measure will be whether the movement contributes to greater electoral transparency, stronger protections for peaceful assembly and sustained civic participation. India's Gen Z has demonstrated that it can mobilise and attract national attention. The harder question is whether it can turn that mobilisation into institutional accountability and lasting reform. Because the power to fill the streets is one thing. The power to influence the future of a democracy requires something more.

India's youth-led protests, including the CJP's Lehra Do Tiranga campaign, have reignited debate over electoral accountability, civil liberties and the right to protest, raising questions about whether Gen Z can translate street mobilisation into lasting democratic reforms.

From Delhi to Mumbai, youth-led demonstrations have reignited debate over electoral accountability, civil liberties and the constitutional right to protest. But as political demands grow louder and police restrictions face scrutiny, a larger question emerges: can India's Gen Z translate street mobilisation into lasting change? India's youth-led political activism has entered another consequential phase. At the centre of the latest demonstrations is the Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP, whose campaign over electoral transparency has drawn attention to the boundaries between peaceful dissent and public-order enforcement. The movement has dubbed its latest march “Lehra Do Tiranga” — Let the Tricolour Fly, presenting the Tiranga Yatra as a demonstration of democratic expression and national identity. Its immediate demands include electoral accountability and the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Some voices in the wider protest movement have also called for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to resign. However, those broader demands should not be confused with the CJP's stated immediate objective. The distinction is important because calls for accountability, demands for political resignation and attempts to change a government involve different political and constitutional processes. Delhi and Mumbai: One movement, two police responses The contrasting treatment of demonstrations in Delhi and Mumbai has become central to the debate. Mumbai Police permitted a Tiranga rally at Azad Maidan, while Delhi Police restricted a proposed gathering at Connaught Place, citing public-order concerns and the potential disruption of commercial activity. Ahead of the Delhi demonstration, police officers visited the residence where CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke was staying and served him a notice concerning the planned march. The notice referred to restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Dipke questioned the intervention, arguing that peaceful demonstrations involving the national flag should not be treated as unlawful political activity. Police, however, maintained that gatherings must comply with restrictions intended to preserve public order. Reports subsequently indicated that Dipke was placed in preventive detention ahead of the proposed march. The dispute raises a fundamental question: when does legitimate regulation of public gatherings become a disproportionate restriction on peaceful political expression? Also Read: Ankita Bhandari murder case: Parents meet CBI, seek impartial investigation What does India's Constitution guarantee? Article 19 of the Indian Constitution protects freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. These protections are fundamental to democratic participation. However, the right to assembly is subject to reasonable restrictions, including those imposed in the interests of public order. This means that protesters do not possess an unrestricted right to occupy any public location at any time. Equally, authorities must exercise their regulatory powers within constitutional limits. The Supreme Court has been asked to examine disputes connected to the demonstrations, including restrictions affecting protest sites and allegations concerning police conduct. Judicial scrutiny does not automatically establish wrongdoing by either protesters or police. It provides a mechanism for determining whether competing claims have been handled lawfully and proportionately. The politics behind the protests The controversy surrounding electoral-roll revisions has attracted opposition parties, student organisations and civil society groups. Opposition leaders have questioned the removal of large numbers of names from voter lists, warning that eligible citizens could be excluded. The Election Commission rejects allegations of political manipulation and maintains that revisions are necessary to improve electoral accuracy. The broader mobilisation has also drawn participation from Left-associated student organisations and political activists. That support gives the issue greater national visibility. But it also raises questions about the relationship between independent youth activism and established political parties. Movements often bring together groups that share particular grievances without agreeing on every political objective. The presence of opposition parties does not, by itself, mean that every demonstrator supports calls for regime change. Can India follow Bangladesh or Nepal? Comparisons with youth-led political upheavals in Bangladesh and Nepal have become part of the discussion. Both countries have experienced major political consequences from sustained mobilisation. Yet India's circumstances differ substantially. Its parliamentary democracy, federal system, population, regional political diversity and established electoral institutions create a distinct political environment. A successful demonstration can generate attention and compel public discussion. But national political transformation generally requires more than crowd mobilisation or social media engagement. It demands organisation, sustained participation, clear objectives and engagement with constitutional institutions. Calls for the resignation of elected leaders are legitimate forms of peaceful political expression. However, replacing a government requires lawful constitutional mechanisms. The experience of neighbouring countries therefore offers lessons about the influence of youth activism, not a predetermined roadmap for India's political future. The challenge facing India's Gen Z The immediate impact of the protests is visible in the national debate surrounding electoral transparency and civil liberties. Their longer-term consequences remain uncertain. For the movement, a central challenge will be translating public anger into achievable reforms. For authorities, the challenge is maintaining public order without imposing unnecessary restrictions on peaceful expression. For political parties, it is responding to legitimate grievances without reducing youth activism to a partisan contest. And for India's institutions, the test is whether public concerns can be addressed through credible, transparent and accountable processes. The Verdict The Lehra Do Tiranga campaign has brought together questions about national identity, democratic participation and the limits of state authority. Its political significance cannot be measured by crowd size alone. Nor should its future be judged solely by whether protesters secure the resignation of individual officials. A more meaningful measure will be whether the movement contributes to greater electoral transparency, stronger protections for peaceful assembly and sustained civic participation. India's Gen Z has demonstrated that it can mobilise and attract national attention. The harder question is whether it can turn that mobilisation into institutional accountability and lasting reform. Because the power to fill the streets is one thing. The power to influence the future of a democracy requires something more.

India's youth-led protests, including the CJP's Lehra Do Tiranga campaign, have reignited debate over electoral accountability, civil liberties and the right to protest, raising questions about whether Gen Z can translate street mobilisation into lasting democratic reforms.

India's Gen Z rebellion: Can the 'Lehra Do Tiranga' movement reshape the political order? | The Verdict

After months of tariff disputes and diplomatic tensions, India and the United States have announced significant progress towards a trade agreement. But the real question is not simply whether the two countries can reach a deal. It is whether the terms will deliver meaningful benefits without compromising their respective economic priorities.India and the United States appear closer to concluding the first phase of a long-awaited bilateral trade agreement.On Thursday, India's Trade Secretary Rajesh Agrawal announced that the initial phase had been finalised at the negotiating level and was undergoing legal drafting.Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal also expressed optimism, while stressing the importance of securing a competitive advantage for India before the arrangement becomes operational.The announcement represents a significant change in tone.Only ten days earlier, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had described negotiations as having reached a plateau, with limited room for further concessions.Now, the two governments are signalling progress.But what changed? And what will each side ultimately receive?&nbsp;<h2>The tariff battle</h2>&nbsp;At the centre of negotiations is a familiar disagreement over market access.Washington wants greater opportunities for American businesses and exporters in India.New Delhi wants more favourable and predictable access to the US market, which remains a critical destination for Indian exports.American tariffs have complicated that relationship, creating uncertainty for Indian manufacturers and exporters competing internationally.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-strategy-faces-new-test-india-wants-preferential-access-and-tariff-stability-1792080310666/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-strategy-faces-new-test-india-wants-preferential-access-and-tariff-stability-1792080310666/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;For businesses, tariff stability matters almost as much as tariff reductions.Companies need predictable costs before making decisions about production, hiring and investment.A trade agreement that improves market access could strengthen commercial ties and encourage greater bilateral investment.But those benefits depend on the precise commitments made by both governments.&nbsp;<h2>The Russian oil contradiction</h2>&nbsp;Energy security remains one of the most sensitive issues in India-US relations.Washington has repeatedly raised objections to India's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine.India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security.The disagreement has become more complicated following Washington's own move towards purchasing Russian diesel.Critics have questioned the consistency of threatening penalties against Russian energy buyers while pursuing a separate arrangement involving Russian fuel.However, the commercial and legal circumstances of those transactions may differ.The relevant question is whether Washington's energy policy will translate into additional trade demands on New Delhi.So far, the final agreement's provisions have not been publicly disclosed.That uncertainty makes it premature to conclude that India has either conceded or prevailed on the Russian oil issue.&nbsp;<h2>Strategic autonomy meets economic reality</h2>&nbsp;For India, the negotiations extend beyond tariffs.New Delhi has long sought to maintain relationships with competing global powers without becoming dependent on any single partner.The United States is important for technology, defence cooperation, investment and access to global markets.Russia remains relevant to India's energy and defence interests.China, meanwhile, continues to shape the wider strategic environment in which India operates.Balancing those relationships is not always straightforward.A trade agreement with Washington could strengthen India's economic position.But policymakers must also consider whether its terms preserve flexibility in other areas of foreign policy.For the Trump administration, the negotiations offer an opportunity to demonstrate that its tariff strategy can produce commercial concessions and stronger economic partnerships.For the Modi government, the objective is to secure tangible benefits for Indian exporters and businesses while protecting sensitive domestic interests.Neither outcome can be assessed properly without examining the final text.&nbsp;<h2>Rubio's visit and the next diplomatic test</h2>&nbsp;US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to visit India as part of an October 17–22 trip that also includes Uzbekistan.His discussions are expected to cover energy cooperation, commercial investment and the broader strategic partnership.The timing adds diplomatic significance to the trade announcement.But Rubio's visit should not be confused with the formal conclusion of the agreement.Legal drafting, approval procedures and implementation arrangements remain important steps.Businesses will be watching for clarity on tariffs, sector-specific commitments and the timetable for implementation.&nbsp;<h2>The Verdict</h2>&nbsp;India and the United States have strong reasons to deepen their economic partnership.Both countries benefit from trade, investment, technology cooperation and more resilient supply chains.Yet a successful agreement must be judged by more than diplomatic announcements or political celebrations.Will Indian exporters gain meaningful access to the American market?Will businesses receive the tariff stability they need?Will the agreement strengthen economic cooperation without creating unnecessary constraints on India's policy choices?And will American companies gain the opportunities Washington has been seeking?Those questions matter more than which leader claims credit.Because the measure of a successful trade agreement is not how quickly it is announced, but whether its terms produce lasting, measurable benefits.The real price of the Trump–Modi deal will become clear when the fine print is made public.

Washington has repeatedly raised objections to New Delhi's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that the energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security.

After months of tariff disputes and diplomatic tensions, India and the United States have announced significant progress towards a trade agreement. But the real question is not simply whether the two countries can reach a deal. It is whether the terms will deliver meaningful benefits without compromising their respective economic priorities. India and the United States appear closer to concluding the first phase of a long-awaited bilateral trade agreement. On Thursday, India's Trade Secretary Rajesh Agrawal announced that the initial phase had been finalised at the negotiating level and was undergoing legal drafting. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal also expressed optimism, while stressing the importance of securing a competitive advantage for India before the arrangement becomes operational. The announcement represents a significant change in tone. Only ten days earlier, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had described negotiations as having reached a plateau, with limited room for further concessions. Now, the two governments are signalling progress. But what changed? And what will each side ultimately receive? The tariff battle At the centre of negotiations is a familiar disagreement over market access. Washington wants greater opportunities for American businesses and exporters in India. New Delhi wants more favourable and predictable access to the US market, which remains a critical destination for Indian exports. American tariffs have complicated that relationship, creating uncertainty for Indian manufacturers and exporters competing internationally. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-strategy-faces-new-test-india-wants-preferential-access-and-tariff-stability-1792080310666/embed For businesses, tariff stability matters almost as much as tariff reductions. Companies need predictable costs before making decisions about production, hiring and investment. A trade agreement that improves market access could strengthen commercial ties and encourage greater bilateral investment. But those benefits depend on the precise commitments made by both governments. The Russian oil contradiction Energy security remains one of the most sensitive issues in India-US relations. Washington has repeatedly raised objections to India's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security. The disagreement has become more complicated following Washington's own move towards purchasing Russian diesel. Critics have questioned the consistency of threatening penalties against Russian energy buyers while pursuing a separate arrangement involving Russian fuel. However, the commercial and legal circumstances of those transactions may differ. The relevant question is whether Washington's energy policy will translate into additional trade demands on New Delhi. So far, the final agreement's provisions have not been publicly disclosed. That uncertainty makes it premature to conclude that India has either conceded or prevailed on the Russian oil issue. Strategic autonomy meets economic reality For India, the negotiations extend beyond tariffs. New Delhi has long sought to maintain relationships with competing global powers without becoming dependent on any single partner. The United States is important for technology, defence cooperation, investment and access to global markets. Russia remains relevant to India's energy and defence interests. China, meanwhile, continues to shape the wider strategic environment in which India operates. Balancing those relationships is not always straightforward. A trade agreement with Washington could strengthen India's economic position. But policymakers must also consider whether its terms preserve flexibility in other areas of foreign policy. For the Trump administration, the negotiations offer an opportunity to demonstrate that its tariff strategy can produce commercial concessions and stronger economic partnerships. For the Modi government, the objective is to secure tangible benefits for Indian exporters and businesses while protecting sensitive domestic interests. Neither outcome can be assessed properly without examining the final text. Rubio's visit and the next diplomatic test US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to visit India as part of an October 17–22 trip that also includes Uzbekistan. His discussions are expected to cover energy cooperation, commercial investment and the broader strategic partnership. The timing adds diplomatic significance to the trade announcement. But Rubio's visit should not be confused with the formal conclusion of the agreement. Legal drafting, approval procedures and implementation arrangements remain important steps. Businesses will be watching for clarity on tariffs, sector-specific commitments and the timetable for implementation. The Verdict India and the United States have strong reasons to deepen their economic partnership. Both countries benefit from trade, investment, technology cooperation and more resilient supply chains. Yet a successful agreement must be judged by more than diplomatic announcements or political celebrations. Will Indian exporters gain meaningful access to the American market? Will businesses receive the tariff stability they need? Will the agreement strengthen economic cooperation without creating unnecessary constraints on India's policy choices? And will American companies gain the opportunities Washington has been seeking? Those questions matter more than which leader claims credit. Because the measure of a successful trade agreement is not how quickly it is announced, but whether its terms produce lasting, measurable benefits. The real price of the Trump–Modi deal will become clear when the fine print is made public.

Washington has repeatedly raised objections to New Delhi's purchases of Russian crude, arguing that the energy revenues help sustain Moscow's war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy decisions must reflect national requirements, affordability and supply security.

The Verdict | Trump, Modi and the price of a deal: Is India finally getting a fair bargain?

India's wholesale inflation has surged to 11.39 percent, exposing the country's vulnerability to rising energy prices, international conflict and mounting production costs. The larger question is whether India's economic resilience can protect households from a global crisis they did not create.India's economy continues to demonstrate considerable growth. But beneath the headline indicators, a different economic challenge is emerging.Wholesale inflation accelerated to 11.39 percent in September 2026, up from 9.92 percent in August, according to government data released on Wednesday.The increase exceeded economists' expectations and marked the highest reading under the country's new wholesale inflation series.The figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing additional costs to consumers.&nbsp;<h2>The energy shock behind the numbers</h2>&nbsp;Perhaps the most striking figure is the 57.32 percent annual increase in wholesale crude petroleum and natural gas prices.Inflation in the broader fuel and power category reached 25.85 percent, reflecting the consequences of persistent disruption in global energy markets.The conflict involving Iran has contributed to uncertainty over energy supplies, while elevated international crude prices have increased costs for oil-importing economies.India is particularly exposed because of its dependence on imported crude.A rise in international oil prices does not remain confined to the energy sector.It can increase the cost of transporting goods, manufacturing products, operating agricultural machinery and distributing food.In an interconnected economy, expensive energy can gradually become expensive everything.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-energy-crisis-hits-indian-economy-1791993940847/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-energy-crisis-hits-indian-economy-1791993940847/embed</a>&nbsp;<h2>When wholesale pressure reaches households</h2>&nbsp;Wholesale inflation and retail inflation measure different stages of the economy.The Wholesale Price Index tracks price changes at the wholesale level, while the Consumer Price Index measures prices paid by households.That distinction matters.An 11.39 percent increase in wholesale prices does not mean every Indian household is paying 11.39 percent more for its purchases.Nevertheless, persistent wholesale price increases can create pressure on businesses to raise retail prices.India's retail inflation has already accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance threshold of 6 percent.Wholesale food inflation has also risen to 8.66 percent.For families, food and energy costs are particularly significant because they account for essential spending that cannot easily be postponed.Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reconsider other expenses.The burden can be especially difficult for lower-income consumers, whose budgets have less room to absorb unexpected increases.&nbsp;<h2>The government's difficult balancing act</h2>&nbsp;India's policymakers face competing priorities.Protecting consumers from the full impact of global energy prices may help limit immediate inflation.But such measures can impose financial costs on fuel retailers or the government, depending on how they are structured.Allowing prices to adjust more freely could reduce those pressures, but risks transferring more of the burden to consumers.Monetary policy presents another dilemma.The Reserve Bank of India has raised its benchmark policy rate to 5.50 percent as inflationary pressures broaden.Higher interest rates can help restrain inflation by moderating demand and inflation expectations.However, borrowing can also become more expensive for businesses and households.That creates difficult choices for companies planning investments and consumers considering major purchases.&nbsp;<h2>India's growth story faces a new test</h2>&nbsp;India's economic growth remains an important source of strength.Domestic demand, investment, infrastructure development and a large consumer market provide resilience against international uncertainty.But strong growth does not eliminate vulnerability to imported inflation.Manufactured products recorded wholesale inflation of 9.76 percent in September, suggesting that higher costs are spreading beyond volatile food and energy categories.Basic metals, chemicals, textiles and electrical equipment are among the sectors experiencing increased price pressures.These are important inputs across manufacturing and construction.If higher production costs persist, businesses may face narrower profit margins, higher selling prices or difficult decisions about investment and employment.The economic consequences therefore extend beyond the immediate inflation figures.&nbsp;<h2>Can India shield itself from global instability?</h2>&nbsp;India's energy security has long required a careful balance between affordability, supply reliability and international relationships.The latest inflation figures reinforce the importance of that challenge.Diversifying energy sources, strengthening domestic infrastructure and improving efficiency can reduce exposure to future shocks.But those measures take time.In the immediate term, policymakers must respond to an international environment in which energy supplies, geopolitical tensions and financial conditions remain unpredictable.There are limits to what domestic policy alone can accomplish when the original shock comes from outside national borders.That makes effective crisis management essential.&nbsp;<h2>The Verdict</h2>&nbsp;India's latest wholesale inflation figures are not evidence that its growth story has ended.They are a warning that economic growth and economic security are not the same thing.A country can expand rapidly while households face increasing pressure from essential expenses.The challenge for the government and the Reserve Bank is to prevent temporary international disruptions from developing into persistent domestic inflation.The challenge for businesses is to manage higher costs without undermining investment and employment.And for households, the concern is simpler: how much further will everyday expenses rise?India's economic strength will be measured not only by its growth rate, but by its ability to withstand external shocks without leaving ordinary people to absorb an unsustainable burden.Because a growing economy is important. But making that growth count for its people is what matters most.

India's wholesale inflation figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing on to consumers. Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reassess other expenses.

India's wholesale inflation has surged to 11.39 percent, exposing the country's vulnerability to rising energy prices, international conflict and mounting production costs. The larger question is whether India's economic resilience can protect households from a global crisis they did not create. India's economy continues to demonstrate considerable growth. But beneath the headline indicators, a different economic challenge is emerging. Wholesale inflation accelerated to 11.39 percent in September 2026, up from 9.92 percent in August, according to government data released on Wednesday. The increase exceeded economists' expectations and marked the highest reading under the country's new wholesale inflation series. The figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing additional costs to consumers. The energy shock behind the numbers Perhaps the most striking figure is the 57.32 percent annual increase in wholesale crude petroleum and natural gas prices. Inflation in the broader fuel and power category reached 25.85 percent, reflecting the consequences of persistent disruption in global energy markets. The conflict involving Iran has contributed to uncertainty over energy supplies, while elevated international crude prices have increased costs for oil-importing economies. India is particularly exposed because of its dependence on imported crude. A rise in international oil prices does not remain confined to the energy sector. It can increase the cost of transporting goods, manufacturing products, operating agricultural machinery and distributing food. In an interconnected economy, expensive energy can gradually become expensive everything. https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-energy-crisis-hits-indian-economy-1791993940847/embed When wholesale pressure reaches households Wholesale inflation and retail inflation measure different stages of the economy. The Wholesale Price Index tracks price changes at the wholesale level, while the Consumer Price Index measures prices paid by households. That distinction matters. An 11.39 percent increase in wholesale prices does not mean every Indian household is paying 11.39 percent more for its purchases. Nevertheless, persistent wholesale price increases can create pressure on businesses to raise retail prices. India's retail inflation has already accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance threshold of 6 percent. Wholesale food inflation has also risen to 8.66 percent. For families, food and energy costs are particularly significant because they account for essential spending that cannot easily be postponed. Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reconsider other expenses. The burden can be especially difficult for lower-income consumers, whose budgets have less room to absorb unexpected increases. The government's difficult balancing act India's policymakers face competing priorities. Protecting consumers from the full impact of global energy prices may help limit immediate inflation. But such measures can impose financial costs on fuel retailers or the government, depending on how they are structured. Allowing prices to adjust more freely could reduce those pressures, but risks transferring more of the burden to consumers. Monetary policy presents another dilemma. The Reserve Bank of India has raised its benchmark policy rate to 5.50 percent as inflationary pressures broaden. Higher interest rates can help restrain inflation by moderating demand and inflation expectations. However, borrowing can also become more expensive for businesses and households. That creates difficult choices for companies planning investments and consumers considering major purchases. India's growth story faces a new test India's economic growth remains an important source of strength. Domestic demand, investment, infrastructure development and a large consumer market provide resilience against international uncertainty. But strong growth does not eliminate vulnerability to imported inflation. Manufactured products recorded wholesale inflation of 9.76 percent in September, suggesting that higher costs are spreading beyond volatile food and energy categories. Basic metals, chemicals, textiles and electrical equipment are among the sectors experiencing increased price pressures. These are important inputs across manufacturing and construction. If higher production costs persist, businesses may face narrower profit margins, higher selling prices or difficult decisions about investment and employment. The economic consequences therefore extend beyond the immediate inflation figures. Can India shield itself from global instability? India's energy security has long required a careful balance between affordability, supply reliability and international relationships. The latest inflation figures reinforce the importance of that challenge. Diversifying energy sources, strengthening domestic infrastructure and improving efficiency can reduce exposure to future shocks. But those measures take time. In the immediate term, policymakers must respond to an international environment in which energy supplies, geopolitical tensions and financial conditions remain unpredictable. There are limits to what domestic policy alone can accomplish when the original shock comes from outside national borders. That makes effective crisis management essential. The Verdict India's latest wholesale inflation figures are not evidence that its growth story has ended. They are a warning that economic growth and economic security are not the same thing. A country can expand rapidly while households face increasing pressure from essential expenses. The challenge for the government and the Reserve Bank is to prevent temporary international disruptions from developing into persistent domestic inflation. The challenge for businesses is to manage higher costs without undermining investment and employment. And for households, the concern is simpler: how much further will everyday expenses rise? India's economic strength will be measured not only by its growth rate, but by its ability to withstand external shocks without leaving ordinary people to absorb an unsustainable burden. Because a growing economy is important. But making that growth count for its people is what matters most.

India's wholesale inflation figures reveal mounting pressure across energy, food and manufacturing, raising concerns about how much of the increase businesses can absorb before passing on to consumers. Higher prices can reduce disposable income and force households to reassess other expenses.

The Verdict | India’s inflation shock: A growing economy, but who pays the price?

India is confronting an increasingly complicated political and economic moment.On the streets of New Delhi, young protesters are questioning the integrity of electoral processes. In Washington, trade negotiations remain uncertain as the United States presses India over its relationship with Russia. And at home, a weakening rupee and rising inflation are creating fresh concerns about the cost of living.For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, these developments present three distinct challenges with potentially overlapping consequences.India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together.&nbsp;<h2>Electoral controversy puts institutions under scrutiny</h2>&nbsp;The immediate political controversy concerns a nationwide revision of electoral rolls that has resulted in more than 130 million names being removed from voter lists since last year.According to official figures reported by Reuters, those removals include approximately 28 million deceased individuals, 63 million people who relocated and 30 million whose whereabouts could not be established.Opposition parties and the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party movement allege that the exercise has disproportionately affected certain communities and could benefit the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.The Election Commission rejects allegations of political bias and maintains that eligible voters removed incorrectly can seek re-enrolment.The distinction is important. The removal of a name from an electoral roll does not automatically establish wrongful disenfranchisement.Nevertheless, the scale of the exercise has generated substantial public concern.Demonstrations have spread through the capital, with protesters demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police have detained demonstrators, while restrictions on movement and public gatherings have disrupted parts of Delhi.Opposition leaders have approached the Supreme Court seeking greater scrutiny of the revisions, including safeguards against improper deletions.At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental democratic question: how can electoral authorities ensure accurate voter lists while protecting every eligible citizen's right to vote?&nbsp;<h2>India's economic resilience faces new pressures</h2>&nbsp;Beyond the political demonstrations, economic developments are presenting another challenge.India's retail inflation accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance limit of 6 percent.Food inflation has been particularly concerning, reflecting pressures associated with weather conditions, energy costs and supply disruptions.Meanwhile, the rupee has faced sustained downward pressure as higher oil prices increase demand for dollars and foreign investment flows remain uncertain.The Reserve Bank of India has introduced measures aimed at stabilising the currency, including arrangements to meet the dollar requirements of major state-owned oil companies.A weaker rupee can make imports more expensive, particularly crude oil, which remains essential to India's economy.Those higher costs can eventually affect transportation, manufacturing, food distribution and household spending.For consumers, the consequences are measured less in macroeconomic indicators than in the prices they encounter every day.Yet India's growth performance remains an important counterweight.The challenge for policymakers is to maintain that momentum while preventing inflation and external shocks from eroding purchasing power.&nbsp;<h2>Washington complicates New Delhi's calculations</h2>&nbsp;India's relationship with the United States presents a third challenge.The two countries remain strategically important partners, particularly in technology, defence, investment and regional security.But efforts to conclude a comprehensive trade agreement have stalled.Washington has increased pressure on New Delhi over purchases of Russian oil, arguing that energy revenues contribute to Moscow's ability to sustain its war in Ukraine.India maintains that its energy procurement decisions are driven by national requirements, affordability and the needs of its population.The disagreement reflects a broader tension in the relationship.Washington wants closer strategic coordination.New Delhi seeks to preserve its freedom to pursue independent economic and diplomatic interests.That balancing act has become increasingly complicated by uncertainty over American tariffs and the possibility of additional trade restrictions.Indian exporters require predictable access to international markets. Businesses also need confidence that geopolitical disagreements will not translate into sudden commercial disruptions.The longer negotiations remain unresolved, the greater the uncertainty surrounding future investment and trade decisions.&nbsp;<h2>Three challenges, one larger question</h2>&nbsp;These pressures are interconnected.Expensive energy contributes to inflation and currency vulnerability.Trade uncertainty complicates investment decisions and export planning.Domestic political controversies, meanwhile, place additional attention on the institutions responsible for maintaining public confidence.Supporters of Modi's government point to India's economic expansion, infrastructure investment and growing international standing.Critics argue that institutional accountability, employment opportunities and household affordability require greater attention.Both perspectives are part of the national debate.What makes the present moment significant is the convergence of these issues.India's leadership must navigate domestic demands for accountability while managing international economic pressure and protecting financial stability.That requires more than responding to individual controversies.It requires coordination between economic policy, diplomacy and institutional governance.India's ambition to become a leading global power remains central to its national strategy.But international influence is most sustainable when supported by economic resilience and public confidence at home.A growing economy. Credible democratic institutions. Independent foreign policy.Three important objectives.And three simultaneous tests of India's ability to balance domestic priorities with global ambitions.

India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together.

India is confronting an increasingly complicated political and economic moment. On the streets of New Delhi, young protesters are questioning the integrity of electoral processes. In Washington, trade negotiations remain uncertain as the United States presses India over its relationship with Russia. And at home, a weakening rupee and rising inflation are creating fresh concerns about the cost of living. For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, these developments present three distinct challenges with potentially overlapping consequences. India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together. Electoral controversy puts institutions under scrutiny The immediate political controversy concerns a nationwide revision of electoral rolls that has resulted in more than 130 million names being removed from voter lists since last year. According to official figures reported by Reuters, those removals include approximately 28 million deceased individuals, 63 million people who relocated and 30 million whose whereabouts could not be established. Opposition parties and the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party movement allege that the exercise has disproportionately affected certain communities and could benefit the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. The Election Commission rejects allegations of political bias and maintains that eligible voters removed incorrectly can seek re-enrolment. The distinction is important. The removal of a name from an electoral roll does not automatically establish wrongful disenfranchisement. Nevertheless, the scale of the exercise has generated substantial public concern. Demonstrations have spread through the capital, with protesters demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police have detained demonstrators, while restrictions on movement and public gatherings have disrupted parts of Delhi. Opposition leaders have approached the Supreme Court seeking greater scrutiny of the revisions, including safeguards against improper deletions. At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental democratic question: how can electoral authorities ensure accurate voter lists while protecting every eligible citizen's right to vote? India's economic resilience faces new pressures Beyond the political demonstrations, economic developments are presenting another challenge. India's retail inflation accelerated to 5.54 percent in September, approaching the Reserve Bank of India's upper tolerance limit of 6 percent. Food inflation has been particularly concerning, reflecting pressures associated with weather conditions, energy costs and supply disruptions. Meanwhile, the rupee has faced sustained downward pressure as higher oil prices increase demand for dollars and foreign investment flows remain uncertain. The Reserve Bank of India has introduced measures aimed at stabilising the currency, including arrangements to meet the dollar requirements of major state-owned oil companies. A weaker rupee can make imports more expensive, particularly crude oil, which remains essential to India's economy. Those higher costs can eventually affect transportation, manufacturing, food distribution and household spending. For consumers, the consequences are measured less in macroeconomic indicators than in the prices they encounter every day. Yet India's growth performance remains an important counterweight. The challenge for policymakers is to maintain that momentum while preventing inflation and external shocks from eroding purchasing power. Washington complicates New Delhi's calculations India's relationship with the United States presents a third challenge. The two countries remain strategically important partners, particularly in technology, defence, investment and regional security. But efforts to conclude a comprehensive trade agreement have stalled. Washington has increased pressure on New Delhi over purchases of Russian oil, arguing that energy revenues contribute to Moscow's ability to sustain its war in Ukraine. India maintains that its energy procurement decisions are driven by national requirements, affordability and the needs of its population. The disagreement reflects a broader tension in the relationship. Washington wants closer strategic coordination. New Delhi seeks to preserve its freedom to pursue independent economic and diplomatic interests. That balancing act has become increasingly complicated by uncertainty over American tariffs and the possibility of additional trade restrictions. Indian exporters require predictable access to international markets. Businesses also need confidence that geopolitical disagreements will not translate into sudden commercial disruptions. The longer negotiations remain unresolved, the greater the uncertainty surrounding future investment and trade decisions. Three challenges, one larger question These pressures are interconnected. Expensive energy contributes to inflation and currency vulnerability. Trade uncertainty complicates investment decisions and export planning. Domestic political controversies, meanwhile, place additional attention on the institutions responsible for maintaining public confidence. Supporters of Modi's government point to India's economic expansion, infrastructure investment and growing international standing. Critics argue that institutional accountability, employment opportunities and household affordability require greater attention. Both perspectives are part of the national debate. What makes the present moment significant is the convergence of these issues. India's leadership must navigate domestic demands for accountability while managing international economic pressure and protecting financial stability. That requires more than responding to individual controversies. It requires coordination between economic policy, diplomacy and institutional governance. India's ambition to become a leading global power remains central to its national strategy. But international influence is most sustainable when supported by economic resilience and public confidence at home. A growing economy. Credible democratic institutions. Independent foreign policy. Three important objectives. And three simultaneous tests of India's ability to balance domestic priorities with global ambitions.

India remains one of the world's fastest-growing major economies and continues to exercise considerable influence internationally. But economic growth, diplomatic ambition and domestic confidence do not always advance together.

The Verdict | Modi's three-front challenge: Protests at home, pressure from Washington and an economy under strain

Donald Trump says he wants to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. But his latest energy decisions have raised questions about whether Washington's economic policies are reinforcing that diplomatic objective or complicating it.The American president has announced what he describes as an energy ceasefire between Moscow and Kyiv, suggesting a breakthrough in efforts to halt attacks on critical infrastructure.Yet Ukraine has reported continuing Russian strikes, while questions remain over Moscow's acceptance of the proposed arrangement.The discrepancy illustrates a recurring challenge in international diplomacy: a ceasefire announced from Washington does not automatically become a ceasefire observed on the battlefield.And the controversy does not end there.&nbsp;<h2>The Russian diesel dilemma</h2>&nbsp;Trump's administration has also moved towards easing restrictions on Russian diesel, arguing that additional fuel supplies could help American consumers facing high energy prices.The decision has generated criticism from lawmakers concerned about its implications for sanctions against Moscow.For years, Washington and its Western partners have attempted to restrict Russian energy revenues as part of their response to the invasion of Ukraine.The objective has been to increase the economic cost of continuing the war.Now the administration faces a difficult question.Can the United States maintain meaningful economic pressure on Russia while simultaneously reopening channels for Russian energy?The White House argues that energy affordability and national economic interests must also be considered.Critics counter that easing restrictions risks weakening the leverage Washington has sought to build.Both arguments point towards the same underlying dilemma: energy security and foreign policy objectives do not always move in the same direction.&nbsp;<h2>A ceasefire announced, but not yet established</h2>&nbsp;Trump's announcement of an energy ceasefire has also placed renewed attention on the difference between diplomatic declarations and verified agreements.Ukraine has indicated its willingness to consider reciprocal restrictions on attacks against energy infrastructure.But Kyiv has also reported continuing Russian strikes, raising questions about the status and practical implementation of the proposal.Any durable agreement would require clearly defined commitments from both sides, credible monitoring and mechanisms for addressing alleged violations.Without those elements, competing announcements risk creating the appearance of progress without establishing meaningful changes on the ground.For Ukrainians facing repeated disruptions to electricity and other essential services, that distinction is far from academic.&nbsp;<h2>Is Washington weakening its own leverage?</h2>&nbsp;Economic sanctions are intended to influence behaviour by imposing costs.Their effectiveness depends partly on enforcement, international coordination and the willingness of governments to maintain restrictions despite domestic economic pressures.Trump's energy policy now highlights the tension between those priorities.Allowing additional Russian fuel into international markets could contribute to supply and price objectives.But whether it would materially reduce prices, or provide Moscow with meaningful additional revenue, depends on the details of the arrangement.Those questions deserve scrutiny rather than assumptions.The broader diplomatic concern is equally significant.If Washington eases economic pressure before securing enforceable commitments, critics fear it could surrender negotiating leverage.Supporters of a more flexible approach argue that selective economic measures can form part of a wider negotiating strategy.Ultimately, the relevant test is whether the policy produces measurable diplomatic results.&nbsp;<h2>Peace requires more than announcements</h2>&nbsp;Trump has repeatedly presented himself as a leader capable of resolving international conflicts through direct negotiation.His administration's diplomatic initiatives should be judged by their results, including whether they reduce violence and establish sustainable agreements.But the Russia-Ukraine conflict presents exceptionally difficult conditions.The two governments remain divided over territory, security guarantees, sovereignty and the terms of any lasting settlement.Energy infrastructure has become an important dimension of the conflict, both as a military target and as a source of economic pressure.That makes an energy ceasefire potentially valuable.It also makes the terms of such an agreement critically important.A temporary reduction in attacks could offer civilians immediate relief.A verified, reciprocal and sustained cessation would represent more substantial progress.But neither should be confused with a comprehensive peace settlement.&nbsp;<h2>The test of Trump's Russia strategy</h2>&nbsp;Washington's challenge is not simply to persuade Russia and Ukraine to discuss peace.It is to ensure that America's economic, diplomatic and security policies work towards a coherent objective.That means explaining how sanctions relief fits into negotiations, what concessions are expected in return and how compliance with any ceasefire would be verified.Trump's supporters argue that his willingness to depart from conventional diplomatic approaches creates opportunities for breakthroughs.His critics warn that unpredictable changes in economic pressure could undermine the credibility of American commitments.The consequences will depend on what happens next.Will attacks on energy infrastructure stop?Will Russia and Ukraine accept reciprocal obligations?Will changes to energy restrictions contribute to a settlement, or merely alter the economics of a continuing war?Those are the questions that will determine whether Washington's latest initiatives represent progress.Because announcing peace is not the same as securing it.And changing the economics of war is not necessarily the same as ending one.

Washington and its partners have attempted to restrict Russian energy revenues as part of their response to the invasion of Ukraine in order to increase the economic cost of continuing the war. Can the US maintain economic pressure on Russia while reopening channels for Russian energy?

Donald Trump says he wants to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. But his latest energy decisions have raised questions about whether Washington's economic policies are reinforcing that diplomatic objective or complicating it. The American president has announced what he describes as an energy ceasefire between Moscow and Kyiv, suggesting a breakthrough in efforts to halt attacks on critical infrastructure. Yet Ukraine has reported continuing Russian strikes, while questions remain over Moscow's acceptance of the proposed arrangement. The discrepancy illustrates a recurring challenge in international diplomacy: a ceasefire announced from Washington does not automatically become a ceasefire observed on the battlefield. And the controversy does not end there. The Russian diesel dilemma Trump's administration has also moved towards easing restrictions on Russian diesel, arguing that additional fuel supplies could help American consumers facing high energy prices. The decision has generated criticism from lawmakers concerned about its implications for sanctions against Moscow. For years, Washington and its Western partners have attempted to restrict Russian energy revenues as part of their response to the invasion of Ukraine. The objective has been to increase the economic cost of continuing the war. Now the administration faces a difficult question. Can the United States maintain meaningful economic pressure on Russia while simultaneously reopening channels for Russian energy? The White House argues that energy affordability and national economic interests must also be considered. Critics counter that easing restrictions risks weakening the leverage Washington has sought to build. Both arguments point towards the same underlying dilemma: energy security and foreign policy objectives do not always move in the same direction. A ceasefire announced, but not yet established Trump's announcement of an energy ceasefire has also placed renewed attention on the difference between diplomatic declarations and verified agreements. Ukraine has indicated its willingness to consider reciprocal restrictions on attacks against energy infrastructure. But Kyiv has also reported continuing Russian strikes, raising questions about the status and practical implementation of the proposal. Any durable agreement would require clearly defined commitments from both sides, credible monitoring and mechanisms for addressing alleged violations. Without those elements, competing announcements risk creating the appearance of progress without establishing meaningful changes on the ground. For Ukrainians facing repeated disruptions to electricity and other essential services, that distinction is far from academic. Is Washington weakening its own leverage? Economic sanctions are intended to influence behaviour by imposing costs. Their effectiveness depends partly on enforcement, international coordination and the willingness of governments to maintain restrictions despite domestic economic pressures. Trump's energy policy now highlights the tension between those priorities. Allowing additional Russian fuel into international markets could contribute to supply and price objectives. But whether it would materially reduce prices, or provide Moscow with meaningful additional revenue, depends on the details of the arrangement. Those questions deserve scrutiny rather than assumptions. The broader diplomatic concern is equally significant. If Washington eases economic pressure before securing enforceable commitments, critics fear it could surrender negotiating leverage. Supporters of a more flexible approach argue that selective economic measures can form part of a wider negotiating strategy. Ultimately, the relevant test is whether the policy produces measurable diplomatic results. Peace requires more than announcements Trump has repeatedly presented himself as a leader capable of resolving international conflicts through direct negotiation. His administration's diplomatic initiatives should be judged by their results, including whether they reduce violence and establish sustainable agreements. But the Russia-Ukraine conflict presents exceptionally difficult conditions. The two governments remain divided over territory, security guarantees, sovereignty and the terms of any lasting settlement. Energy infrastructure has become an important dimension of the conflict, both as a military target and as a source of economic pressure. That makes an energy ceasefire potentially valuable. It also makes the terms of such an agreement critically important. A temporary reduction in attacks could offer civilians immediate relief. A verified, reciprocal and sustained cessation would represent more substantial progress. But neither should be confused with a comprehensive peace settlement. The test of Trump's Russia strategy Washington's challenge is not simply to persuade Russia and Ukraine to discuss peace. It is to ensure that America's economic, diplomatic and security policies work towards a coherent objective. That means explaining how sanctions relief fits into negotiations, what concessions are expected in return and how compliance with any ceasefire would be verified. Trump's supporters argue that his willingness to depart from conventional diplomatic approaches creates opportunities for breakthroughs. His critics warn that unpredictable changes in economic pressure could undermine the credibility of American commitments. The consequences will depend on what happens next. Will attacks on energy infrastructure stop? Will Russia and Ukraine accept reciprocal obligations? Will changes to energy restrictions contribute to a settlement, or merely alter the economics of a continuing war? Those are the questions that will determine whether Washington's latest initiatives represent progress. Because announcing peace is not the same as securing it. And changing the economics of war is not necessarily the same as ending one.

Washington and its partners have attempted to restrict Russian energy revenues as part of their response to the invasion of Ukraine in order to increase the economic cost of continuing the war. Can the US maintain economic pressure on Russia while reopening channels for Russian energy?

The Verdict | Trump's Russia paradox: Peace in words, pressure in reverse?

Bollywood’s soft power is known worldwide. Whenever an Indian travels abroad and interacts with locals, the first point of commonality is Bollywood. Be it Raj Kapoor’s crazy fandom in Russia or, decades later, Shah Rukh Khan’s popularity in the Middle East, Bollywood, through its films, has been India’s cultural identity. In recent years, Bollywood music in particular has been building cross-cultural bridges, particularly in Asia.&nbsp;&nbsp;New Delhi recently hosted the BRICS Summit 2026, which had many global leaders in attendance. Amid geopolitical treaties and trade agreements, what grabbed eyeballs was when Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim used Bollywood songs in videos of his India visit while sharing on social media. His choice of Bollywood songs for the posts particularly caught the attention of social media users.&nbsp;<h2>Malaysian PM's Bollywood playlist</h2>&nbsp;From praising PM Narendra Modi with songs like ‘I am the best’ from SRK-Juhi Chawla starrer Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani to Dil to Pagal Hai title track and DDLJ’s iconic ‘Tujhe Dekha To Ye Jana Sanam’, the Malaysian PM’s choice of music wooed the common man of India and made him appear more relatable.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Sekitar hari kedua di Delhi semalam, membawa suara dan pendirian tegas Malaysia tatkala berucap di hadapan pimpinan dunia di pentas BRICS. 

Berakhir urusan diplomasi di Delhi, saya terbang ke Kerala untuk bertemu Mufti Besar India dan berhimpun bersama kira-kira 2,000 anak-anak pelajar Markaz Saquafathi Sunniya dalam majlis ilmu. Alhamdulillah. 

#MalaysiaMADANI 
#DiplomasiMADANI 
#YakinMADANI&mdash; Anwar Ibrahim (@anwaribrahim) <a href="https://x.com/anwaribrahim/status/2099486454003159113?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The Malaysian PM's love for Bollywood music was not restricted to reels referring to Indian leaders only. In a post featuring his meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Ibrahim opted for 'Saathi Haath Badhana'. The theme of the 1957 Naya Daur song centres around collective effort and moving ahead together.The choice underscored the message of cooperation behind the meeting. Ibrahim also shared a post featuring Russian President Vladimir Putin and members of the Russian delegation. The photographs were posted with a song from Aamir Khan's film Lagaan, 'Chale Chalo', reinforcing the theme of moving forward together. While many felt that PM Ibrahim’s choice of music was a calculated PR strategy, it also reflected his genuine interest in Indian cinema. The choices were an authentic reflection of how deeply entrenched Indian popular culture is in Southeast Asia. It proved that generations of leaders across Asia grew up on the same cinematic and musical staple diet. <h2>Emmanuel Macron’s tribute to India</h2> Ibrahim is not the only country premier to woo the country with Bollywood music. Earlier this year in February, Frech President Emmanuel Macron had used Ranveer Singh starrer Dhruadhar’s track ‘Jogi’ for his India visit reel. Jogi, sung by MC Punjabi, was originally released over two decades ago, but reworked by composer Shashwat Sachdev for Dhurandhar with additional vocals by Hanumankind. The French President and the First Lady also had a special interaction with Bollywood celebrities, including Anil Kapoor, Manoj Bajpayee, Zoya Akhtar, Richa Chadha, Shabana Azmi, and Ricky Kej during their three-day visit to India. You see, where policies and talks fail, cinema and music always bridge the gap. From Malaysia to France, Bollywood’s immense popularity has been transcending borders and overcoming language barriers. The leaders have only now been cashing in on Bollywood’s soft power.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Thank you India! 🇮🇳🇫🇷 https://t.co/vDJ9IH2hZy&mdash; Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) <a href="https://x.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/2024558347135922533?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 19, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

&nbsp;<h2>Social media and its reach</h2>&nbsp;From Bollywood dance classes to infusing local music into Hindi hit songs, everyone wants a piece of Indian cinema. Cross-cultural intersections like the one that industrialist Anand Mahindra shared on X in July are more a norm than an out-of-the-blue phenomenon.&nbsp;Mahindra had shared a video of a Indonesian band singing Mahender Kapoor’s ‘Neele Gagan Ke Tale’ with a Reggae twist. The band in question goes by the name Albumology on YouTube, which reimagines retro Hindi songs, giving them a global spin.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">An Indonesian YouTube channel called Albumology has built a fascinating library of retro Hindi classics, reimagined in Reggae/Ska.

Using local Indonesian session musicians and vocalists, they’ve given these songs an entirely new cultural texture.

I came across this rendition of Neele Gagan Ke Tale in a post by @SHEKARSUSHEEL 
 I couldn’t stop playing it on loop.

It’s now downloaded and will become a permanent part of my road trip playlist.

The original, in the immortal voice of Mahendra Kapoor, is, of course, beyond comparison.

But this arrangement gives the song a universal feel. It’ll make you tap your feet, no matter where you come from.

And listening to the lyrics again, I was struck by how beautifully they celebrate the natural world. Long before sustainability became a global movement, this song was already reminding us of our bond with the planet. Perhaps it deserves to be an anthem for that cause.

#SundayWanderer&mdash; anand mahindra (@anandmahindra) <a href="https://x.com/anandmahindra/status/2078816126956634402?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 19, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

With the popularity of social media, the world is now at our doorstep. And while we imbibe the culture of other countries, Indian cultural- its music, tradition and cinema is wooing people in other countries. Indian film music works because of its high emotional quotient—themes of love, separation, resilience, and celebration that transcend linguistic lines.&nbsp;When celebrities like Anand Mahindra, with over 11 million followers on X, share such videos, it puts India on the global map while generating more curiosity around such cultural crossovers.&nbsp;This isn’t a recent phenomenon, though. For decades, Indian cinema and music have been popular in Southeast Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East thanks to the diaspora communities, trade routes, and film exports. Social media has only widened the reach of Indian cinema and music. Now, Bollywood music is just one reel away.&nbsp;In an era marked by geopolitical friction and polarisation, cultural soft power provides a common denominator. Whether it is a world leader curating a Hindi playlist or netizens reacting to a viral clip, or protestors using it to dissent against the government, Bollywood music continues to do what political rhetoric often fails to achieve: reminding everyone about a common emotional heartbeat.

From Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim using iconic 90s Bollywood tracks to frame his diplomatic engagements, to French President Emmanuel Macron featuring 'Jogi' for his India visit reels, world leaders are actively tapping into Indian pop culture to connect with citizens.

Bollywood’s soft power is known worldwide. Whenever an Indian travels abroad and interacts with locals, the first point of commonality is Bollywood. Be it Raj Kapoor’s crazy fandom in Russia or, decades later, Shah Rukh Khan’s popularity in the Middle East, Bollywood, through its films, has been India’s cultural identity. In recent years, Bollywood music in particular has been building cross-cultural bridges, particularly in Asia. New Delhi recently hosted the BRICS Summit 2026, which had many global leaders in attendance. Amid geopolitical treaties and trade agreements, what grabbed eyeballs was when Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim used Bollywood songs in videos of his India visit while sharing on social media. His choice of Bollywood songs for the posts particularly caught the attention of social media users. Malaysian PM's Bollywood playlist From praising PM Narendra Modi with songs like ‘I am the best’ from SRK-Juhi Chawla starrer Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani to Dil to Pagal Hai title track and DDLJ’s iconic ‘Tujhe Dekha To Ye Jana Sanam’, the Malaysian PM’s choice of music wooed the common man of India and made him appear more relatable.

From Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim using iconic 90s Bollywood tracks to frame his diplomatic engagements, to French President Emmanuel Macron featuring 'Jogi' for his India visit reels, world leaders are actively tapping into Indian pop culture to connect with citizens.

Beyond Geopolitics: Why Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim and other global leaders turn to Bollywood playlists

A democracy aspiring to become the world’s third-largest economy and a global superpower cannot afford to mistake public dissent for a threat to the state, or allow political protests to become a substitute for constitutional processes. The October 10-11 protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have brought this tension into sharp focus. What began as a campaign over voter-list revision has spilled across Jantar Mantar, Connaught Place and other parts of the capital, with police detentions, restrictions on movement, metro disruptions and mobile internet suspensions. The Supreme Court’s questioning of sweeping restrictions has added another dimension to the unfolding controversy. The events raise a fundamental question: can a government protect public order without appearing to shut out public opinion?&nbsp;Peaceful protest is the backbone of democracy, but the right to dissent does not confer a licence for anarchy. Equally, the authority to maintain law and order is not a blank cheque to inconvenience millions of citizens. India’s democratic strength lies in its ability to accommodate disagreement, correct administrative mistakes and resolve political disputes through dialogue. Neither the government nor the Opposition should exploit public anger for partisan advantage. The country needs answers, accountability and a way forward—not a contest over who can bring the capital to a standstill.&nbsp;<h2>A legitimate question, a constitutional responsibility</h2>&nbsp;The CJP mobilisation has tapped into a sensitive issue: whether the revision of electoral rolls could leave eligible citizens out of the democratic process. Opposition parties and protest organisers have alleged that large-scale deletions under SIR risk disenfranchising genuine voters and have questioned the Election Commission’s handling of the exercise. Their demand for accountability from CEC Gyanesh Kumar reflects a wider political dispute over the credibility and transparency of electoral administration. These allegations require examination against verifiable records, not acceptance or dismissal on political grounds alone.&nbsp;Cleaning electoral rolls is a legitimate administrative objective. Removing duplicate, deceased or otherwise ineligible entries can strengthen elections. But the process must be transparent, and every eligible citizen must have a fair opportunity to establish their identity and retain their voting rights. A voter should not lose the right to choose a government because of a spelling error, an administrative oversight or an inaccessible verification process. Deletion must be supported by due process, clear reasons and an effective appeal mechanism.&nbsp;The Opposition, however, must also walk the talk. Its responsibility is to present evidence, pursue legal remedies, scrutinise the Election Commission and press for corrective action. Turning a voter-rights campaign into a political show of strength risks blurring the line between public interest and party interest. Allegations of electoral manipulation must be substantiated; slogans alone cannot settle questions of fact.&nbsp;Gen Z’s participation is a welcome reminder that young Indians are not indifferent to democracy. Their energy can strengthen public accountability if it remains peaceful and issue-driven. But street mobilisation cannot become the final arbiter of constitutional disputes. Nor should protesters deliberately disrupt public services or intimidate citizens who disagree with them. A movement that champions democratic rights must respect the rights of others, too.&nbsp;<h2>Security cannot become a sledgehammer</h2>&nbsp;The Modi government and Delhi’s security establishment face a genuine responsibility to prevent violence, protect public property and manage crowds. Authorities may impose proportionate restrictions when credible security risks justify them. Yet the response to the CJP protest raises questions about whether the measures were calibrated to the actual threat.&nbsp;On October 10, reports described extensive barricading, detentions and restrictions affecting metro stations and public transport, alongside a 24-hour mobile internet suspension in parts of central Delhi. Demonstrations subsequently appeared at several locations, including Connaught Place and other areas, as protesters struggled to reach Jantar Mantar. The Supreme Court questioned the restrictions affecting transport and public access, underscoring that security measures must not become disproportionate.&nbsp;Here lies the government’s test. A blanket approach can create the very perception of panic that authorities may wish to avoid. When commuters, traders, students, workers and ordinary residents bear the cost of a political confrontation, the state risks turning a manageable protest into a larger public grievance. Internet restrictions also limit communication for people who have nothing to do with the agitation. Every curtailment must therefore have a clear legal basis, a demonstrated necessity, a narrow scope and a defined duration.&nbsp;The government should not abandon SIR simply because it faces opposition. Electoral-roll revision can serve the public interest, provided it is conducted impartially and with adequate safeguards. But a sound policy does not become immune from scrutiny because its stated objective is legitimate. If errors have occurred, they must be corrected; if allegations are unfounded, evidence should establish that. The Election Commission must communicate its methodology, publish relevant data and provide accessible procedures for checking, correcting and appealing entries.&nbsp;The administration also needs to distinguish peaceful demonstrators from those who may commit violence or deliberately obstruct essential services.&nbsp;<h2>Democracy belongs to the people</h2>&nbsp;India cannot aspire to global leadership while treating either dissent or accountability as a weakness. Nor can democracy flourish if every institutional disagreement is settled through street confrontation. The government, Election Commission and Opposition must sit together, establish the facts, address genuine voter grievances and agree on transparent safeguards for SIR. An independent, accessible grievance-redressal process would help restore public confidence.&nbsp;Ultimately, we-the-people are not spectators in a democracy; we are its foundation. Elections are a festival of participation, not merely a contest for power. Every eligible vote matters, every citizen deserves a fair hearing, and every institution must remain answerable to the Constitution.&nbsp;The street must not govern India, but neither should those in power govern as though the street has no voice. The answer is neither repression nor anarchy. It is dialogue, due process and accountability. A vibrant democracy is not one without protests; it is one capable of resolving the grievances behind them without allowing public order or political freedom to become casualties.

India’s democratic strength lies in its ability to accommodate disagreement, correct administrative mistakes and resolve political disputes through dialogue. Neither the government nor the Opposition should exploit public anger for partisan advantage.

A democracy aspiring to become the world’s third-largest economy and a global superpower cannot afford to mistake public dissent for a threat to the state, or allow political protests to become a substitute for constitutional processes. The October 10-11 protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have brought this tension into sharp focus. What began as a campaign over voter-list revision has spilled across Jantar Mantar, Connaught Place and other parts of the capital, with police detentions, restrictions on movement, metro disruptions and mobile internet suspensions. The Supreme Court’s questioning of sweeping restrictions has added another dimension to the unfolding controversy. The events raise a fundamental question: can a government protect public order without appearing to shut out public opinion? Peaceful protest is the backbone of democracy, but the right to dissent does not confer a licence for anarchy. Equally, the authority to maintain law and order is not a blank cheque to inconvenience millions of citizens. India’s democratic strength lies in its ability to accommodate disagreement, correct administrative mistakes and resolve political disputes through dialogue. Neither the government nor the Opposition should exploit public anger for partisan advantage. The country needs answers, accountability and a way forward—not a contest over who can bring the capital to a standstill. A legitimate question, a constitutional responsibility The CJP mobilisation has tapped into a sensitive issue: whether the revision of electoral rolls could leave eligible citizens out of the democratic process. Opposition parties and protest organisers have alleged that large-scale deletions under SIR risk disenfranchising genuine voters and have questioned the Election Commission’s handling of the exercise. Their demand for accountability from CEC Gyanesh Kumar reflects a wider political dispute over the credibility and transparency of electoral administration. These allegations require examination against verifiable records, not acceptance or dismissal on political grounds alone. Cleaning electoral rolls is a legitimate administrative objective. Removing duplicate, deceased or otherwise ineligible entries can strengthen elections. But the process must be transparent, and every eligible citizen must have a fair opportunity to establish their identity and retain their voting rights. A voter should not lose the right to choose a government because of a spelling error, an administrative oversight or an inaccessible verification process. Deletion must be supported by due process, clear reasons and an effective appeal mechanism. The Opposition, however, must also walk the talk. Its responsibility is to present evidence, pursue legal remedies, scrutinise the Election Commission and press for corrective action. Turning a voter-rights campaign into a political show of strength risks blurring the line between public interest and party interest. Allegations of electoral manipulation must be substantiated; slogans alone cannot settle questions of fact. Gen Z’s participation is a welcome reminder that young Indians are not indifferent to democracy. Their energy can strengthen public accountability if it remains peaceful and issue-driven. But street mobilisation cannot become the final arbiter of constitutional disputes. Nor should protesters deliberately disrupt public services or intimidate citizens who disagree with them. A movement that champions democratic rights must respect the rights of others, too. Security cannot become a sledgehammer The Modi government and Delhi’s security establishment face a genuine responsibility to prevent violence, protect public property and manage crowds. Authorities may impose proportionate restrictions when credible security risks justify them. Yet the response to the CJP protest raises questions about whether the measures were calibrated to the actual threat. On October 10, reports described extensive barricading, detentions and restrictions affecting metro stations and public transport, alongside a 24-hour mobile internet suspension in parts of central Delhi. Demonstrations subsequently appeared at several locations, including Connaught Place and other areas, as protesters struggled to reach Jantar Mantar. The Supreme Court questioned the restrictions affecting transport and public access, underscoring that security measures must not become disproportionate. Here lies the government’s test. A blanket approach can create the very perception of panic that authorities may wish to avoid. When commuters, traders, students, workers and ordinary residents bear the cost of a political confrontation, the state risks turning a manageable protest into a larger public grievance. Internet restrictions also limit communication for people who have nothing to do with the agitation. Every curtailment must therefore have a clear legal basis, a demonstrated necessity, a narrow scope and a defined duration. The government should not abandon SIR simply because it faces opposition. Electoral-roll revision can serve the public interest, provided it is conducted impartially and with adequate safeguards. But a sound policy does not become immune from scrutiny because its stated objective is legitimate. If errors have occurred, they must be corrected; if allegations are unfounded, evidence should establish that. The Election Commission must communicate its methodology, publish relevant data and provide accessible procedures for checking, correcting and appealing entries. The administration also needs to distinguish peaceful demonstrators from those who may commit violence or deliberately obstruct essential services. Democracy belongs to the people India cannot aspire to global leadership while treating either dissent or accountability as a weakness. Nor can democracy flourish if every institutional disagreement is settled through street confrontation. The government, Election Commission and Opposition must sit together, establish the facts, address genuine voter grievances and agree on transparent safeguards for SIR. An independent, accessible grievance-redressal process would help restore public confidence. Ultimately, we-the-people are not spectators in a democracy; we are its foundation. Elections are a festival of participation, not merely a contest for power. Every eligible vote matters, every citizen deserves a fair hearing, and every institution must remain answerable to the Constitution. The street must not govern India, but neither should those in power govern as though the street has no voice. The answer is neither repression nor anarchy. It is dialogue, due process and accountability. A vibrant democracy is not one without protests; it is one capable of resolving the grievances behind them without allowing public order or political freedom to become casualties.

India’s democratic strength lies in its ability to accommodate disagreement, correct administrative mistakes and resolve political disputes through dialogue. Neither the government nor the Opposition should exploit public anger for partisan advantage.

The street cannot govern India, but the government cannot ignore it either

Donald Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize.And with the Norwegian Nobel Committee preparing to announce this year's winner on October 9, the American president has made another public case for why he believes he deserves the world's most prestigious peace award.His argument is straightforward: he claims to have settled eight wars.But the reality of global conflict is considerably more complicated.From Ukraine to Iran, and from Central Africa to Southeast Asia, questions remain about the durability of ceasefires, the effectiveness of diplomatic interventions and whether temporary agreements should be counted as lasting peace.And while Trump seeks international recognition for his diplomatic achievements, his latest remarks about presidential power have ignited another debate closer to home.&nbsp;<h2>Eight wars and a Nobel ambition</h2>&nbsp;Trump insists his diplomatic record is unprecedented.He has repeatedly credited his administration with resolving international disputes, facilitating agreements and preventing conflicts from escalating.His supporters point to negotiations involving countries such as Cambodia and Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, and diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East.These efforts deserve examination on their individual merits.But claiming to have settled eight wars raises a different question: what constitutes a successfully resolved conflict?Fighting has resurfaced in some regions where Trump claims diplomatic success.Russia's war in Ukraine continues despite his earlier promises of a swift settlement.And the conflict involving Iran has disrupted international energy supplies, complicated regional security and raised questions about Washington's broader foreign policy objectives.Diplomatic engagement is important. So are ceasefires.But neither automatically guarantees lasting peace.&nbsp;<h2>‘I can do whatever I want’</h2>&nbsp;Perhaps the most striking contrast emerged during Trump's remarks on October 7.Asked about the possibility of another impeachment if Democrats gain control of Congress, the president turned to his political opponents.He suggested he could have taken action against Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama but had refrained because he believed the presidency should be treated with respect.Then came the extraordinary declaration: ‘I can do whatever I want, if I want.’&nbsp;Trump linked the remark to his two previous impeachments.He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his first presidency and acquitted twice by the Senate.His latest comments raise a broader constitutional question about the limits of presidential authority.American presidents possess substantial executive powers, particularly in foreign policy and national security.But those powers remain subject to constitutional constraints, judicial review and congressional oversight.The distinction between political authority and personal discretion is fundamental to the American constitutional system.And it becomes particularly important when a president discusses possible action against political rivals.&nbsp;<h2>The divisions within MAGA</h2>&nbsp;Trump's foreign policy has also exposed disagreements within his own political movement.The America First message resonated with supporters who wanted Washington to reduce its involvement in prolonged overseas conflicts.Trump repeatedly criticised previous administrations for costly military interventions and promised a different approach.But the continuing confrontation with Iran has complicated that narrative.Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries.These divisions do not establish that Trump has lost the support of his political base.They do, however, reveal competing interpretations of what America First should mean.Is it a commitment to military restraint?Or does it permit forceful intervention when the administration considers American security threatened?That debate is becoming increasingly difficult to separate from Trump's wider foreign policy record.&nbsp;<h2>Peace cannot be measured by declarations alone</h2>&nbsp;There is no universally accepted formula for measuring diplomatic success.A negotiated ceasefire can save lives even when it fails to produce a permanent settlement.An agreement that reduces tensions may represent meaningful progress without ending a conflict entirely.Equally, renewed hostilities can expose the limitations of agreements celebrated prematurely.That distinction matters when evaluating Trump's claims.His administration has participated in diplomatic initiatives that supporters regard as significant achievements.Critics argue that some of those accomplishments have been overstated, particularly where violence has continued or the United States played a more limited role than the president suggests.The Nobel Committee will make its decision independently.And the award is not determined by how frequently a political leader claims to deserve it.&nbsp;<h2>The presidency, power and the pursuit of recognition</h2>&nbsp;Trump's Nobel ambitions and his latest comments about presidential authority have brought two separate debates into focus.One concerns America's contribution to international peace.The other concerns the limits of power within the United States itself.Both deserve scrutiny.A president can pursue diplomatic recognition while exercising substantial military authority. Those objectives are not inherently contradictory.But claims of peacemaking must be assessed against outcomes, just as claims of executive power must be assessed against constitutional limits.Ultimately, the important question extends beyond whether Donald Trump receives the Nobel Peace Prize.It is whether the diplomatic agreements he celebrates can produce lasting security, whether America's military commitments align with his promises, and whether presidential authority continues to operate within established constitutional boundaries.&nbsp;The Nobel Peace Prize recognises contributions to peace.It does not confer unlimited presidential authority.And those are two very different things.

Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries.

Donald Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. And with the Norwegian Nobel Committee preparing to announce this year's winner on October 9, the American president has made another public case for why he believes he deserves the world's most prestigious peace award. His argument is straightforward: he claims to have settled eight wars. But the reality of global conflict is considerably more complicated. From Ukraine to Iran, and from Central Africa to Southeast Asia, questions remain about the durability of ceasefires, the effectiveness of diplomatic interventions and whether temporary agreements should be counted as lasting peace. And while Trump seeks international recognition for his diplomatic achievements, his latest remarks about presidential power have ignited another debate closer to home. Eight wars and a Nobel ambition Trump insists his diplomatic record is unprecedented. He has repeatedly credited his administration with resolving international disputes, facilitating agreements and preventing conflicts from escalating. His supporters point to negotiations involving countries such as Cambodia and Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, and diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East. These efforts deserve examination on their individual merits. But claiming to have settled eight wars raises a different question: what constitutes a successfully resolved conflict? Fighting has resurfaced in some regions where Trump claims diplomatic success. Russia's war in Ukraine continues despite his earlier promises of a swift settlement. And the conflict involving Iran has disrupted international energy supplies, complicated regional security and raised questions about Washington's broader foreign policy objectives. Diplomatic engagement is important. So are ceasefires. But neither automatically guarantees lasting peace. ‘I can do whatever I want’ Perhaps the most striking contrast emerged during Trump's remarks on October 7. Asked about the possibility of another impeachment if Democrats gain control of Congress, the president turned to his political opponents. He suggested he could have taken action against Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama but had refrained because he believed the presidency should be treated with respect. Then came the extraordinary declaration: ‘I can do whatever I want, if I want.’ Trump linked the remark to his two previous impeachments. He was impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his first presidency and acquitted twice by the Senate. His latest comments raise a broader constitutional question about the limits of presidential authority. American presidents possess substantial executive powers, particularly in foreign policy and national security. But those powers remain subject to constitutional constraints, judicial review and congressional oversight. The distinction between political authority and personal discretion is fundamental to the American constitutional system. And it becomes particularly important when a president discusses possible action against political rivals. The divisions within MAGA Trump's foreign policy has also exposed disagreements within his own political movement. The America First message resonated with supporters who wanted Washington to reduce its involvement in prolonged overseas conflicts. Trump repeatedly criticised previous administrations for costly military interventions and promised a different approach. But the continuing confrontation with Iran has complicated that narrative. Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries. These divisions do not establish that Trump has lost the support of his political base. They do, however, reveal competing interpretations of what America First should mean. Is it a commitment to military restraint? Or does it permit forceful intervention when the administration considers American security threatened? That debate is becoming increasingly difficult to separate from Trump's wider foreign policy record. Peace cannot be measured by declarations alone There is no universally accepted formula for measuring diplomatic success. A negotiated ceasefire can save lives even when it fails to produce a permanent settlement. An agreement that reduces tensions may represent meaningful progress without ending a conflict entirely. Equally, renewed hostilities can expose the limitations of agreements celebrated prematurely. That distinction matters when evaluating Trump's claims. His administration has participated in diplomatic initiatives that supporters regard as significant achievements. Critics argue that some of those accomplishments have been overstated, particularly where violence has continued or the United States played a more limited role than the president suggests. The Nobel Committee will make its decision independently. And the award is not determined by how frequently a political leader claims to deserve it. The presidency, power and the pursuit of recognition Trump's Nobel ambitions and his latest comments about presidential authority have brought two separate debates into focus. One concerns America's contribution to international peace. The other concerns the limits of power within the United States itself. Both deserve scrutiny. A president can pursue diplomatic recognition while exercising substantial military authority. Those objectives are not inherently contradictory. But claims of peacemaking must be assessed against outcomes, just as claims of executive power must be assessed against constitutional limits. Ultimately, the important question extends beyond whether Donald Trump receives the Nobel Peace Prize. It is whether the diplomatic agreements he celebrates can produce lasting security, whether America's military commitments align with his promises, and whether presidential authority continues to operate within established constitutional boundaries. The Nobel Peace Prize recognises contributions to peace. It does not confer unlimited presidential authority. And those are two very different things.

Some prominent conservative commentators and MAGA-aligned figures have questioned the administration's military strategy, warning against another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Others argue that military pressure is necessary to protect American interests and deter adversaries.

The Verdict | Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. But what about the wars?

The first world, as they like to call themselves, has often looked down upon the rest of the world. Yet, today France is seeing unprecedented protests over problems that should not have been there in a developed country.&nbsp;What began as a Gen Z protest against the shortage of teachers, lack of facilities and overcrowded classrooms has turned into a full-blown political war with violence, burning schools and damaging infrastructure at the centre of it. 30% of the country's 3,600 high schools were affected at the start of this month. So far, 215 students and 85 school staff members have been injured in clashes.&nbsp;Adding fuel to this is the rising anger against immigrants. Many in France say it is they who are resorting to violence. U.S. President Donald Trump even said, and I quote: "This isn't about schools, this is about Islam wanting to take over a once great country!"&nbsp;The French government says its the leftists who have infiltrated these protests.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/black-day-for-democracy-says-congress-after-mps-detained-announces-nationwide-protests-on-oct-8-1791394070240">‘Black Day for democracy’, says Congress after MPs detained; announces nationwide protests on Oct 8</a>&nbsp;So who is responsible? Well, successive French governments have received complaints about underfunding and teachers' workload. Then there is a massive difference between the elite private and the public schools. No government did much, and those who tried to faced the wrath of teachers' unions, who blocked systemic overhauls.&nbsp;France's education ministry found that during the 2024-2025 school year, about 10% of teaching hours went untaught in public secondary schools. About 7.5% of the lost hours were due to a failure to find substitutes.&nbsp;Genuine apolitical protests, almost always, end up becoming heavily political. So now, it's up to President Macron and PM Lecornu to weed out the infiltrators and listen to the students.

France's Gen Z-led protests over teacher shortages, poor facilities and overcrowded classrooms have escalated into violent and politically charged unrest.

The first world, as they like to call themselves, has often looked down upon the rest of the world. Yet, today France is seeing unprecedented protests over problems that should not have been there in a developed country. What began as a Gen Z protest against the shortage of teachers, lack of facilities and overcrowded classrooms has turned into a full-blown political war with violence, burning schools and damaging infrastructure at the centre of it. 30% of the country's 3,600 high schools were affected at the start of this month. So far, 215 students and 85 school staff members have been injured in clashes. Adding fuel to this is the rising anger against immigrants. Many in France say it is they who are resorting to violence. U.S. President Donald Trump even said, and I quote: "This isn't about schools, this is about Islam wanting to take over a once great country!" The French government says its the leftists who have infiltrated these protests. Also Read: ‘Black Day for democracy’, says Congress after MPs detained; announces nationwide protests on Oct 8 So who is responsible? Well, successive French governments have received complaints about underfunding and teachers' workload. Then there is a massive difference between the elite private and the public schools. No government did much, and those who tried to faced the wrath of teachers' unions, who blocked systemic overhauls. France's education ministry found that during the 2024-2025 school year, about 10% of teaching hours went untaught in public secondary schools. About 7.5% of the lost hours were due to a failure to find substitutes. Genuine apolitical protests, almost always, end up becoming heavily political. So now, it's up to President Macron and PM Lecornu to weed out the infiltrators and listen to the students.

France's Gen Z-led protests over teacher shortages, poor facilities and overcrowded classrooms have escalated into violent and politically charged unrest.

France protests: How a Gen Z school movement turned into a political war | The Verdict

&nbsp;The 18th BRICS Summit at Bharat Mandapam closed with a 140-page declaration and an unmistakable message: the grouping stays relevant precisely because it refuses to become a bloc. Behind that outcome sits an older idea, the Russia-India-China (RIC) triangle, which has returned to strategic conversation. The question for New Delhi is whether RIC is an opportunity or a trap.<h2>A Declaration Written for Many Capitals</h2>&nbsp;The declaration is best read as a set of messages, each addressed to a capital. To China: no weaponisation of critical minerals. To Russia: support for an end to the war, with expanding trade left as a sovereign decision of each member. To Pakistan: condemnation of the Pahalgam attack. To Iran: no obstruction of smooth transit. To Washington: no de-dollarisation agenda and no anti-West posture, yet a firm objection to unilateral sanctions, economic coercion and punitive tariffs. Unimpeded energy flows and protection of infrastructure and seafarers were reaffirmed.This is calibrated activism at work. India gave every member something and no member everything.<h2>Why RIC Is Back in the Reckoning</h2>&nbsp;The logic is structural. No single power now manages the order. Washington and Beijing both apply rules selectively, and every other power faces limits. In this Cold War 2.0, the two giants remain interdependent even as they compete; America is losing relevance as a convenor, and middle powers are moving towards self-reliance. Trump’s tariffs have done more to make BRICS relevant than any lobbying by Moscow or Beijing. The Iran war, with its model of resisting a stronger adversary, has made both the SCO and BRICS more popular. India co-signed the SCO’s condemnation of the unilateral US-Israeli attack, and similar language found its way into BRICS.&nbsp;The summit’s signals reinforce this. The Kremlin says Modi and Xi offered help to Putin in settling the Ukraine war. Xi tabled a five-point initiative covering open-source, inclusive AI; digital, trade and investment facilitation; stable supply chains and a larger integrated market; the Global South as a stabilising force; and non-interference in internal affairs. Putin floated a BRICS-owned insurance mechanism. Energy security binds all three capitals, and the continued role of fossil fuels was acknowledged in a world where no crisis remains merely regional.<h2>The Limits of the Triangle</h2>&nbsp;Enthusiasm needs arithmetic. Trade within BRICS has reached about USD 1.17 trillion, yet BRICS trade with the US and EU still exceeds USD 2 trillion. No member, China included, will sacrifice that access for solidarity. India-China relations, now in a phase of competitive coexistence after the thaw, still carry an unresolved boundary and rival visions of Asia; India’s decision to stay out of RCEP reflects that caution. Iran’s tensions with the UAE and Saudi Arabia show how expansion has imported West Asia’s fault lines into the room. Consensus protects equality, but it also slows decisions. To increase the limit of this triangle and BRICS, intra- BRICS trade must increase.<h2>A Calibrated Agenda for India</h2>&nbsp;First, keep RIC issue-based rather than institutional: energy, Eurasian connectivity, AI governance and facilitation on Ukraine. Second, take from Xi’s initiative what serves India, notably AI that remains human-operated and resilient supply chains, while insisting that border normalisation precedes deeper economic embrace. Third, engage Putin’s insurance idea as an energy, commercial and defence technological hedge. Fourth, keep the Western channel open. India criticised US coercion without breaking with America, and that discipline is among its greatest assets.<h2>Conclusion</h2>&nbsp;RIC’s prospects are real but bounded. It can strengthen India’s bargaining power with Washington, Beijing and Moscow alike, provided New Delhi remains the architect and not the junior partner in someone else’s design. As with BRICS, the principle must hold: non-Western, but not anti-Western. India’s voice, alongside China’s, can carry the concerns of the Global South, but India’s strategic autonomy is not for pooling. Used with discipline, RIC becomes a lever of that autonomy. Used carelessly, it becomes the lens through which the world sees India as part of a Eurasian counter-bloc.

As the US sees its role as a global convener diminish, middle powers are increasingly turning toward strategic self-reliance. Aggressive trade policies like Trump's tariffs have done more to elevate the relevance of BRICS than any diplomatic lobbying out of Beijing or Moscow ever could.

The 18th BRICS Summit at Bharat Mandapam closed with a 140-page declaration and an unmistakable message: the grouping stays relevant precisely because it refuses to become a bloc. Behind that outcome sits an older idea, the Russia-India-China (RIC) triangle, which has returned to strategic conversation. The question for New Delhi is whether RIC is an opportunity or a trap. A Declaration Written for Many Capitals The declaration is best read as a set of messages, each addressed to a capital. To China: no weaponisation of critical minerals. To Russia: support for an end to the war, with expanding trade left as a sovereign decision of each member. To Pakistan: condemnation of the Pahalgam attack. To Iran: no obstruction of smooth transit. To Washington: no de-dollarisation agenda and no anti-West posture, yet a firm objection to unilateral sanctions, economic coercion and punitive tariffs. Unimpeded energy flows and protection of infrastructure and seafarers were reaffirmed. This is calibrated activism at work. India gave every member something and no member everything. Why RIC Is Back in the Reckoning The logic is structural. No single power now manages the order. Washington and Beijing both apply rules selectively, and every other power faces limits. In this Cold War 2.0, the two giants remain interdependent even as they compete; America is losing relevance as a convenor, and middle powers are moving towards self-reliance. Trump’s tariffs have done more to make BRICS relevant than any lobbying by Moscow or Beijing. The Iran war, with its model of resisting a stronger adversary, has made both the SCO and BRICS more popular. India co-signed the SCO’s condemnation of the unilateral US-Israeli attack, and similar language found its way into BRICS. The summit’s signals reinforce this. The Kremlin says Modi and Xi offered help to Putin in settling the Ukraine war. Xi tabled a five-point initiative covering open-source, inclusive AI; digital, trade and investment facilitation; stable supply chains and a larger integrated market; the Global South as a stabilising force; and non-interference in internal affairs. Putin floated a BRICS-owned insurance mechanism. Energy security binds all three capitals, and the continued role of fossil fuels was acknowledged in a world where no crisis remains merely regional. The Limits of the Triangle Enthusiasm needs arithmetic. Trade within BRICS has reached about USD 1.17 trillion, yet BRICS trade with the US and EU still exceeds USD 2 trillion. No member, China included, will sacrifice that access for solidarity. India-China relations, now in a phase of competitive coexistence after the thaw, still carry an unresolved boundary and rival visions of Asia; India’s decision to stay out of RCEP reflects that caution. Iran’s tensions with the UAE and Saudi Arabia show how expansion has imported West Asia’s fault lines into the room. Consensus protects equality, but it also slows decisions. To increase the limit of this triangle and BRICS, intra- BRICS trade must increase. A Calibrated Agenda for India First, keep RIC issue-based rather than institutional: energy, Eurasian connectivity, AI governance and facilitation on Ukraine. Second, take from Xi’s initiative what serves India, notably AI that remains human-operated and resilient supply chains, while insisting that border normalisation precedes deeper economic embrace. Third, engage Putin’s insurance idea as an energy, commercial and defence technological hedge. Fourth, keep the Western channel open. India criticised US coercion without breaking with America, and that discipline is among its greatest assets. Conclusion RIC’s prospects are real but bounded. It can strengthen India’s bargaining power with Washington, Beijing and Moscow alike, provided New Delhi remains the architect and not the junior partner in someone else’s design. As with BRICS, the principle must hold: non-Western, but not anti-Western. India’s voice, alongside China’s, can carry the concerns of the Global South, but India’s strategic autonomy is not for pooling. Used with discipline, RIC becomes a lever of that autonomy. Used carelessly, it becomes the lens through which the world sees India as part of a Eurasian counter-bloc.

As the US sees its role as a global convener diminish, middle powers are increasingly turning toward strategic self-reliance. Aggressive trade policies like Trump's tariffs have done more to elevate the relevance of BRICS than any diplomatic lobbying out of Beijing or Moscow ever could.

The strategic prospects of Russia-India-China (RIC) after BRICS 2026

Donald Trump wants Americans to vote in November as though his name were on the ballot.Republicans may want to consider carefully what that means.At a campaign rally in Nebraska, the US president once again placed himself at the centre of the Republican midterm campaign. But it was another extraordinary remark that quickly dominated the headlines.Speaking about the war with Iran, Trump joked about allowing Tehran to “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego — two Democratic strongholds in California.The backlash was swift.California Governor Gavin Newsom and the mayors of both cities condemned the remarks, turning what was supposed to be another Republican campaign stop into another controversy over Trump himself.And therein lies the problem.Trump remains the undisputed centre of Republican politics. He commands enormous loyalty among the party's base, dominates media attention and can turn an otherwise ordinary campaign rally into an international headline.But attention and persuasion are not necessarily the same thing.And with the midterm elections approaching, Republicans need more than the voters already committed to Donald Trump.&nbsp;<h2>From campaign asset to campaign complication?</h2>&nbsp;Trump's latest Reuters/Ipsos approval rating stands at 32 percent.In the same poll, registered voters preferred Democratic congressional candidates to Republican candidates by 44 percent to 37 percent.That is only one national poll and congressional elections will ultimately be decided district by district and state by state. But it illustrates why the president's campaign appearances matter.Trump himself has effectively acknowledged the stakes.In Nebraska, he urged Republicans to vote as though he personally were on the ballot.That strategy may energise MAGA loyalists.It could also nationalise hundreds of congressional races around one extraordinarily polarising political figure.Instead of Republican candidates talking primarily about their districts, affordability, immigration, security or the economy, every Trump controversy risks forcing them to answer questions about something the president has said.&nbsp;<h2>Even mail-in voting is back</h2>&nbsp;Perhaps nothing illustrates the changing political calculation better than Trump's message on postal voting.For years, Trump attacked mail-in voting, repeatedly associating it with electoral fraud despite the absence of evidence supporting claims of widespread fraud capable of changing national election results.Now his message is different.“Vote early, vote by mail or vote in person,” Trump told supporters.Republicans have increasingly encouraged early and postal voting as they seek to maximise turnout.Strategically, that makes sense.Politically, however, it exposes an uncomfortable contradiction.If mail-in voting was supposedly so dangerous when Democrats used it effectively, why is it acceptable when Republicans need every possible vote?The answer may be less ideological than electoral.November is getting closer.&nbsp;<h2>The politics of provocation</h2>&nbsp;Trump's defenders will argue that his California comments were typical Trump — provocative humour intended to entertain supporters rather than a serious suggestion that Iran should attack American cities.His critics see something far more troubling: an American president making light of foreign attacks against millions of Americans because they live in overwhelmingly Democratic territory.Either way, the controversy demonstrates the political risk of Trump's campaign style.The United States remains deeply polarised.Americans are dealing with questions about affordability, foreign wars, immigration, jobs and the economy.Against that backdrop, Republicans must decide whether another headline about Trump's rhetoric helps them communicate their own message — or buries it.&nbsp;<h2>Trump is effectively on the ballot</h2>&nbsp;There is also a deeper irony.Midterm elections traditionally become judgments on the president occupying the White House.Trump is now explicitly encouraging that dynamic.He wants Republicans to imagine that his name appears beside every congressional candidate.Perhaps his supporters will.But so might his opponents.That is the gamble.Donald Trump remains capable of electrifying the Republican base in a way few politicians can.But elections are not won merely by exciting people who already agree with you.They require persuasion beyond the faithful.Trump wants November to become a referendum on Donald Trump.Republicans may discover that getting exactly what the president asked for is the biggest gamble of all.

President Donald Trump remains the undisputed centre of Republican politics. He commands enormous loyalty among the party's base, dominates media attention and can turn an otherwise ordinary campaign rally into an international headline.

Donald Trump wants Americans to vote in November as though his name were on the ballot. Republicans may want to consider carefully what that means. At a campaign rally in Nebraska, the US president once again placed himself at the centre of the Republican midterm campaign. But it was another extraordinary remark that quickly dominated the headlines. Speaking about the war with Iran, Trump joked about allowing Tehran to “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego — two Democratic strongholds in California. The backlash was swift. California Governor Gavin Newsom and the mayors of both cities condemned the remarks, turning what was supposed to be another Republican campaign stop into another controversy over Trump himself. And therein lies the problem. Trump remains the undisputed centre of Republican politics. He commands enormous loyalty among the party's base, dominates media attention and can turn an otherwise ordinary campaign rally into an international headline. But attention and persuasion are not necessarily the same thing. And with the midterm elections approaching, Republicans need more than the voters already committed to Donald Trump. From campaign asset to campaign complication? Trump's latest Reuters/Ipsos approval rating stands at 32 percent. In the same poll, registered voters preferred Democratic congressional candidates to Republican candidates by 44 percent to 37 percent. That is only one national poll and congressional elections will ultimately be decided district by district and state by state. But it illustrates why the president's campaign appearances matter. Trump himself has effectively acknowledged the stakes. In Nebraska, he urged Republicans to vote as though he personally were on the ballot. That strategy may energise MAGA loyalists. It could also nationalise hundreds of congressional races around one extraordinarily polarising political figure. Instead of Republican candidates talking primarily about their districts, affordability, immigration, security or the economy, every Trump controversy risks forcing them to answer questions about something the president has said. Even mail-in voting is back Perhaps nothing illustrates the changing political calculation better than Trump's message on postal voting. For years, Trump attacked mail-in voting, repeatedly associating it with electoral fraud despite the absence of evidence supporting claims of widespread fraud capable of changing national election results. Now his message is different. “Vote early, vote by mail or vote in person,” Trump told supporters. Republicans have increasingly encouraged early and postal voting as they seek to maximise turnout. Strategically, that makes sense. Politically, however, it exposes an uncomfortable contradiction. If mail-in voting was supposedly so dangerous when Democrats used it effectively, why is it acceptable when Republicans need every possible vote? The answer may be less ideological than electoral. November is getting closer. The politics of provocation Trump's defenders will argue that his California comments were typical Trump — provocative humour intended to entertain supporters rather than a serious suggestion that Iran should attack American cities. His critics see something far more troubling: an American president making light of foreign attacks against millions of Americans because they live in overwhelmingly Democratic territory. Either way, the controversy demonstrates the political risk of Trump's campaign style. The United States remains deeply polarised. Americans are dealing with questions about affordability, foreign wars, immigration, jobs and the economy. Against that backdrop, Republicans must decide whether another headline about Trump's rhetoric helps them communicate their own message — or buries it. Trump is effectively on the ballot There is also a deeper irony. Midterm elections traditionally become judgments on the president occupying the White House. Trump is now explicitly encouraging that dynamic. He wants Republicans to imagine that his name appears beside every congressional candidate. Perhaps his supporters will. But so might his opponents. That is the gamble. Donald Trump remains capable of electrifying the Republican base in a way few politicians can. But elections are not won merely by exciting people who already agree with you. They require persuasion beyond the faithful. Trump wants November to become a referendum on Donald Trump. Republicans may discover that getting exactly what the president asked for is the biggest gamble of all.

President Donald Trump remains the undisputed centre of Republican politics. He commands enormous loyalty among the party's base, dominates media attention and can turn an otherwise ordinary campaign rally into an international headline.

The Verdict | Trump wants the midterms to be about him. Republicans may regret it

The naval blockade is among the oldest instruments of statecraft. Long before air power, missiles and cyber warfare altered the character of conflict, command of the sea offered a means of weakening an adversary without having to defeat its armies on the battlefield. &nbsp;Britain’s naval blockade of Napoleonic France, the Union blockade of the Confederacy during the American Civil War (1861–1865), Britain’s blockade of Germany during the First World War and America’s campaign against Japanese shipping during the Second World War demonstrated the economic power that could flow from control of the seas.&nbsp;&nbsp;The events unfolding around the Strait of Hormuz may now be adding a distinctly twenty-first-century chapter to that history.&nbsp;What is striking about the present disruption is not simply its scale, but its asymmetry. Iran’s ability to export oil has been severely constrained, while Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf producers have increasingly sought alternative means of moving their energy to international markets.&nbsp;&nbsp;The question, therefore, is larger than whether one of the world’s great waterways can be disrupted. Are we witnessing the emergence of a new form of naval blockade?&nbsp;&nbsp;The Red Sea had already offered an unsettling preview. &nbsp;Since November 2023, Houthi attacks on commercial shipping have disrupted one of the principal arteries linking Asia and Europe. Ships have been diverted around the Cape of Good Hope, adding distance, time and expense to journeys that once passed routinely through the Red Sea and Suez Canal.&nbsp;&nbsp;The striking feature of the Red Sea crisis is that a non-state actor, armed with comparatively inexpensive missiles and drones, has been able to impose costs on a global trading system vastly larger than itself.&nbsp;Cuba offers another, very different illustration of the changing character of maritime economic pressure. The United States has combined sanctions and restrictions on the supply of fuel with maritime enforcement, making it increasingly difficult for Cuba to obtain the oil on which its economy depends. The objective is not a traditional wartime siege of Cuba’s coastline, but the restriction of the economic routes on which the country depends.&nbsp;&nbsp;Hormuz presents yet another proposition. &nbsp;Here, the confrontation is between the United States and Iran, involving naval and missile capabilities on both sides and one of the world’s most important energy routes. Yet all three episodes point to a reality that the digital age can easily obscure: geography still has the last word over commerce.&nbsp;History provides several reminders of this.&nbsp;&nbsp;During the American Civil War, the Union blockade sought to cut the Confederacy off from overseas trade, preventing it from exporting cotton and importing arms, ammunition and other supplies. The blockade was never watertight, but as the Union Navy expanded and tightened its control of the Southern coastline, the Confederacy’s external trade became increasingly difficult to sustain. Its importance lay not in winning the war by itself, but in the cumulative pressure it placed on an economy already under severe strain.&nbsp;&nbsp;Britain’s blockade of Germany during the First World War demonstrated the same principle on a much larger scale, restricting access to food and raw materials. In the Second World War, the American submarine campaign against Japan progressively destroyed its merchant fleet and severely restricted access to oil and other vital resources.&nbsp;&nbsp;The circumstances were different. The underlying vulnerability was not. &nbsp;Global commerce ultimately has to pass through physical geography.&nbsp;Money can cross borders electronically. Oil cannot. A tanker has to leave a port, cross a sea and reach a destination. At certain points on the map, there are few substitutes for the route that geography has provided.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Strait of Hormuz is one of those places. &nbsp;Before the present crisis, roughly a fifth of global oil and gas supplies passed through the Strait. Its importance therefore extends well beyond the immediate confrontation between Iran and the United States.&nbsp;&nbsp;Yet Hormuz also illustrates how much the nature of economic warfare has changed. Iran is particularly exposed because maritime energy exports are central to its access to foreign revenue. Years of sanctions reduced Iranian exports but did not eliminate them. Alternative buyers, intermediaries and shadow shipping networks allowed Iranian oil to continue finding its way to international markets.&nbsp;&nbsp;A physical maritime interdiction is different. It intervenes at the point where the commodity has to move. &nbsp;But the disruption has not fallen equally on every producer. Saudi Arabia has its East-West pipeline and access to the Red Sea. The UAE has alternative export infrastructure. Other Gulf producers have been exploring different logistical arrangements, including ship-to-ship transfers. &nbsp;This is where the current episode becomes particularly significant.&nbsp;&nbsp;A modern blockade can be selective. &nbsp;Rather than sealing an entire region off from the outside world, it can place exceptional pressure on one adversary while allowing other economies to reroute their trade and keep functioning. That possibility is a product of the twenty-first century.&nbsp;&nbsp;Satellites and advanced intelligence systems can track vessels over vast distances. Aircraft, drones, submarines and precision weapons give naval powers an ability to monitor and influence maritime traffic that earlier generations could scarcely have imagined. Financial restrictions, insurance costs and control over maritime services can reinforce military pressure.&nbsp;&nbsp;At the same time, alternative pipelines, ports and shipping arrangements give other countries ways around the obstruction. The result can be a form of economic warfare that is neither the total isolation sought by the great blockades of the past nor simply the disruption of individual ships. It is something more discriminating.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Red Sea demonstrates how relatively inexpensive weapons can unsettle an enormously valuable trading route. Cuba illustrates how sanctions and maritime enforcement can restrict the supply of a vital commodity without a conventional wartime siege. Hormuz demonstrates the other side of the equation: how naval power can exploit a geographical chokepoint while neighbouring economies attempt to preserve their own access to world markets. That distinction may prove important beyond the current conflict.&nbsp;&nbsp;For much of the twentieth century, economic warfare increasingly relied on sanctions and financial pressure. These could punish an adversary without physically stopping the movement of goods. The experience around Hormuz suggests that physical geography still offers a different kind of leverage.&nbsp;&nbsp;A barrel of oil may be sold in a global market, but it cannot reach that market without being transported. Control the route and the economics of the transaction can change immediately. This is also why the consequences extend beyond Iran. Any sustained disruption around Hormuz affects oil prices, shipping costs, insurance premiums and the availability of refined products. Even when alternative routes exist, they tend to be more expensive and less efficient. The paradox is that the same infrastructure that allows other Gulf producers to adapt can also reduce the wider economic impact of the blockade. That may be what distinguishes the present situation from the great blockades of the past. The objective need not be to bring the entire regional economy to its knees. It can be to deny one particular economy the ability to use the sea while allowing much of the surrounding system to continue operating. There is, however, a danger in declaring the historical verdict too soon.&nbsp;&nbsp;The confrontation is still unfolding. The effectiveness of any blockade ultimately depends on whether alternative routes can be sustained, whether military pressure can be maintained and whether diplomacy changes the course of events.&nbsp;&nbsp;History is written with hindsight. A measure that appears decisive in the middle of a conflict can look very different once its wider consequences become clear. But if the present pattern endures, Hormuz may eventually occupy an important place in the history of naval power.&nbsp;&nbsp;The great blockades of the past sought, in different ways, to isolate an adversary from the outside world. What may be emerging today is a more discriminating form of maritime economic warfare: the ability to impose extraordinary pressure on one country’s trade while much of the surrounding economic system continues to function. That would represent a significant evolution in the use of sea power. It would also remind us of something the digital age sometimes encourages us to forget. However sophisticated the global economy becomes, it remains dependent on a handful of physical passages through which ships must travel.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Red Sea has shown how vulnerable such passages can be. Hormuz may now be showing how powerful control of them can become. &nbsp;If the present pattern endures, historians may indeed regard this episode as one for the history books — not because the naval blockade has returned in its old form, but because it may have acquired a new one. The precision blockade: using technology, naval power and geography to exert extraordinary pressure on one economy without necessarily bringing the wider trading system to a halt.&nbsp;

The Strait of Hormuz is highlighting a new form of maritime economic warfare where naval power, precision weapons and geography can pressure one economy while surrounding trade continues. From the Red Sea to Cuba, modern blockades are becoming more selective, but geography remains decisive.

The naval blockade is among the oldest instruments of statecraft. Long before air power, missiles and cyber warfare altered the character of conflict, command of the sea offered a means of weakening an adversary without having to defeat its armies on the battlefield. Britain’s naval blockade of Napoleonic France, the Union blockade of the Confederacy during the American Civil War (1861–1865), Britain’s blockade of Germany during the First World War and America’s campaign against Japanese shipping during the Second World War demonstrated the economic power that could flow from control of the seas. The events unfolding around the Strait of Hormuz may now be adding a distinctly twenty-first-century chapter to that history. What is striking about the present disruption is not simply its scale, but its asymmetry. Iran’s ability to export oil has been severely constrained, while Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf producers have increasingly sought alternative means of moving their energy to international markets. The question, therefore, is larger than whether one of the world’s great waterways can be disrupted. Are we witnessing the emergence of a new form of naval blockade? The Red Sea had already offered an unsettling preview. Since November 2023, Houthi attacks on commercial shipping have disrupted one of the principal arteries linking Asia and Europe. Ships have been diverted around the Cape of Good Hope, adding distance, time and expense to journeys that once passed routinely through the Red Sea and Suez Canal. The striking feature of the Red Sea crisis is that a non-state actor, armed with comparatively inexpensive missiles and drones, has been able to impose costs on a global trading system vastly larger than itself. Cuba offers another, very different illustration of the changing character of maritime economic pressure. The United States has combined sanctions and restrictions on the supply of fuel with maritime enforcement, making it increasingly difficult for Cuba to obtain the oil on which its economy depends. The objective is not a traditional wartime siege of Cuba’s coastline, but the restriction of the economic routes on which the country depends. Hormuz presents yet another proposition. Here, the confrontation is between the United States and Iran, involving naval and missile capabilities on both sides and one of the world’s most important energy routes. Yet all three episodes point to a reality that the digital age can easily obscure: geography still has the last word over commerce. History provides several reminders of this. During the American Civil War, the Union blockade sought to cut the Confederacy off from overseas trade, preventing it from exporting cotton and importing arms, ammunition and other supplies. The blockade was never watertight, but as the Union Navy expanded and tightened its control of the Southern coastline, the Confederacy’s external trade became increasingly difficult to sustain. Its importance lay not in winning the war by itself, but in the cumulative pressure it placed on an economy already under severe strain. Britain’s blockade of Germany during the First World War demonstrated the same principle on a much larger scale, restricting access to food and raw materials. In the Second World War, the American submarine campaign against Japan progressively destroyed its merchant fleet and severely restricted access to oil and other vital resources. The circumstances were different. The underlying vulnerability was not. Global commerce ultimately has to pass through physical geography. Money can cross borders electronically. Oil cannot. A tanker has to leave a port, cross a sea and reach a destination. At certain points on the map, there are few substitutes for the route that geography has provided. The Strait of Hormuz is one of those places. Before the present crisis, roughly a fifth of global oil and gas supplies passed through the Strait. Its importance therefore extends well beyond the immediate confrontation between Iran and the United States. Yet Hormuz also illustrates how much the nature of economic warfare has changed. Iran is particularly exposed because maritime energy exports are central to its access to foreign revenue. Years of sanctions reduced Iranian exports but did not eliminate them. Alternative buyers, intermediaries and shadow shipping networks allowed Iranian oil to continue finding its way to international markets. A physical maritime interdiction is different. It intervenes at the point where the commodity has to move. But the disruption has not fallen equally on every producer. Saudi Arabia has its East-West pipeline and access to the Red Sea. The UAE has alternative export infrastructure. Other Gulf producers have been exploring different logistical arrangements, including ship-to-ship transfers. This is where the current episode becomes particularly significant. A modern blockade can be selective. Rather than sealing an entire region off from the outside world, it can place exceptional pressure on one adversary while allowing other economies to reroute their trade and keep functioning. That possibility is a product of the twenty-first century. Satellites and advanced intelligence systems can track vessels over vast distances. Aircraft, drones, submarines and precision weapons give naval powers an ability to monitor and influence maritime traffic that earlier generations could scarcely have imagined. Financial restrictions, insurance costs and control over maritime services can reinforce military pressure. At the same time, alternative pipelines, ports and shipping arrangements give other countries ways around the obstruction. The result can be a form of economic warfare that is neither the total isolation sought by the great blockades of the past nor simply the disruption of individual ships. It is something more discriminating. The Red Sea demonstrates how relatively inexpensive weapons can unsettle an enormously valuable trading route. Cuba illustrates how sanctions and maritime enforcement can restrict the supply of a vital commodity without a conventional wartime siege. Hormuz demonstrates the other side of the equation: how naval power can exploit a geographical chokepoint while neighbouring economies attempt to preserve their own access to world markets. That distinction may prove important beyond the current conflict. For much of the twentieth century, economic warfare increasingly relied on sanctions and financial pressure. These could punish an adversary without physically stopping the movement of goods. The experience around Hormuz suggests that physical geography still offers a different kind of leverage. A barrel of oil may be sold in a global market, but it cannot reach that market without being transported. Control the route and the economics of the transaction can change immediately. This is also why the consequences extend beyond Iran. Any sustained disruption around Hormuz affects oil prices, shipping costs, insurance premiums and the availability of refined products. Even when alternative routes exist, they tend to be more expensive and less efficient. The paradox is that the same infrastructure that allows other Gulf producers to adapt can also reduce the wider economic impact of the blockade. That may be what distinguishes the present situation from the great blockades of the past. The objective need not be to bring the entire regional economy to its knees. It can be to deny one particular economy the ability to use the sea while allowing much of the surrounding system to continue operating. There is, however, a danger in declaring the historical verdict too soon. The confrontation is still unfolding. The effectiveness of any blockade ultimately depends on whether alternative routes can be sustained, whether military pressure can be maintained and whether diplomacy changes the course of events. History is written with hindsight. A measure that appears decisive in the middle of a conflict can look very different once its wider consequences become clear. But if the present pattern endures, Hormuz may eventually occupy an important place in the history of naval power. The great blockades of the past sought, in different ways, to isolate an adversary from the outside world. What may be emerging today is a more discriminating form of maritime economic warfare: the ability to impose extraordinary pressure on one country’s trade while much of the surrounding economic system continues to function. That would represent a significant evolution in the use of sea power. It would also remind us of something the digital age sometimes encourages us to forget. However sophisticated the global economy becomes, it remains dependent on a handful of physical passages through which ships must travel. The Red Sea has shown how vulnerable such passages can be. Hormuz may now be showing how powerful control of them can become. If the present pattern endures, historians may indeed regard this episode as one for the history books — not because the naval blockade has returned in its old form, but because it may have acquired a new one. The precision blockade: using technology, naval power and geography to exert extraordinary pressure on one economy without necessarily bringing the wider trading system to a halt.

The Strait of Hormuz is highlighting a new form of maritime economic warfare where naval power, precision weapons and geography can pressure one economy while surrounding trade continues. From the Red Sea to Cuba, modern blockades are becoming more selective, but geography remains decisive.

The precision blockade: What Strait of Hormuz tells us about naval power

Jair Bolsonaro is behind bars. His name was not on Brazil's presidential ballot. But if the first round of Brazil's election proved anything, it is that Bolsonaro's political movement is nowhere near dead.His son, Flávio Bolsonaro, has stormed into the presidential runoff after securing just over 47 percent of the valid vote, finishing ahead of incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who received just over 45 percent.The two will now meet again on October 25.On paper, this is Lula versus Flávio Bolsonaro.Politically, it is something much bigger.It is a referendum on whether Bolsonaroism can outlive Bolsonaro.&nbsp;<h2>A surname becomes a political movement</h2>&nbsp;Four years ago, Lula narrowly defeated Jair Bolsonaro for the presidency. Bolsonaro would subsequently be convicted over an attempt to overturn that result and sentenced to 27 years in prison.For Bolsonaro's opponents, his downfall appeared to offer an opportunity to turn the page.Instead, his son is now within touching distance of the presidency.That should force Brazil's political establishment to confront an uncomfortable reality: removing a politician does not necessarily remove the grievances that created his movement.Flávio Bolsonaro's performance cannot simply be explained by loyalty to his father.Brazilian voters remain concerned about the cost of living, public security, corruption, household debt and the direction of the economy. Lula's government can point to improvements in unemployment and inequality, but statistics do not always translate into how voters feel at the supermarket, at home or on the streets.That disconnect has created fertile ground for the Brazilian right.&nbsp;<h2>Brazil's Trump connection</h2>&nbsp;There is also an international dimension.Flávio Bolsonaro is politically aligned with US President Donald Trump, who has publicly praised him. Lula, meanwhile, has accused Washington of attempting to interfere in Brazil's politics — allegations the United States has rejected.But the more important story extends beyond Trump himself.Across Latin America, voters in several countries have recently turned towards right-wing governments and candidates promising tougher security policies, economic reform and a rejection of established political elites.Brazil may now become the biggest prize in that political realignment.Latin America's largest economy choosing another Bolsonaro would reverberate far beyond Brasília — from Washington to Beijing and across the Global South.&nbsp;<h2>But Flávio is not Jair</h2>&nbsp;The Bolsonaro name is both Flávio's greatest political asset and potentially his greatest weakness.It gives him an enormous, already mobilised conservative base. But it also brings the baggage of his father's presidency, the attempted coup case and years of bitter political polarisation.The runoff therefore presents Flávio with an intriguing challenge.He must inherit his father's voters without becoming imprisoned by his father's politics.Lula faces the opposite problem.At 80, the veteran leftist must convince Brazilians that his experience remains an asset rather than evidence that the country's politics has become trapped between two familiar political dynasties.And that may ultimately be the most fascinating feature of this election.Brazil is being offered change — but through one of the most recognisable surnames in Brazilian politics.&nbsp;<h2>Bolsonaroism survives</h2>&nbsp;Whatever happens on October 25, the first round has already delivered a political lesson extending far beyond Brazil.Political movements rarely disappear simply because their leaders fall.Donald Trump survived impeachment, prosecution and political defeat. Populist movements across Europe have survived bans, scandals and leadership changes. And now Brazil is discovering that Bolsonaroism does not necessarily require Jair Bolsonaro standing on the ballot.That does not mean Flávio Bolsonaro has won.A runoff is a different election. Alliances shift. Tactical voting intensifies. Voters who supported eliminated candidates must choose again.Lula still has a path back.But the assumption that Jair Bolsonaro's imprisonment would consign his movement to history has already been demolished.Brazil has separated the politician from the politics.Jair Bolsonaro may be behind bars.Bolsonaroism is not.

Lula's government can point to improvements in unemployment and inequality, but statistics do not always translate into how voters feel at the supermarket, at home or on the streets. That disconnect has created fertile ground for the Brazilian right.

Jair Bolsonaro is behind bars. His name was not on Brazil's presidential ballot. But if the first round of Brazil's election proved anything, it is that Bolsonaro's political movement is nowhere near dead. His son, Flávio Bolsonaro, has stormed into the presidential runoff after securing just over 47 percent of the valid vote, finishing ahead of incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who received just over 45 percent. The two will now meet again on October 25. On paper, this is Lula versus Flávio Bolsonaro. Politically, it is something much bigger. It is a referendum on whether Bolsonaroism can outlive Bolsonaro. A surname becomes a political movement Four years ago, Lula narrowly defeated Jair Bolsonaro for the presidency. Bolsonaro would subsequently be convicted over an attempt to overturn that result and sentenced to 27 years in prison. For Bolsonaro's opponents, his downfall appeared to offer an opportunity to turn the page. Instead, his son is now within touching distance of the presidency. That should force Brazil's political establishment to confront an uncomfortable reality: removing a politician does not necessarily remove the grievances that created his movement. Flávio Bolsonaro's performance cannot simply be explained by loyalty to his father. Brazilian voters remain concerned about the cost of living, public security, corruption, household debt and the direction of the economy. Lula's government can point to improvements in unemployment and inequality, but statistics do not always translate into how voters feel at the supermarket, at home or on the streets. That disconnect has created fertile ground for the Brazilian right. Brazil's Trump connection There is also an international dimension. Flávio Bolsonaro is politically aligned with US President Donald Trump, who has publicly praised him. Lula, meanwhile, has accused Washington of attempting to interfere in Brazil's politics — allegations the United States has rejected. But the more important story extends beyond Trump himself. Across Latin America, voters in several countries have recently turned towards right-wing governments and candidates promising tougher security policies, economic reform and a rejection of established political elites. Brazil may now become the biggest prize in that political realignment. Latin America's largest economy choosing another Bolsonaro would reverberate far beyond Brasília — from Washington to Beijing and across the Global South. But Flávio is not Jair The Bolsonaro name is both Flávio's greatest political asset and potentially his greatest weakness. It gives him an enormous, already mobilised conservative base. But it also brings the baggage of his father's presidency, the attempted coup case and years of bitter political polarisation. The runoff therefore presents Flávio with an intriguing challenge. He must inherit his father's voters without becoming imprisoned by his father's politics. Lula faces the opposite problem. At 80, the veteran leftist must convince Brazilians that his experience remains an asset rather than evidence that the country's politics has become trapped between two familiar political dynasties. And that may ultimately be the most fascinating feature of this election. Brazil is being offered change — but through one of the most recognisable surnames in Brazilian politics. Bolsonaroism survives Whatever happens on October 25, the first round has already delivered a political lesson extending far beyond Brazil. Political movements rarely disappear simply because their leaders fall. Donald Trump survived impeachment, prosecution and political defeat. Populist movements across Europe have survived bans, scandals and leadership changes. And now Brazil is discovering that Bolsonaroism does not necessarily require Jair Bolsonaro standing on the ballot. That does not mean Flávio Bolsonaro has won. A runoff is a different election. Alliances shift. Tactical voting intensifies. Voters who supported eliminated candidates must choose again. Lula still has a path back. But the assumption that Jair Bolsonaro's imprisonment would consign his movement to history has already been demolished. Brazil has separated the politician from the politics. Jair Bolsonaro may be behind bars. Bolsonaroism is not.

Lula's government can point to improvements in unemployment and inequality, but statistics do not always translate into how voters feel at the supermarket, at home or on the streets. That disconnect has created fertile ground for the Brazilian right.

The Verdict | You can jail Bolsonaro, but can you kill Bolsonaroism?

India is the world's largest democracy. We take pride in being a beautifully diverse country, bound by the unifying thread of our Constitution. But today, India is staring at a situation where there are some who are questioning its democratic processes and others who are defending it. They say democracy is the people's will. So, what is the will of Indians?&nbsp;Is it what Rahul Gandhi and CJP are saying? Or is it aligned with the EC and the ruling BJP? Well, massive protests were seen in Delhi and Mumbai on Friday (October 2). Multiple metro stations and roads were blocked as protesters gathered to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Opposition doesn't have the numbers in Lok Sabha to get an impeachment motion passed against Gyanesh Kumar. That's the constitutional procedure to remove a CEC. So pressuring him to resign through protests is their way.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/sir-row-over-700-including-aap-leaders-activists-detained-in-delhi-cjp-protests-at-mumbai-s-shivaji-park-1790936501641">SIR row: Over 700 including AAP leaders, activists detained near Jantar Mantar; CJP protests at Mumbai's Shivaji Park</a>&nbsp;This is not just a fight over one man. This is a test of whether India’s democracy can withstand scrutiny and whether its institutions are strong enough to answer difficult questions without fear. The BJP has every right to defend the institution. The Opposition has every right to question it. But citizens have an even greater right to a robust democracy. If the allegations are unfounded, prove them wrong. If there are procedural lapses, investigate them. If electoral rolls contain errors, correct them.&nbsp;Different parties rule different states of India, but regardless of who is in power, every citizen of India has the right to a healthy democracy. And so amid political fights on TV debates and large protests on ground, the credibility of India's democratic process must be upheld at any cost.

India’s democracy faces fresh scrutiny as opposition protests target CEC Gyanesh Kumar, raising questions over electoral processes and institutional trust

India is the world's largest democracy. We take pride in being a beautifully diverse country, bound by the unifying thread of our Constitution. But today, India is staring at a situation where there are some who are questioning its democratic processes and others who are defending it. They say democracy is the people's will. So, what is the will of Indians? Is it what Rahul Gandhi and CJP are saying? Or is it aligned with the EC and the ruling BJP? Well, massive protests were seen in Delhi and Mumbai on Friday (October 2). Multiple metro stations and roads were blocked as protesters gathered to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Opposition doesn't have the numbers in Lok Sabha to get an impeachment motion passed against Gyanesh Kumar. That's the constitutional procedure to remove a CEC. So pressuring him to resign through protests is their way. Also Read: SIR row: Over 700 including AAP leaders, activists detained near Jantar Mantar; CJP protests at Mumbai's Shivaji Park This is not just a fight over one man. This is a test of whether India’s democracy can withstand scrutiny and whether its institutions are strong enough to answer difficult questions without fear. The BJP has every right to defend the institution. The Opposition has every right to question it. But citizens have an even greater right to a robust democracy. If the allegations are unfounded, prove them wrong. If there are procedural lapses, investigate them. If electoral rolls contain errors, correct them. Different parties rule different states of India, but regardless of who is in power, every citizen of India has the right to a healthy democracy. And so amid political fights on TV debates and large protests on ground, the credibility of India's democratic process must be upheld at any cost.

Protests targeting CEC Gyanesh Kumar intensify India’s democracy debate, with opposition allegations, BJP’s defence and questions over electoral integrity

India’s democracy is being tested. Who will answer the tough questions?

When you talk with military theorists in China about the future of the art of war, they will not talk with you about tanks or even numbers of infantry. They were fixated on how quickly they could acquire, process, and act on information. This has had remarkable implications for the way the Chinese military, especially the People’s Liberation Army, has modernised its forces. It has happened in ways that have remained hidden, but it has fundamentally altered the strategic military balance in the world.<h2>The Silent Revolution of Reorganising Military Structure</h2>China did not reveal any plans to reorganise warfare via press releases or official statements. Rather, within a two-year span, there was a silent demolition, rebranding, and restructuring of command organisations. The reason why this was done was not due to bureaucratic reasons; rather, current organisational structures did not have the capability to process and relay information in the speed that is required in modern warfare. The inability to process and use information quickly became one of China's weak points in terms of military operations.The foundation of the revolution was laid out in December 2015 when China combined all the capabilities in space, cyber, electronic, and psychological warfare into one Strategic Support Force.But recognition was gained that even the revolutionary force could be subjected to bureaucracy. It was in April 2024 that China fundamentally reorganised this force by splitting it into three command forces: PLA Cyberspace Force, PLA Aerospace Force, and PLA Information Support Force. The dismantling of the Strategic Support Force happened because of the fact that the previous organisation, although novel in concept, became the victim of bureaucratic rigidity and inter-departmental wrangles which hindered the free exchange of information.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/spy-vs-spy-as-xi-meets-trump-a-12-year-history-of-us-china-espionage-accusations-wion-decodes-1790071582437">SPY VS SPY: As Xi meets Trump, a 12-year history of US-China espionage accusations | WION Decodes</a><h2>System Destruction Warfare</h2>Discipline known as "system destruction warfare" supports the organisational transformation in question. System destruction warfare is a completely different strategy as compared to traditional war theories based on attrition and force annihilation. As opposed to destroying the military forces of an adversary, the approach involves winning the war through severing ties that unite enemy's military organisations as whole.This strategy entails attacking the communications system, interfering with the sensors, and disturbing the command and control nodes. Even if this communication system is broken, the military structure of the opposing force will break down regardless of their weaponry. This strategy emphasises disruption over destruction, communication breakdown over elimination of the force. Contemporary military structures fail without being physically destroyed because of the absence of communication systems.<h2>Military Commands Information Integration</h2>The key component of the military transformation process in China is the Information Support Force. This organisation is in charge of integrating the information received from satellites and cyber and electronic warfare sensors into an overall picture of the battlefield. In principle, this integrated picture has to be made available for all commanders in all five regional theatre commands of China, just like it happens in the American Joint All-Domain Command and Control system.The evolution of infrastructure makes the above assumption plausible. It is evident that the satellite operators have observed the building of big ships for unmanned submarines in Shanghai shipyards. This proves that China is not restricted to the use of the defensive deployment of these technologies in their naval areas only.However, tensions still exist in regard to military autonomy and decision-making power. Despite the implication of “intelligentised warfare” in terms of high level of automation, Chinese discussion on PLA matters indicates significant reluctance in delegating the decision-making power to algorithmic system. The basic dilemma that remains unresolved lies in authorisation: who can authorise the execution of military actions after the algorithm gives recommendations for it? This issue has its political aspects since political party officers and military officers share decision-making power in China’s military establishment.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/us-vs-china-in-numbers-who-leads-in-economy-military-ai-trade-and-technology-1790186640646">US vs China in numbers: Who leads in economy, military, AI, trade and technology?</a><h2>Civilian Technology for Military Use</h2>China’s development of military AI is unique because it is different from the Western methods. It involves not only the utilisation of traditional defense contractors but also takes into account the military needs during civilian technology development from the beginning. Thus, the integration leads to “born dual use” technologies that are made for civilian use, such as e-commerce and delivery, and military use at once.<h2>Reframing the AI Race</h2>Popular accounts of an "AI arms race" fall apart on analysis. New analyses have shown China is about three months behind America in terms of open source artificial intelligence systems-not years, just months. Because warfighting platforms always take years to become operationally viable irrespective of origin, the small window is strategically insignificant. The real race is one of speed-which military organisation will bring effective systems online faster?Through restructuring its command system so as to guarantee that intelligence could be passed from detection to decision and action, quickly, China took the chance that organisational efficiency would prove superior to computational complexity on the battlefield.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-plans-robot-forts-against-america-on-south-china-sea-islands-1787161539394/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-plans-robot-forts-against-america-on-south-china-sea-islands-1787161539394/embed</a><h2>Technological Breakthroughs of the Space Domain</h2>The biggest military breakthroughs happen above Earth's atmosphere. According to the officials from the United States Space Force, Chinese satellites conducted "dogfighting maneouvers" in low Earth orbit, whereby five separate craft maneouvered in formation like an aerial dogfight. It has been noted officially that the technological gap between America and China has closed much sooner than expected.Analysis from the Secure World Foundation indicated that China has built one of the world’s most robust space defense systems and has surpassed the US in terms of direct ascent and co-orbital anti-satellite technology. It released unmanned space planes with satellites which were able to fly next to, circle around, and finally rejoin their spacecraft. Other sources confirm the existence of ground-based lasers which can disrupt the optical sensors of the satellites. Since GPS systems, banking systems, weather forecasts, and emergency communications rely on unprotected satellites, this is an area of great vulnerability for every country.<h2>Positioning of Cyber Operations and Infrastructure</h2>If space is one of the domains that China is more visible on militarily, then cyberspace is one of the domains that China is more patient in. Investigators from America who were looking into the Volt Typhoon (state-affiliated cyber group working for the PLA) found out that there was sophisticated positioning of infrastructure instead of stealing of data.<h2>Humanoid Robots &amp; Field Testing</h2>While humanoid robot production by China has been renowned in terms of entertaining videos, there has emerged military interest. Investigations on the documents of PLA procurement showed that there was military experimentation involving humanoid robots for use in security and surveillance operations, with an emphasis on cooperation between man and machine. Ninety-five percent of the total global production of humanoid robots in 2025 came from Chinese manufacturers. State-owned manufacturer Norinco unveiled the Fuxi humanoid robot for security and surveillance operations.The tests conducted in March saw the PLA Navy conduct operational trials of autonomous surface vessel swarms. According to naval literature, the underwater drones were working non-stop for more than thirty days through AI-based acoustic recognition. The demonstrations made in August involved the use of AI-based air campaign planning systems to plan the whole aerial mission. According to US Army analysts, China can surpass US Intelligentised Warfare by 2030.<h2>The Speed of Information Over the Speed of Hardware</h2>Accumulation-China's military revolution is, at its very essence, a transformation of its organisational nervous system designed to process information without any delay. This is an organisational nervous system composed of civilian technology firms, autonomous systems, and the reorganisation of command authority within a framework where decisions are taken at the speed of processing information.&nbsp;

China is quietly redesigning how its military fights — shifting the focus from simply building more weapons to processing battlefield information faster. From AI and satellites to cyber warfare, the PLA is betting on speed, integration and information dominance. Dr. Nishakant Ojha explains.

When you talk with military theorists in China about the future of the art of war, they will not talk with you about tanks or even numbers of infantry. They were fixated on how quickly they could acquire, process, and act on information. This has had remarkable implications for the way the Chinese military, especially the People’s Liberation Army, has modernised its forces. It has happened in ways that have remained hidden, but it has fundamentally altered the strategic military balance in the world. The Silent Revolution of Reorganising Military Structure China did not reveal any plans to reorganise warfare via press releases or official statements. Rather, within a two-year span, there was a silent demolition, rebranding, and restructuring of command organisations. The reason why this was done was not due to bureaucratic reasons; rather, current organisational structures did not have the capability to process and relay information in the speed that is required in modern warfare. The inability to process and use information quickly became one of China's weak points in terms of military operations. The foundation of the revolution was laid out in December 2015 when China combined all the capabilities in space, cyber, electronic, and psychological warfare into one Strategic Support Force. But recognition was gained that even the revolutionary force could be subjected to bureaucracy. It was in April 2024 that China fundamentally reorganised this force by splitting it into three command forces: PLA Cyberspace Force, PLA Aerospace Force, and PLA Information Support Force. The dismantling of the Strategic Support Force happened because of the fact that the previous organisation, although novel in concept, became the victim of bureaucratic rigidity and inter-departmental wrangles which hindered the free exchange of information. Also read | SPY VS SPY: As Xi meets Trump, a 12-year history of US-China espionage accusations | WION Decodes System Destruction Warfare Discipline known as "system destruction warfare" supports the organisational transformation in question. System destruction warfare is a completely different strategy as compared to traditional war theories based on attrition and force annihilation. As opposed to destroying the military forces of an adversary, the approach involves winning the war through severing ties that unite enemy's military organisations as whole. This strategy entails attacking the communications system, interfering with the sensors, and disturbing the command and control nodes. Even if this communication system is broken, the military structure of the opposing force will break down regardless of their weaponry. This strategy emphasises disruption over destruction, communication breakdown over elimination of the force. Contemporary military structures fail without being physically destroyed because of the absence of communication systems. Military Commands Information Integration The key component of the military transformation process in China is the Information Support Force. This organisation is in charge of integrating the information received from satellites and cyber and electronic warfare sensors into an overall picture of the battlefield. In principle, this integrated picture has to be made available for all commanders in all five regional theatre commands of China, just like it happens in the American Joint All-Domain Command and Control system. The evolution of infrastructure makes the above assumption plausible. It is evident that the satellite operators have observed the building of big ships for unmanned submarines in Shanghai shipyards. This proves that China is not restricted to the use of the defensive deployment of these technologies in their naval areas only. However, tensions still exist in regard to military autonomy and decision-making power. Despite the implication of “intelligentised warfare” in terms of high level of automation, Chinese discussion on PLA matters indicates significant reluctance in delegating the decision-making power to algorithmic system. The basic dilemma that remains unresolved lies in authorisation: who can authorise the execution of military actions after the algorithm gives recommendations for it? This issue has its political aspects since political party officers and military officers share decision-making power in China’s military establishment. Also read | US vs China in numbers: Who leads in economy, military, AI, trade and technology? Civilian Technology for Military Use China’s development of military AI is unique because it is different from the Western methods. It involves not only the utilisation of traditional defense contractors but also takes into account the military needs during civilian technology development from the beginning. Thus, the integration leads to “born dual use” technologies that are made for civilian use, such as e-commerce and delivery, and military use at once. Reframing the AI Race Popular accounts of an "AI arms race" fall apart on analysis. New analyses have shown China is about three months behind America in terms of open source artificial intelligence systems-not years, just months. Because warfighting platforms always take years to become operationally viable irrespective of origin, the small window is strategically insignificant. The real race is one of speed-which military organisation will bring effective systems online faster? Through restructuring its command system so as to guarantee that intelligence could be passed from detection to decision and action, quickly, China took the chance that organisational efficiency would prove superior to computational complexity on the battlefield. https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-plans-robot-forts-against-america-on-south-china-sea-islands-1787161539394/embed Technological Breakthroughs of the Space Domain The biggest military breakthroughs happen above Earth's atmosphere. According to the officials from the United States Space Force, Chinese satellites conducted "dogfighting maneouvers" in low Earth orbit, whereby five separate craft maneouvered in formation like an aerial dogfight. It has been noted officially that the technological gap between America and China has closed much sooner than expected. Analysis from the Secure World Foundation indicated that China has built one of the world’s most robust space defense systems and has surpassed the US in terms of direct ascent and co-orbital anti-satellite technology. It released unmanned space planes with satellites which were able to fly next to, circle around, and finally rejoin their spacecraft. Other sources confirm the existence of ground-based lasers which can disrupt the optical sensors of the satellites. Since GPS systems, banking systems, weather forecasts, and emergency communications rely on unprotected satellites, this is an area of great vulnerability for every country. Positioning of Cyber Operations and Infrastructure If space is one of the domains that China is more visible on militarily, then cyberspace is one of the domains that China is more patient in. Investigators from America who were looking into the Volt Typhoon (state-affiliated cyber group working for the PLA) found out that there was sophisticated positioning of infrastructure instead of stealing of data. Humanoid Robots & Field Testing While humanoid robot production by China has been renowned in terms of entertaining videos, there has emerged military interest. Investigations on the documents of PLA procurement showed that there was military experimentation involving humanoid robots for use in security and surveillance operations, with an emphasis on cooperation between man and machine. Ninety-five percent of the total global production of humanoid robots in 2025 came from Chinese manufacturers. State-owned manufacturer Norinco unveiled the Fuxi humanoid robot for security and surveillance operations. The tests conducted in March saw the PLA Navy conduct operational trials of autonomous surface vessel swarms. According to naval literature, the underwater drones were working non-stop for more than thirty days through AI-based acoustic recognition. The demonstrations made in August involved the use of AI-based air campaign planning systems to plan the whole aerial mission. According to US Army analysts, China can surpass US Intelligentised Warfare by 2030. The Speed of Information Over the Speed of Hardware Accumulation-China's military revolution is, at its very essence, a transformation of its organisational nervous system designed to process information without any delay. This is an organisational nervous system composed of civilian technology firms, autonomous systems, and the reorganisation of command authority within a framework where decisions are taken at the speed of processing information.

China is quietly redesigning how its military fights — shifting the focus from simply building more weapons to processing battlefield information faster. From AI and satellites to cyber warfare, the PLA is betting on speed, integration and information dominance. Dr. Nishakant Ojha explains.

China's military gamble: The information revolution in the PLA & China’s military future - a new strategy of speed over hardware

There are moments in life when there is no time to think about what should be done. There is only time to do what one has been trained to do. That is what makes the flydubai FZ1073 incident involving Indian Captain Smit Machchhar so powerful.&nbsp;On September 30, the Dubai-Tel Aviv flight carrying 174 passengers descended rapidly after an alleged confrontation in the cockpit in which Machchhar was seriously injured. Despite his injuries, the Indian captain managed to unlock the cockpit door, enabling passengers and other pilots on board to intervene. The aircraft was eventually brought under control and diverted safely to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. The aircraft reportedly descended nearly 14,000 feet in less than 30 seconds.&nbsp;The story is still subject to investigation, including the motive behind the confrontation. But one fact is already clear: when a situation moved far beyond normal procedures, human courage and trained responses mattered enormously.&nbsp;Machchhar's action is particularly striking because he was not operating in comfortable circumstances. He was seriously injured, under attack and confronted with the possibility of hundreds of lives being lost. Yet, instead of surrendering to panic, he took an action that allowed others to enter the cockpit and help regain control.&nbsp;That is where the incident becomes a lesson for global civilisation.<h2>A Hero Recognised Across Borders</h2>&nbsp;The extraordinary response to Machchhar's actions has crossed national boundaries.Prime Minister Narendra Modi called Captain Machchhar a “HERO”, saying that despite being seriously injured, he showed “immense courage” and an “unwavering resolve to protect the lives of others”. Modi said his valour helped save hundreds of lives and avert a great tragedy, adding that India was proud of him and praying for his recovery.&nbsp;President Droupadi Murmu similarly praised his “heroic courage and incredible presence of mind”. She said that even after being seriously injured in a moment of grave peril, Machchhar remained determined to protect others, and that his bravery and quick response helped prevent a major tragedy. She concluded: “I salute his indomitable spirit.”&nbsp;US President Donald Trump also described Machchhar as a hero while discussing the incident. Trump said that despite being in very bad shape, the pilot's decision to open the cockpit door was heroic and enabled others to intervene.&nbsp;Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Machchhar a “true hero”, noting that the captain fought back, resisted the attack and opened the cockpit door, enabling passengers and crew to overpower the attacker and preventing what Netanyahu described as a catastrophic mid-air disaster.The significance of these tributes lies not merely in the word “hero”. Four leaders from different countries and institutions recognised the same qualities: courage under extreme pressure, presence of mind and an instinct to protect human life.&nbsp;Modern civilisation often celebrates technology. We speak about artificial intelligence, automation, autonomous vehicles and increasingly sophisticated aircraft. But when systems fail or circumstances become unpredictable, technology still depends upon the quality of human judgement.&nbsp;A trained mind does not necessarily eliminate fear. It learns how to function despite fear.Aviation has repeatedly demonstrated this.&nbsp;<h2>Hudson River: When an Airliner Became a Boat</h2>&nbsp;On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 lost almost all thrust in both engines after hitting birds shortly after take-off from New York. Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles landed the Airbus A320 on the Hudson River. All 155 people aboard survived, although several people suffered serious injuries. The US National Transportation Safety Board documented the complete loss of thrust and subsequent ditching.&nbsp;The event became a lasting example of how training, judgement and teamwork can compress years of aviation experience into a few critical minutes.<h2>Gimli Glider: Flying Without Fuel</h2>&nbsp;Then there was Air Canada Flight 143 — the famous Gimli Glider — in 1983.The Boeing 767 ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet. Captain Robert Pearson's experience with gliding became crucial. With the engines gone and limited systems available, the crew used extraordinary airmanship to bring the aircraft down safely at a former air force base.&nbsp;There were no deaths or serious injuries.&nbsp;<h2>British Airways 9: Four Engines Go Silent</h2>&nbsp;In 1982, British Airways Flight 9 flew through volcanic ash from Mount Galunggung.All four engines of the Boeing 747 failed at cruising altitude. Captain Eric Moody calmly managed the aircraft as a glider until the engines could be restarted. The aircraft subsequently landed safely in Jakarta, with everyone aboard surviving.&nbsp;The episode demonstrated the value of calm decision-making when an apparently impossible situation develops thousands of feet above the ground.&nbsp;<h2>Air Transat 236: The Atlantic Glide</h2>&nbsp;In 2001, Air Transat Flight 236 lost both engines over the Atlantic after exhausting its fuel.Captain Robert Piché and First Officer Dirk DeJager glided the Airbus A330 toward the Azores and landed at Lajes. All 291 passengers and 13 crew survived.&nbsp;It was another reminder that when propulsion disappears, training and airmanship become the aircraft's most important remaining assets.&nbsp;<h2>Qantas 32: 50 Minutes of Relentless Decision-Making</h2>&nbsp;In 2010, Qantas Flight 32 suffered an uncontained engine failure shortly after take-off, causing extensive damage and multiple system failures on an Airbus A380 carrying 469 people.&nbsp;The crew spent about 50 minutes assessing the aircraft, managing cascading problems and preparing for the landing. The aircraft eventually landed safely at Singapore, with no reported injuries among passengers or crew.&nbsp;These five episodes are different in their causes, aircraft and circumstances. Yet they share one common thread: the crisis was bigger than any individual pilot, but the response depended upon individuals who refused to lose control of themselves.&nbsp;That is the real lesson of Smit Machchhar.&nbsp;Heroism is often portrayed as a sudden burst of extraordinary bravery. Aviation suggests something more profound. Heroism can be the outcome of thousands of hours of ordinary discipline — training repeatedly performed until the correct response becomes instinctive.&nbsp;A pilot does not train only to fly when everything is normal. Training exists for the abnormal: fire, engine failure, loss of control, medical emergencies, communication breakdowns and situations that may never have been imagined.&nbsp;The same principle applies far beyond the cockpit.&nbsp;A doctor in an emergency room, a firefighter entering a burning building, a soldier under attack, a rescue worker during a disaster or an ordinary citizen helping another person in danger may face the same psychological battle: fear versus responsibility.&nbsp;The trained mind does not always choose courage because courage feels easy. It chooses action because responsibility has become stronger than fear.&nbsp;Captain Machchhar's story therefore belongs not merely to India or to aviation. It belongs to a larger human narrative — a reminder that civilisation survives not only because of its machines, but because people are prepared to protect other human beings when machines and circumstances fail.&nbsp;The most powerful lesson from the flydubai cockpit may therefore be simple: Train the mind before the crisis arrives. Because when the moment comes, there may be no time left to learn how to be brave. &nbsp;

Machchhar's action is particularly striking because he was not operating in comfortable circumstances. He was seriously injured, under attack and confronted with the possibility of hundreds of lives being lost. 

There are moments in life when there is no time to think about what should be done. There is only time to do what one has been trained to do. That is what makes the flydubai FZ1073 incident involving Indian Captain Smit Machchhar so powerful. On September 30, the Dubai-Tel Aviv flight carrying 174 passengers descended rapidly after an alleged confrontation in the cockpit in which Machchhar was seriously injured. Despite his injuries, the Indian captain managed to unlock the cockpit door, enabling passengers and other pilots on board to intervene. The aircraft was eventually brought under control and diverted safely to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. The aircraft reportedly descended nearly 14,000 feet in less than 30 seconds. The story is still subject to investigation, including the motive behind the confrontation. But one fact is already clear: when a situation moved far beyond normal procedures, human courage and trained responses mattered enormously. Machchhar's action is particularly striking because he was not operating in comfortable circumstances. He was seriously injured, under attack and confronted with the possibility of hundreds of lives being lost. Yet, instead of surrendering to panic, he took an action that allowed others to enter the cockpit and help regain control. That is where the incident becomes a lesson for global civilisation. A Hero Recognised Across Borders The extraordinary response to Machchhar's actions has crossed national boundaries. Prime Minister Narendra Modi called Captain Machchhar a “HERO”, saying that despite being seriously injured, he showed “immense courage” and an “unwavering resolve to protect the lives of others”. Modi said his valour helped save hundreds of lives and avert a great tragedy, adding that India was proud of him and praying for his recovery. President Droupadi Murmu similarly praised his “heroic courage and incredible presence of mind”. She said that even after being seriously injured in a moment of grave peril, Machchhar remained determined to protect others, and that his bravery and quick response helped prevent a major tragedy. She concluded: “I salute his indomitable spirit.” US President Donald Trump also described Machchhar as a hero while discussing the incident. Trump said that despite being in very bad shape, the pilot's decision to open the cockpit door was heroic and enabled others to intervene. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Machchhar a “true hero”, noting that the captain fought back, resisted the attack and opened the cockpit door, enabling passengers and crew to overpower the attacker and preventing what Netanyahu described as a catastrophic mid-air disaster. The significance of these tributes lies not merely in the word “hero”. Four leaders from different countries and institutions recognised the same qualities: courage under extreme pressure, presence of mind and an instinct to protect human life. Modern civilisation often celebrates technology. We speak about artificial intelligence, automation, autonomous vehicles and increasingly sophisticated aircraft. But when systems fail or circumstances become unpredictable, technology still depends upon the quality of human judgement. A trained mind does not necessarily eliminate fear. It learns how to function despite fear. Aviation has repeatedly demonstrated this. Hudson River: When an Airliner Became a Boat On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 lost almost all thrust in both engines after hitting birds shortly after take-off from New York. Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and First Officer Jeffrey Skiles landed the Airbus A320 on the Hudson River. All 155 people aboard survived, although several people suffered serious injuries. The US National Transportation Safety Board documented the complete loss of thrust and subsequent ditching. The event became a lasting example of how training, judgement and teamwork can compress years of aviation experience into a few critical minutes. Gimli Glider: Flying Without Fuel Then there was Air Canada Flight 143 — the famous Gimli Glider — in 1983. The Boeing 767 ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet. Captain Robert Pearson's experience with gliding became crucial. With the engines gone and limited systems available, the crew used extraordinary airmanship to bring the aircraft down safely at a former air force base. There were no deaths or serious injuries. British Airways 9: Four Engines Go Silent In 1982, British Airways Flight 9 flew through volcanic ash from Mount Galunggung. All four engines of the Boeing 747 failed at cruising altitude. Captain Eric Moody calmly managed the aircraft as a glider until the engines could be restarted. The aircraft subsequently landed safely in Jakarta, with everyone aboard surviving. The episode demonstrated the value of calm decision-making when an apparently impossible situation develops thousands of feet above the ground. Air Transat 236: The Atlantic Glide In 2001, Air Transat Flight 236 lost both engines over the Atlantic after exhausting its fuel. Captain Robert Piché and First Officer Dirk DeJager glided the Airbus A330 toward the Azores and landed at Lajes. All 291 passengers and 13 crew survived. It was another reminder that when propulsion disappears, training and airmanship become the aircraft's most important remaining assets. Qantas 32: 50 Minutes of Relentless Decision-Making In 2010, Qantas Flight 32 suffered an uncontained engine failure shortly after take-off, causing extensive damage and multiple system failures on an Airbus A380 carrying 469 people. The crew spent about 50 minutes assessing the aircraft, managing cascading problems and preparing for the landing. The aircraft eventually landed safely at Singapore, with no reported injuries among passengers or crew. These five episodes are different in their causes, aircraft and circumstances. Yet they share one common thread: the crisis was bigger than any individual pilot, but the response depended upon individuals who refused to lose control of themselves. That is the real lesson of Smit Machchhar. Heroism is often portrayed as a sudden burst of extraordinary bravery. Aviation suggests something more profound. Heroism can be the outcome of thousands of hours of ordinary discipline — training repeatedly performed until the correct response becomes instinctive. A pilot does not train only to fly when everything is normal. Training exists for the abnormal: fire, engine failure, loss of control, medical emergencies, communication breakdowns and situations that may never have been imagined. The same principle applies far beyond the cockpit. A doctor in an emergency room, a firefighter entering a burning building, a soldier under attack, a rescue worker during a disaster or an ordinary citizen helping another person in danger may face the same psychological battle: fear versus responsibility. The trained mind does not always choose courage because courage feels easy. It chooses action because responsibility has become stronger than fear. Captain Machchhar's story therefore belongs not merely to India or to aviation. It belongs to a larger human narrative — a reminder that civilisation survives not only because of its machines, but because people are prepared to protect other human beings when machines and circumstances fail. The most powerful lesson from the flydubai cockpit may therefore be simple: Train the mind before the crisis arrives. Because when the moment comes, there may be no time left to learn how to be brave.

Machchhar's action is particularly striking because he was not operating in comfortable circumstances. He was seriously injured, under attack and confronted with the possibility of hundreds of lives being lost.&nbsp;

What Smit Machchhar, aviation tragedies teach us about crisis management | Explained

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

Why Europe’s protests are about more than austerity and rising costs

Stripped of its ethos: The erosion of Bengal’s Durga Puja in 2026

US-Russia relations: Is Putin playing Trump 'like a fiddle'?

War on the ballot? Trump, Netanyahu and the politics of attacking Iran

The Verdict | Trump, Putin and Xi superpower triangle can reshape diplomacy

Skyborne sentinels: How GSAT-7B gives the Indian Army its own eye in orbit

When revolutions consume their own: Lessons from France for a restless world

France burns, Trump blames immigrants: But who answers Europe’s real questions?

India's Gen Z rebellion: Can 'Lehra Do Tiranga' movement reshape political order

The Verdict | Trump, Modi and price of a deal: Is India getting a fair bargain?

The Verdict | India’s inflation shock: Growing economy, but who pays the price?

The Verdict | Modi's 3-front challenge: Protests, pressure from US and economy

The Verdict | Trump's Russia paradox: Peace in words, pressure in reverse?

Beyond Geopolitics: Why Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim and other global leaders turn to Bollywood playlists

The street cannot govern India, but the government cannot ignore it either

The Verdict | Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize. But what about the wars?

France protests: How a Gen Z school movement turned into a political war

The strategic prospects of Russia-India-China (RIC) after BRICS 2026

The Verdict | Trump wants the midterms to be about him. Republicans may regret

The precision blockade: What Strait of Hormuz tells us about naval power

The Verdict | You can jail Bolsonaro, but can you kill Bolsonaroism?

India’s democracy is being tested. Who will answer the tough questions?

China's military gamble: The info revolution in PLA & China’s military future

What Smit Machchhar, aviation tragedies teach us about crisis management