National Handloom Day 2026: From Alia Bhatt to Samantha Ruth Prabhu; Actresses who celebrated India's textile heritage as brides

The Royals enter the Doctor Who universe: King Charles and Queen Camilla beam into Commonwealth Games in TARDIS

Unitree Robotics targets $9 billion valuation in landmark IPO backed by DeepSeek and Tencent

India names 27 sites in Arunachal Pradesh

Bharat Bhhagya Viddhaata OTT: When will Kangana Ranaut's film stream online?

How many soldiers operate one S-400 battery?

Shakib Al Hasan ready to return to Bangladesh—under one condition

‘Fake news’: MEA rejects report claiming India sought defence pact with Israel after Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey deal

Rockstar to unveil GTA 6 extended look ahead of November launch

Russia forms Ukrainian Volunteer Spetsnaz Brigade to fight Ukraine

Drug-resistant fungus that hides in hair and enters bloodstream reported in 23 US states

Technology transfer deal boosts India's defence manufacturing ambitions

Border row erupts in Europe after Ceuta crossings, Spain imposes border controls on Italy

Morale plummets on USS Abraham Lincoln: Are US sailors reaching a breaking point? | GRAVITAS

'Security can't be bought with Pakistan, Turkey deal': Iran tells Saudi Arabia

Baba Vanga's 2026 prophecy: 2 predictions 'already came true', 3 terrifying ones remain. Details inside

Colombia’s new president Abelardo de la Espriella vows to ‘defeat narco-terrorists’, signals hardline shift

New Friday OTT releases (August 7, 2026): Operation Safed Sagar, Vadhandhi, Main Vaapis Aaunga- 6 movies and TV shows on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Squadron Leader Bhawana Kanth scripts history as Indian Air Force gets its first woman ‘Top Gun’ pilot

RSS says Gen Z protests reflect genuine distress

Trump says Iranian school bombing photos could be AI-generated - 'I don’t think...'

IAF officer held for sharing sensitive information in 'honey trap' case, booked under Official Secrets Act

Stray Kids under scrutiny? Fans react to Grammy submission silence after BTS boycott

Why the Su-30MKI doesn't need external fuel tanks to fly vast distances

Jugal Hansraj reunites with Shekhar Kapur after 40 years for Masoom: The Next Generation

New speed limits, automatic challans: Big traffic change coming to Delhi-Meerut Expressway. All you need to know

India officially names 27 places in Arunachal to counter China's renaming claims

Trump calls White House ballroom ruling a 'national disgrace' as court says Congress approval needed

US sanctions Iran’s crypto network after Strait of Hormuz attacks, offers $15m bounty for intel on IRGC finance

Why the Su-30MKI is one of the heaviest fighters ever built

Uttarakhand young innovator builds India's own flying vehicle, conducts first test flight: WATCH

Chilling video shows students take cover as teen opens fire at Thai school

Reese Witherspoon's father hospitalised after poolside incident in Nashville: Report

For years, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been treated as a political phenomenon rather than a potential president. She was the young progressive who shocked the Democratic establishment in 2018, the congresswoman who could dominate a news cycle with a social-media post, and one of the most recognisable faces of the American left.Now, that assumption may be changing.&nbsp;At 36, Ocasio-Cortez is openly keeping her 2028 options alive. In an August 9 interview with ABC News, she declined to rule out either a presidential run or a challenge to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. Her comments came as polling and prediction markets increasingly placed her among the leading potential Democratic contenders. The question, therefore, is no longer simply whether AOC wants to be president. It is whether America is ready for her. And that is a much more complicated question.<h2>AOC is no longer the same politician</h2>The AOC who entered Congress in 2019 was easy for her critics to caricature. She was young, unapologetically progressive and closely associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Her politics were built around Medicare for All, climate action, economic inequality, workers' rights and a fundamental challenge to the political establishment.But six years in Washington have changed her.&nbsp;Ocasio-Cortez remains firmly on the progressive side of the Democratic Party, but she has also demonstrated a greater understanding of political power and coalition-building. Her ability to communicate directly with voters, particularly younger Americans, has become one of her biggest political assets. She is no longer simply the insurgent who defeated a veteran Democrat. She is part of the Democratic Party's national conversation about what comes next.&nbsp;That distinction matters. The Democratic Party is searching for a new identity after the Biden and Harris years, while progressives are increasingly testing whether their ideas can translate into electoral victories. AOC's growing national profile comes at precisely the moment when Democrats are debating whether the answer lies in moderation or a more aggressive progressive agenda.<h2>Her biggest strength may also be her biggest weakness</h2>There is an obvious reason AOC can excite Democrats. She knows how to command attention. In an era when political communication is increasingly conducted through Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and X rather than traditional campaign rallies, Ocasio-Cortez possesses something many conventional politicians spend millions trying to manufacture: an authentic digital following. She can speak to voters without sounding like a press release.&nbsp;That is particularly valuable with younger Americans, many of whom have little emotional connection to the political establishment. But presidential elections are not won on social media. They are won in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and other battlegrounds where candidates must build broad coalitions that extend far beyond their ideological base.&nbsp;And this is where the AOC question becomes difficult. Can someone identified so strongly with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party appeal to moderate voters, suburban voters, working-class voters and older Americans who may not share her politics? That is the test she has yet to pass.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-hormuz-passage-deal-reached-with-oman-reopening-tied-to-us-lifting-blockade-1786804702036">Iran says Hormuz passage deal reached with Oman, reopening tied to US lifting blockade</a><h2>America has changed, but not necessarily enough</h2>There is a temptation to look at AOC's rise and conclude that America has simply moved to the left. That would be too simplistic. America is not one electorate. It is a collection of competing political identities, economic anxieties, cultural fears and regional realities. The country is simultaneously becoming more comfortable with women in positions of power and more polarised over issues such as immigration, abortion, healthcare, race and the role of government.&nbsp;AOC represents one answer to those tensions. Her supporters see a politician prepared to challenge entrenched interests and speak openly about inequality. Her critics see a symbol of an ideological left that has moved too far from the political centre. Both perceptions matter. A presidential candidate does not get to choose which version of themselves voters see.<h2>The gender question cannot be ignored</h2>There is another uncomfortable reality. America has elected a Black president. It has elected women as vice-president. But it has never elected a woman president. Hillary Clinton came close in 2016. Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee in 2024 but failed to defeat Donald Trump. AOC would therefore enter a presidential race carrying two identities that have historically generated intense political reactions: she would be a woman and a progressive.&nbsp;Her recent decision to publicly discuss freezing her eggs has already demonstrated how differently female politicians can be scrutinised. Ocasio-Cortez has framed the issue around women's autonomy and the difficulty of balancing career and personal choices, while the disclosure has generated both support and political criticism. That episode may seem unrelated to presidential politics. It isn't. It is a reminder that if AOC eventually runs, almost every aspect of her life will become political ammunition. The question is whether she can withstand that scrutiny, and whether voters will ultimately judge her more by her policies than by the culture-war narratives built around her.<h2>The Democratic primary may be harder than the general election</h2>Ironically, AOC's first major challenge may not be Republicans. It may be Democrats. The party is likely to have a crowded 2028 field. Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Mark Kelly and other nationally recognised Democrats could all compete for the nomination.&nbsp;AOC would have to convince Democratic voters that she is not merely the most exciting progressive candidate, but the candidate capable of actually winning the White House. That means proving she can broaden her coalition. It also means answering difficult questions about foreign policy, national security, the economy, immigration and the country's role in the world, issues on which presidential candidates face a level of scrutiny that congressional politicians rarely experience. The early signals are encouraging for her.&nbsp;But early polls are not elections. Prediction markets can capture political momentum, but they do not put voters in polling booths. And a presidential campaign is an entirely different political ecosystem.<h2>Yet dismissing AOC could be an even bigger mistake</h2>This is where Democrats should be careful. It would be easy for party insiders to look at AOC and conclude that she is simply too progressive to win nationally. That argument may be increasingly outdated. The political environment that produced AOC in 2018 is not the same environment that exists today. Younger voters are more politically engaged, traditional media has less control over political narratives, and distrust of established institutions remains high.&nbsp;The Democratic Party cannot simply tell a new generation of voters that their preferred candidates are too radical.It has to understand why those voters are attracted to them in the first place. AOC's appeal is not solely ideological. It is also generational. She represents a generation that entered adulthood amid student debt, soaring housing costs, economic insecurity, climate anxiety and deep distrust of institutions. Whether one agrees with her solutions or not, she speaks directly to those frustrations. That is politically powerful.<h2>So, is America ready?</h2>Not yet, but perhaps that is the wrong question. America rarely announces that it is ready for a political transformation.It simply arrives at one. Barack Obama was once dismissed as too inexperienced. Donald Trump was once dismissed as too unconventional to become president. Hillary Clinton was once considered almost inevitable. Political history is full of candidates who appeared impossible until they weren't.&nbsp;AOC may or may not become president. She may decide to run for the Senate instead. She may ultimately conclude that 2028 is not her moment. She may enter the race and lose the Democratic nomination. But something important has already happened. The idea of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as president is no longer politically absurd.&nbsp;It is now a serious question. And perhaps the bigger question for America is not whether it is ready for AOC. It is whether the Democratic Party is ready to find out. Because if Ocasio-Cortez does run in 2028, she will not simply be asking Americans to vote for another Democrat. She will be asking them to decide what kind of Democrat, and what kind of America, they want next. That is a much bigger election than AOC alone.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

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

For years, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been treated as a political phenomenon rather than a potential president. She was the young progressive who shocked the Democratic establishment in 2018, the congresswoman who could dominate a news cycle with a social-media post, and one of the most recognisable faces of the American left. Now, that assumption may be changing. At 36, Ocasio-Cortez is openly keeping her 2028 options alive. In an August 9 interview with ABC News, she declined to rule out either a presidential run or a challenge to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. Her comments came as polling and prediction markets increasingly placed her among the leading potential Democratic contenders. The question, therefore, is no longer simply whether AOC wants to be president. It is whether America is ready for her. And that is a much more complicated question. AOC is no longer the same politician The AOC who entered Congress in 2019 was easy for her critics to caricature. She was young, unapologetically progressive and closely associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Her politics were built around Medicare for All, climate action, economic inequality, workers' rights and a fundamental challenge to the political establishment. But six years in Washington have changed her. Ocasio-Cortez remains firmly on the progressive side of the Democratic Party, but she has also demonstrated a greater understanding of political power and coalition-building. Her ability to communicate directly with voters, particularly younger Americans, has become one of her biggest political assets. She is no longer simply the insurgent who defeated a veteran Democrat. She is part of the Democratic Party's national conversation about what comes next. That distinction matters. The Democratic Party is searching for a new identity after the Biden and Harris years, while progressives are increasingly testing whether their ideas can translate into electoral victories. AOC's growing national profile comes at precisely the moment when Democrats are debating whether the answer lies in moderation or a more aggressive progressive agenda. Her biggest strength may also be her biggest weakness There is an obvious reason AOC can excite Democrats. She knows how to command attention. In an era when political communication is increasingly conducted through Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and X rather than traditional campaign rallies, Ocasio-Cortez possesses something many conventional politicians spend millions trying to manufacture: an authentic digital following. She can speak to voters without sounding like a press release. That is particularly valuable with younger Americans, many of whom have little emotional connection to the political establishment. But presidential elections are not won on social media. They are won in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and other battlegrounds where candidates must build broad coalitions that extend far beyond their ideological base. And this is where the AOC question becomes difficult. Can someone identified so strongly with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party appeal to moderate voters, suburban voters, working-class voters and older Americans who may not share her politics? That is the test she has yet to pass. Also Read: Iran says Hormuz passage deal reached with Oman, reopening tied to US lifting blockade America has changed, but not necessarily enough There is a temptation to look at AOC's rise and conclude that America has simply moved to the left. That would be too simplistic. America is not one electorate. It is a collection of competing political identities, economic anxieties, cultural fears and regional realities. The country is simultaneously becoming more comfortable with women in positions of power and more polarised over issues such as immigration, abortion, healthcare, race and the role of government. AOC represents one answer to those tensions. Her supporters see a politician prepared to challenge entrenched interests and speak openly about inequality. Her critics see a symbol of an ideological left that has moved too far from the political centre. Both perceptions matter. A presidential candidate does not get to choose which version of themselves voters see. The gender question cannot be ignored There is another uncomfortable reality. America has elected a Black president. It has elected women as vice-president. But it has never elected a woman president. Hillary Clinton came close in 2016. Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee in 2024 but failed to defeat Donald Trump. AOC would therefore enter a presidential race carrying two identities that have historically generated intense political reactions: she would be a woman and a progressive. Her recent decision to publicly discuss freezing her eggs has already demonstrated how differently female politicians can be scrutinised. Ocasio-Cortez has framed the issue around women's autonomy and the difficulty of balancing career and personal choices, while the disclosure has generated both support and political criticism. That episode may seem unrelated to presidential politics. It isn't. It is a reminder that if AOC eventually runs, almost every aspect of her life will become political ammunition. The question is whether she can withstand that scrutiny, and whether voters will ultimately judge her more by her policies than by the culture-war narratives built around her. The Democratic primary may be harder than the general election Ironically, AOC's first major challenge may not be Republicans. It may be Democrats. The party is likely to have a crowded 2028 field. Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Mark Kelly and other nationally recognised Democrats could all compete for the nomination. AOC would have to convince Democratic voters that she is not merely the most exciting progressive candidate, but the candidate capable of actually winning the White House. That means proving she can broaden her coalition. It also means answering difficult questions about foreign policy, national security, the economy, immigration and the country's role in the world, issues on which presidential candidates face a level of scrutiny that congressional politicians rarely experience. The early signals are encouraging for her. But early polls are not elections. Prediction markets can capture political momentum, but they do not put voters in polling booths. And a presidential campaign is an entirely different political ecosystem. Yet dismissing AOC could be an even bigger mistake This is where Democrats should be careful. It would be easy for party insiders to look at AOC and conclude that she is simply too progressive to win nationally. That argument may be increasingly outdated. The political environment that produced AOC in 2018 is not the same environment that exists today. Younger voters are more politically engaged, traditional media has less control over political narratives, and distrust of established institutions remains high. The Democratic Party cannot simply tell a new generation of voters that their preferred candidates are too radical. It has to understand why those voters are attracted to them in the first place. AOC's appeal is not solely ideological. It is also generational. She represents a generation that entered adulthood amid student debt, soaring housing costs, economic insecurity, climate anxiety and deep distrust of institutions. Whether one agrees with her solutions or not, she speaks directly to those frustrations. That is politically powerful. So, is America ready? Not yet, but perhaps that is the wrong question. America rarely announces that it is ready for a political transformation. It simply arrives at one. Barack Obama was once dismissed as too inexperienced. Donald Trump was once dismissed as too unconventional to become president. Hillary Clinton was once considered almost inevitable. Political history is full of candidates who appeared impossible until they weren't. AOC may or may not become president. She may decide to run for the Senate instead. She may ultimately conclude that 2028 is not her moment. She may enter the race and lose the Democratic nomination. But something important has already happened. The idea of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as president is no longer politically absurd. It is now a serious question. And perhaps the bigger question for America is not whether it is ready for AOC. It is whether the Democratic Party is ready to find out. Because if Ocasio-Cortez does run in 2028, she will not simply be asking Americans to vote for another Democrat. She will be asking them to decide what kind of Democrat, and what kind of America, they want next. That is a much bigger election than AOC alone. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Americans are falling out of love with Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Delhi has been quiet for a few days now after Dharmendra Pradhan resigned as Union Education Minister, acknowledging the gravity of the paper leak that had brought lakhs of young Indians onto the streets. The agitation was withdrawn once the government agreed to the remaining demands and a five-point charter for structural exam reform put forth by the agitators.&nbsp; The CBI has since arrested several people, including coaching staff and an examination-linked doctor. Pralhad Joshi has taken charge as the new Education Minister, and Parliament has introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the maximum prison term to ten years and the fine to Rs 10 crore, with fast-track courts. The reform charter is substantial: an independent National Examination Integrity Authority, AI-based threat detection, blockchain-secured papers, biometric authentication, and a 24x7 security command centre. Investigations would be time-bound to ninety days, guilty institutions permanently debarred, and whistleblowers protected. A national exam calendar, independent audits, a student advisory council, mental health support, and an annual integrity report to Parliament complete the fifteen measures, a shift from damage control to structural accountability. This is the right outcome, and it is worth saying so plainly. But it would be equally intellectually honest to acknowledge twelve years of sustained, deliberate investment in India's youth.&nbsp;<h2>Education reform, not just examination reform</h2>The National Education Policy (NEP) &nbsp;2020 was the first genuine rewrite of India's education architecture in 34 years, replacing the 1986 framework with multiple entry-exit points, vocational integration from school, and a break from rote learning. The expansion since 2014 has been structural: IITs have grown from 16 to 23, IIMs from 13 to 21, and AIIMS from 7 to 23. Medical colleges have more than doubled, from 387 to 844. A government that is invested so heavily in opportunity cannot let the gatekeeping mechanism to it be compromised. That is why the Public Examinations Act was legislated, and why its enforcement, not its existence, is now rightly under evaluation.<h2>Sport, culture, and dignity of youth ambition</h2>Khelo India and the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) have professionalised sport as a viable youth career rather than a hobby subsidised by chance. TOPS today supports over 230 elite, para and development athletes with stipends and specialised training. India's Olympic tally rose from two medals at Rio 2016 to seven at Tokyo 2020; its Paralympic count climbed to a record 29 at Paris 2024; and its Asian Games medals rose from 57 in 2014 to 107 at Hangzhou 2023.<h2>The macroeconomic architecture of opportunity</h2>Consider access to opportunity more broadly. As of mid-2026, over 57 crore Mudra loans worth more than Rs 40 lakh crore have been disbursed since 2015 to first-generation YOUNG &nbsp;entrepreneurs, mostly without collateral. Startup India has helped build the world's third-largest startup ecosystem, with more than 125 unicorns founded by entrepreneurs who had no domestic capital pathway a decade ago. Meanwhile, the transformative Digital India mission has built more than infrastructure -- it has created a gig economy and formalised credit, identity, and access to banking for young Indians who had none of it just a decade ago.<h2>Meeting its own high standard</h2>None of this is offered as an alibi. The protesters who camped at Jantar Mantar were not wrong to be angry, and the government recognises that. What can be said, honestly, is this: across education, entrepreneurship, employment, digital access, and sport, the last twelve years represent the most sustained institutional investment in Indian youth since independence, measured not only in schemes launched but in jobs added and enterprises built. Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat observed last week that youth today expect reasoning, not obedience, and that the new generation asks questions, and we must explain the reasoning to them, emphasising it is important for families to connect with the young through dialogue, not authority. Indeed, and for a government that has staked its legitimacy on being pro-youth, it has more to lose from a broken exam system than any criticism or protest, which is why it has always focused on dialogue and delivery.&nbsp; Accountability delivered, not just promised, is not a favour to protesters. It is a government living up to its own stated standard. This month, the government met the standard it had set for itself.

The protesters who camped at Jantar Mantar were not wrong to be angry, and the government recognises that. What can be said, honestly, is this: across education, employment, etc the last 12 years represent the most sustained institutional investment in Indian youth since independence.

New Delhi has been quiet for a few days now after Dharmendra Pradhan resigned as Union Education Minister, acknowledging the gravity of the paper leak that had brought lakhs of young Indians onto the streets. The agitation was withdrawn once the government agreed to the remaining demands and a five-point charter for structural exam reform put forth by the agitators. The CBI has since arrested several people, including coaching staff and an examination-linked doctor. Pralhad Joshi has taken charge as the new Education Minister, and Parliament has introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the maximum prison term to ten years and the fine to Rs 10 crore, with fast-track courts. The reform charter is substantial: an independent National Examination Integrity Authority, AI-based threat detection, blockchain-secured papers, biometric authentication, and a 24x7 security command centre. Investigations would be time-bound to ninety days, guilty institutions permanently debarred, and whistleblowers protected. A national exam calendar, independent audits, a student advisory council, mental health support, and an annual integrity report to Parliament complete the fifteen measures, a shift from damage control to structural accountability. This is the right outcome, and it is worth saying so plainly. But it would be equally intellectually honest to acknowledge twelve years of sustained, deliberate investment in India's youth. Education reform, not just examination reform The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was the first genuine rewrite of India's education architecture in 34 years, replacing the 1986 framework with multiple entry-exit points, vocational integration from school, and a break from rote learning. The expansion since 2014 has been structural: IITs have grown from 16 to 23, IIMs from 13 to 21, and AIIMS from 7 to 23. Medical colleges have more than doubled, from 387 to 844. A government that is invested so heavily in opportunity cannot let the gatekeeping mechanism to it be compromised. That is why the Public Examinations Act was legislated, and why its enforcement, not its existence, is now rightly under evaluation. Sport, culture, and dignity of youth ambition Khelo India and the Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) have professionalised sport as a viable youth career rather than a hobby subsidised by chance. TOPS today supports over 230 elite, para and development athletes with stipends and specialised training. India's Olympic tally rose from two medals at Rio 2016 to seven at Tokyo 2020; its Paralympic count climbed to a record 29 at Paris 2024; and its Asian Games medals rose from 57 in 2014 to 107 at Hangzhou 2023. The macroeconomic architecture of opportunity Consider access to opportunity more broadly. As of mid-2026, over 57 crore Mudra loans worth more than Rs 40 lakh crore have been disbursed since 2015 to first-generation YOUNG entrepreneurs, mostly without collateral. Startup India has helped build the world's third-largest startup ecosystem, with more than 125 unicorns founded by entrepreneurs who had no domestic capital pathway a decade ago. Meanwhile, the transformative Digital India mission has built more than infrastructure -- it has created a gig economy and formalised credit, identity, and access to banking for young Indians who had none of it just a decade ago. Meeting its own high standard None of this is offered as an alibi. The protesters who camped at Jantar Mantar were not wrong to be angry, and the government recognises that. What can be said, honestly, is this: across education, entrepreneurship, employment, digital access, and sport, the last twelve years represent the most sustained institutional investment in Indian youth since independence, measured not only in schemes launched but in jobs added and enterprises built. Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat observed last week that youth today expect reasoning, not obedience, and that the new generation asks questions, and we must explain the reasoning to them, emphasising it is important for families to connect with the young through dialogue, not authority. Indeed, and for a government that has staked its legitimacy on being pro-youth, it has more to lose from a broken exam system than any criticism or protest, which is why it has always focused on dialogue and delivery. Accountability delivered, not just promised, is not a favour to protesters. It is a government living up to its own stated standard. This month, the government met the standard it had set for itself.

The protesters who camped at Jantar Mantar were not wrong to be angry, and the government recognises that. What can be said, honestly, is this: across education, employment, etc the last 12 years represent the most sustained institutional investment in Indian youth since independence.

A protest, a resignation, and a decade in service of India's youth

As the United States commemorates the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, another story is unfolding across much of the democratic world. From recent youth-led protests in India to the upheavals witnessed in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, and before them the Arab Spring, an increasingly frustrated generation is taking its grievances to the streets.The question is no longer why such protests erupt. It is whether representative democracy can adapt quickly enough to respond before public frustration spills beyond the institutions designed to contain it.Different countries have experienced different triggers. Yet the underlying forces are remarkably similar: growing economic insecurity, declining confidence in traditional political institutions, and a pervasive belief among many young people that the future offers fewer opportunities than the past. Technology has transformed these anxieties into political force.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-slams-bjp-for-felicitating-dharmendra-pradhan-in-parliament-accuses-modi-government-of-celebrating-ruined-futures-1785202503666">Rahul Gandhi slams BJP for felicitating Dharmendra Pradhan in Parliament, accuses Modi government of 'celebrating ruined futures'</a>Social media has democratised communication in unprecedented ways, giving ordinary citizens a voice that previous generations could scarcely imagine. Yet it has also rewarded outrage over reason, speed over reflection, and confrontation over compromise. Algorithms amplify emotion, enabling anger to spread far more quickly than consensus can be built.Representative democracy, however, was never designed to function at the speed of a smartphone.The framers of the American Constitution understood that democracy required more than simply reflecting public passions. John Adams warned against societies where “noise” overwhelms “sense” and where ignorance prevails over learning. Their constitutional architecture sought to temper immediate passions through institutions that encouraged deliberation, compromise and long-term thinking.Those principles remain as relevant today as they were in the eighteenth century. The challenge is that the environment in which democracies operate has changed beyond recognition.This is what might be called the democratic adaptation gap. Institutions designed for the age of the printing press now struggle to govern societies shaped by algorithms, artificial intelligence and instantaneous communication. Citizens compare governments not with other governments, but with technology platforms capable of responding within seconds. Political systems cannot—and should not—operate at that speed, but they can no longer ignore the expectations it has created.Ironically, the American Republic itself emerged through protest. The Boston Tea Party and the unrest that followed demonstrated that when people lose confidence in institutions, politics inevitably moves into the streets. But history also teaches another lesson. Winning a revolution is often easier than building a stable political order afterwards.South Asia offers timely reminders of this reality.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-slams-bjp-for-felicitating-dharmendra-pradhan-in-parliament-accuses-modi-government-of-celebrating-ruined-futures-1785202503666">Rahul Gandhi slams BJP for felicitating Dharmendra Pradhan in Parliament, accuses Modi government of 'celebrating ruined futures'</a>Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya, Nepal’s repeated political upheavals and Bangladesh’s cycles of protest all reflected genuine public grievances. Yet none should be romanticised. Lives were lost. Institutions were weakened. Political polarisation deepened. In each case, years of national progress in important areas were also put at risk.Public protest can be an essential democratic corrective. But it can also produce unintended consequences. Reform should strengthen institutions rather than destroy them. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.India’s recent youth protests should therefore be viewed within this broader global context. They are not simply about one policy or one government. They are symptomatic of a larger transformation affecting democracies everywhere.The economic context explains much of this anxiety. Across South Asia and much of the Global South, millions of educated young people struggle to find meaningful employment despite years of investment in education. Expectations have risen faster than opportunities. For many graduates, the promise that education alone would secure upward mobility no longer appears credible.Now artificial intelligence is adding another layer of uncertainty.For policymakers, AI promises remarkable gains in productivity, innovation and economic growth. For many young people, however, it appears as a force that could eliminate the very entry-level jobs they hoped would provide economic security. Whether those fears ultimately prove justified is less important than the fact that they are widely shared.Combined with social media, this creates a powerful political dynamic. Digital platforms no longer merely communicate frustration; they organise it, accelerate it and, at times, radicalise it. A local grievance can become a national movement within hours.This is not simply a crisis of democracy. It is a crisis of democratic adaptation.Democracies cannot abandon deliberation in favour of the speed and volatility of social media. Checks and balances, constitutional safeguards and the rule of law remain indispensable. But they must develop new ways of engaging citizens more continuously than through periodic elections alone. They need institutions capable of listening earlier, responding faster and incorporating younger voices before frustration reaches a breaking point.This requires nothing less than a new democratic social contract for the age of artificial intelligence.Governments alone cannot build it. Business leaders must create pathways to meaningful employment in rapidly changing economies. Universities must prepare students for occupations that may not yet exist rather than those that are disappearing. Technology companies must recognise that maximising engagement is not always compatible with strengthening democratic discourse. Civil society, educators, faith leaders and the media all have vital roles in rebuilding trust.Perhaps the greatest challenge is restoring hope.When young people believe institutions remain capable of renewal, they invest in reform. When they conclude that institutions are incapable of change, they seek change outside them.India is uniquely placed to initiate a global conversation on this challenge. As the world’s largest democracy, a leading voice of the Global South and one of the world’s foremost digital societies, it possesses both the credibility and the convening power to bring together governments, technology companies, academics, youth representatives and civil society.A high-level international conference examining democracy, technology, artificial intelligence and generational aspirations could begin developing a shared framework for democratic adaptation in the twenty-first century. The objective would not be to discourage peaceful protest, which remains an essential democratic right, but to reduce the conditions that make protest appear to be the only avenue for meaningful change.As America marks 250 years of constitutional democracy, perhaps the greatest lesson from its own history is that enduring institutions survive not because they resist change, but because they adapt while remaining faithful to their founding principles.The defining challenge of the twenty-first century may not be whether democracies survive, but whether they can adapt faster than the technologies reshaping their societies. If they fail to do so, the streets—rather than representative institutions—may increasingly become the first arena of politics instead of the last.&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION. &nbsp;

India’s recent youth protests should therefore be viewed within this broader global context. They are not simply about one policy or one government. They are symptomatic of a larger transformation affecting democracies everywhere.

As the United States commemorates the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, another story is unfolding across much of the democratic world. From recent youth-led protests in India to the upheavals witnessed in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, and before them the Arab Spring, an increasingly frustrated generation is taking its grievances to the streets. The question is no longer why such protests erupt. It is whether representative democracy can adapt quickly enough to respond before public frustration spills beyond the institutions designed to contain it. Different countries have experienced different triggers. Yet the underlying forces are remarkably similar: growing economic insecurity, declining confidence in traditional political institutions, and a pervasive belief among many young people that the future offers fewer opportunities than the past. Technology has transformed these anxieties into political force. Also read | Rahul Gandhi slams BJP for felicitating Dharmendra Pradhan in Parliament, accuses Modi government of 'celebrating ruined futures' Social media has democratised communication in unprecedented ways, giving ordinary citizens a voice that previous generations could scarcely imagine. Yet it has also rewarded outrage over reason, speed over reflection, and confrontation over compromise. Algorithms amplify emotion, enabling anger to spread far more quickly than consensus can be built. Representative democracy, however, was never designed to function at the speed of a smartphone. The framers of the American Constitution understood that democracy required more than simply reflecting public passions. John Adams warned against societies where “noise” overwhelms “sense” and where ignorance prevails over learning. Their constitutional architecture sought to temper immediate passions through institutions that encouraged deliberation, compromise and long-term thinking. Those principles remain as relevant today as they were in the eighteenth century. The challenge is that the environment in which democracies operate has changed beyond recognition. This is what might be called the democratic adaptation gap. Institutions designed for the age of the printing press now struggle to govern societies shaped by algorithms, artificial intelligence and instantaneous communication. Citizens compare governments not with other governments, but with technology platforms capable of responding within seconds. Political systems cannot—and should not—operate at that speed, but they can no longer ignore the expectations it has created. Ironically, the American Republic itself emerged through protest. The Boston Tea Party and the unrest that followed demonstrated that when people lose confidence in institutions, politics inevitably moves into the streets. But history also teaches another lesson. Winning a revolution is often easier than building a stable political order afterwards. South Asia offers timely reminders of this reality. Also read | Rahul Gandhi slams BJP for felicitating Dharmendra Pradhan in Parliament, accuses Modi government of 'celebrating ruined futures' Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya, Nepal’s repeated political upheavals and Bangladesh’s cycles of protest all reflected genuine public grievances. Yet none should be romanticised. Lives were lost. Institutions were weakened. Political polarisation deepened. In each case, years of national progress in important areas were also put at risk. Public protest can be an essential democratic corrective. But it can also produce unintended consequences. Reform should strengthen institutions rather than destroy them. The baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater. India’s recent youth protests should therefore be viewed within this broader global context. They are not simply about one policy or one government. They are symptomatic of a larger transformation affecting democracies everywhere. The economic context explains much of this anxiety. Across South Asia and much of the Global South, millions of educated young people struggle to find meaningful employment despite years of investment in education. Expectations have risen faster than opportunities. For many graduates, the promise that education alone would secure upward mobility no longer appears credible. Now artificial intelligence is adding another layer of uncertainty. For policymakers, AI promises remarkable gains in productivity, innovation and economic growth. For many young people, however, it appears as a force that could eliminate the very entry-level jobs they hoped would provide economic security. Whether those fears ultimately prove justified is less important than the fact that they are widely shared. Combined with social media, this creates a powerful political dynamic. Digital platforms no longer merely communicate frustration; they organise it, accelerate it and, at times, radicalise it. A local grievance can become a national movement within hours. This is not simply a crisis of democracy. It is a crisis of democratic adaptation. Democracies cannot abandon deliberation in favour of the speed and volatility of social media. Checks and balances, constitutional safeguards and the rule of law remain indispensable. But they must develop new ways of engaging citizens more continuously than through periodic elections alone. They need institutions capable of listening earlier, responding faster and incorporating younger voices before frustration reaches a breaking point. This requires nothing less than a new democratic social contract for the age of artificial intelligence. Governments alone cannot build it. Business leaders must create pathways to meaningful employment in rapidly changing economies. Universities must prepare students for occupations that may not yet exist rather than those that are disappearing. Technology companies must recognise that maximising engagement is not always compatible with strengthening democratic discourse. Civil society, educators, faith leaders and the media all have vital roles in rebuilding trust. Perhaps the greatest challenge is restoring hope. When young people believe institutions remain capable of renewal, they invest in reform. When they conclude that institutions are incapable of change, they seek change outside them. India is uniquely placed to initiate a global conversation on this challenge. As the world’s largest democracy, a leading voice of the Global South and one of the world’s foremost digital societies, it possesses both the credibility and the convening power to bring together governments, technology companies, academics, youth representatives and civil society. A high-level international conference examining democracy, technology, artificial intelligence and generational aspirations could begin developing a shared framework for democratic adaptation in the twenty-first century. The objective would not be to discourage peaceful protest, which remains an essential democratic right, but to reduce the conditions that make protest appear to be the only avenue for meaningful change. As America marks 250 years of constitutional democracy, perhaps the greatest lesson from its own history is that enduring institutions survive not because they resist change, but because they adapt while remaining faithful to their founding principles. The defining challenge of the twenty-first century may not be whether democracies survive, but whether they can adapt faster than the technologies reshaping their societies. If they fail to do so, the streets—rather than representative institutions—may increasingly become the first arena of politics instead of the last. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

India’s recent youth protests should therefore be viewed within this broader global context. They are not simply about one policy or one government. They are symptomatic of a larger transformation affecting democracies everywhere.

The democratic adaptation gap: Can democracies respond before the streets take over?

The images from Jantar Mantar, the rise of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) as a symbol of student anger, and the resignation of the Union Education Minister have together created a rare national moment. The immediate political objective may have been achieved, but the larger question remains: Will India settle for a resignation, or will it demand a transformation?&nbsp;There is an old saying that “cockroaches survive where cleanliness and accountability fail.” The metaphor is strikingly relevant today. Paper leaks, opaque examination processes, institutional complacency and administrative lapses are the cockroaches of India’s education system. Eliminating one individual without disinfecting the ecosystem merely allows the infestation to return in another form.&nbsp;The protests, therefore, must not become another chapter in India’s familiar political script. If the movement is genuinely about educational justice—and not merely about political optics—then every stakeholder, from students and parents to teachers, policymakers, universities and civil society, must come together to shape structural reforms. India does not need another cycle of outrage; it needs legislation that restores trust in examinations and strengthens public education.&nbsp;The timing could not be more significant. India is home to nearly 1.4 billion people, with one of the world’s youngest populations. A demographic dividend can become a demographic disaster if educational institutions fail to inspire confidence. Every compromised examination is not merely an administrative failure; it is a breach of the social contract between the State and its youth.&nbsp;Ironically, the country already possesses a broad blueprint for reform. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 envisions holistic learning, multidisciplinary education, foundational literacy, technology-enabled classrooms, vocational exposure from Class VI and greater flexibility in higher education. It also seeks to raise public investment in education to 6% of GDP and improve access, equity and quality. These are ambitious and necessary goals.&nbsp;Implementation, however, is where policy meets reality. Government data through UDISE+ points to improvements in enrolment and school infrastructure, while recent policy assessments by NITI Aayog recognise progress in access and governance but also underline persistent gaps in learning outcomes, teacher capacity and regional disparities. The lesson is simple: reforms announced from New Delhi must ultimately succeed in classrooms across rural Bihar, tribal Odisha, urban Maharashtra and every district in between.&nbsp;The present crisis should therefore become an opportunity to revisit examination governance. India needs a professionally managed, technology-driven and legally accountable assessment architecture. Question paper security, encrypted digital logistics, independent audit mechanisms, faster prosecution of organised leak networks and time-bound compensation mechanisms for affected students should become statutory requirements rather than administrative discretion. Equally important is strengthening the mental health support system for students who increasingly carry the burden of high-stakes examinations.&nbsp;Every generation has, during its halcyon days, contributed to nation-building. Today’s Gen Z, roughly those aged 14 to 29 years, is carrying that responsibility with fresh ideas, energy and technological confidence. The generations before them built institutions, expanded literacy and strengthened democracy. The present generation now seeks institutions that are transparent, accountable and fair. Nation-building is not the responsibility of Gen Z alone; it is a shared obligation across generations. “Mera Desh Mahan” must evolve from a slogan into a collective national commitment.&nbsp;India has witnessed examination controversies under governments of different political persuasions. Paper leaks, administrative failures, resignations and political blame games are not exclusive to one regime. Governments change; the systemic weaknesses often remain. That is precisely why this movement must resist being hijacked for electoral mileage or partisan mobilisation. Students deserve policy outcomes, not political theatre.&nbsp;The resignation may have addressed the immediate demand on the streets, but history rarely remembers resignations. It remembers reforms. The Right to Education transformed access. NEP 2020 attempted to redefine learning. The next milestone should be a robust legal framework that guarantees integrity in examinations and accountability in educational governance.&nbsp;Jantar Mantar has often amplified public sentiment. This time, it has amplified a generation’s demand for credibility. If policymakers listen beyond the slogans, this moment can become the beginning of India’s next education revolution.&nbsp;The real victory will not lie in who resigned, but in whether the ‘cockroaches’ of corruption, complacency and incompetence are finally driven out of India’s education system. Politics may win elections, but only education can secure the Republic’s future.&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.)

Paper leaks, opaque examination processes, institutional complacency, and administrative lapses are the cockroaches of India’s education system. India needs a professionally managed, technology-driven and legally accountable assessment architecture.

The images from Jantar Mantar, the rise of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) as a symbol of student anger, and the resignation of the Union Education Minister have together created a rare national moment. The immediate political objective may have been achieved, but the larger question remains: Will India settle for a resignation, or will it demand a transformation? There is an old saying that “cockroaches survive where cleanliness and accountability fail.” The metaphor is strikingly relevant today. Paper leaks, opaque examination processes, institutional complacency and administrative lapses are the cockroaches of India’s education system. Eliminating one individual without disinfecting the ecosystem merely allows the infestation to return in another form. The protests, therefore, must not become another chapter in India’s familiar political script. If the movement is genuinely about educational justice—and not merely about political optics—then every stakeholder, from students and parents to teachers, policymakers, universities and civil society, must come together to shape structural reforms. India does not need another cycle of outrage; it needs legislation that restores trust in examinations and strengthens public education. The timing could not be more significant. India is home to nearly 1.4 billion people, with one of the world’s youngest populations. A demographic dividend can become a demographic disaster if educational institutions fail to inspire confidence. Every compromised examination is not merely an administrative failure; it is a breach of the social contract between the State and its youth. Ironically, the country already possesses a broad blueprint for reform. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 envisions holistic learning, multidisciplinary education, foundational literacy, technology-enabled classrooms, vocational exposure from Class VI and greater flexibility in higher education. It also seeks to raise public investment in education to 6% of GDP and improve access, equity and quality. These are ambitious and necessary goals. Implementation, however, is where policy meets reality. Government data through UDISE+ points to improvements in enrolment and school infrastructure, while recent policy assessments by NITI Aayog recognise progress in access and governance but also underline persistent gaps in learning outcomes, teacher capacity and regional disparities. The lesson is simple: reforms announced from New Delhi must ultimately succeed in classrooms across rural Bihar, tribal Odisha, urban Maharashtra and every district in between. The present crisis should therefore become an opportunity to revisit examination governance. India needs a professionally managed, technology-driven and legally accountable assessment architecture. Question paper security, encrypted digital logistics, independent audit mechanisms, faster prosecution of organised leak networks and time-bound compensation mechanisms for affected students should become statutory requirements rather than administrative discretion. Equally important is strengthening the mental health support system for students who increasingly carry the burden of high-stakes examinations. Every generation has, during its halcyon days, contributed to nation-building. Today’s Gen Z, roughly those aged 14 to 29 years, is carrying that responsibility with fresh ideas, energy and technological confidence. The generations before them built institutions, expanded literacy and strengthened democracy. The present generation now seeks institutions that are transparent, accountable and fair. Nation-building is not the responsibility of Gen Z alone; it is a shared obligation across generations. “Mera Desh Mahan” must evolve from a slogan into a collective national commitment. India has witnessed examination controversies under governments of different political persuasions. Paper leaks, administrative failures, resignations and political blame games are not exclusive to one regime. Governments change; the systemic weaknesses often remain. That is precisely why this movement must resist being hijacked for electoral mileage or partisan mobilisation. Students deserve policy outcomes, not political theatre. The resignation may have addressed the immediate demand on the streets, but history rarely remembers resignations. It remembers reforms. The Right to Education transformed access. NEP 2020 attempted to redefine learning. The next milestone should be a robust legal framework that guarantees integrity in examinations and accountability in educational governance. Jantar Mantar has often amplified public sentiment. This time, it has amplified a generation’s demand for credibility. If policymakers listen beyond the slogans, this moment can become the beginning of India’s next education revolution. The real victory will not lie in who resigned, but in whether the ‘cockroaches’ of corruption, complacency and incompetence are finally driven out of India’s education system. Politics may win elections, but only education can secure the Republic’s future. (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.)

Paper leaks, opaque examination processes, institutional complacency, and administrative lapses are the cockroaches of India’s education system. India needs a professionally managed, technology-driven and legally accountable assessment architecture.

Jantar Mantar, CJP & resignation -- Will this momentum exterminate the ‘cockroaches’ in India’s education system?

In contemporary social media ecosystems, attention is heavily commodified, observers and analysts naturally default to quantitative metrics, such as aggregate views, share velocities and algorithmic impressions to evaluate the efficacy of online campaigns. However, when applied to the complex and high-stakes domain of narrative communication, this assumption constitutes a profound analytical fallacy. In the narrative game, sheer numerical volume is rarely the primary objective. While aggregate reach can occasionally function as a blunt instrument, numerical data of likes and views does not serve as the true yardstick of narrative construction. The authentic metrics of success operate on an entirely distinct plane: one that is fundamentally psychological, deeply strategic and overwhelmingly qualitative.&nbsp;<h3>Epistemological Divergence</h3>&nbsp;To accurately assess the efficacy of information proliferation, it is imperative to disentangle the concept of narrative building from the practices of social media based businesses and marketing activities. Because both the systems utilise identical digital infrastructures, they are frequently conflated in public discourse and superficial analyses. Yet, their underlying mechanisms and ultimate objectives are the extreme opposites.&nbsp;Social media marketing is an inherently transactional discipline. It is engineered to guide a specific demographic, progressing from initial awareness to consideration and culminating in a conversion, such as a purchase or subscription.&nbsp;Conversely, narrative building operates within the cognitive, ideological domains and each narrative has specific desired end state. It seeks the systematic alteration of perceived reality. The strategic objective is to strengthen the correct and dismantle wrongly entrenched belief systems. Narrative communication seeks to fundamentally shift a target population’s perception of a geopolitical conflict, the legitimacy of state institutions or the validity of societal norms. Applying the transactional metrics of marketing to the realities of narrative communication results in a misinterpretation of the battlespace. A viral piece of digital media may represent a triumph in marketing, but it fails to permanently alter the underlying ideological convictions of its audience, a structural failure in the narrative building domain.&nbsp;<h3>Theme Builder and the Shifting Paradigms of Evaluation</h3><h3>&nbsp;</h3>Within the architecture of information communication, the yardsticks of success are exclusively aligned with the "theme builder", the strategic architect of the overarching narrative. Because strategic intent varies significantly from one campaign to the next, the criteria for success must vary proportionally. There exists no universal quantitative dashboard for victory; the goalposts are dynamic, shifting strictly according to the Theme Builder’s specific intent.&nbsp;In this arena, success is measured by behavioural modification and psychological impact rather than mere distribution. In the context of cognitive communication, the efficacy of narrative is not measured by the aggregate blast radius of a message, but by the structural damage inflicted upon an opponent's psychological resolve or decision-making capacity.&nbsp;<h3>Cognitive Yardsticks</h3>&nbsp;The theme builder's strategic intent dictates the evaluative yardsticks, the targets of narratives are exceptionally diverse. An examination of these specific target categories demonstrates precisely why reliance on aggregate numerical data is analytically deficient. Depending on the overarching intent, the objectives will shift across several distinct typologies:&nbsp;<ul><li>Geospatial Precision and Penetration: A narrative engineered to cultivate required context in an area relies entirely on specific geographical penetration. In such scenarios, millions of algorithmic impressions generated in a distant, secure metropolis are devoid of strategic value if the narrative fails to take root in the designated zone. The appropriate yardstick in this context is geographic and demographic density, rather than aggregate digital volume.</li><li>Elite Capture and Decision-Makers: Often, the designated target audience is not a mass populace, but a group of influential actors. Narratives are engineered to influence specific policymakers, leadership, cultural elites or economic regulators. Success is evaluated through the lens of asymmetrical influence.</li><li>Maintenance of Domestic Cohesion: A significant portion of narrative building is defensive to sustain national resilience at all times. The evaluative yardsticks in these mechanisms are societal unity, psychological resilience and the active prevention of panic. Success is paradoxically measured by absence: the civil unrest that fails to materialise or the societal fractures that do not expand. Strategic Deterrence of Adversaries: Outward-facing narratives are frequently designed to project strength, unpredictability or technological superiority, with the intent of deterring hostile actions by adversarial states. The primary objective is to cultivate hesitation and cognitive paralysis within the adversary's strategic command. The success of deterrence cannot be quantified via digital engagement analytics; it is strictly measured by the adversary's sustained reluctance to initiate conflict.</li><li>Tactical Reach and Algorithmic Manipulation: It must be acknowledged that high numerical reach can occasionally function as a yardstick, though primarily when the theme builder’s intent involves mass societal support or the algorithmic flooding of an information environment to suppress misinformation. In these specific, tactical deployments, sheer volume becomes a temporary yardstick. However, this represents merely one specialised tactic within a broader strategic arsenal.</li></ul>&nbsp;Information communication and narrative construction transcend the rudimentary mechanics of mass digital distribution. Analysts and observers who attempt to measure the efficacy of a narrative campaign purely through the lens of viral metrics and quantitative analytics fundamentally miscalculate the nature of cognitive threats.&nbsp;Unlike commercial marketing endeavours, narrative building is entirely devoid of seasonality. It is characterised by the relentless, continuous shaping of the cognitive domain, extending in the Time Domain. The yardsticks of the narrative game are entirely subordinated to the theme builder's strategic intent, shifting seamlessly among the psychological conditioning of key elites, hyper-local geospatial penetration, the preservation of domestic cohesion and the active deterrence of adversarial forces. To achieve a rigorous understanding of modern information manifestation, the analytical community must pivot away from aggregate numerical counting and prioritise the evaluation of cognitive yardsticks, as the narrative game is way bigger than that of numbers and maximum hits/ impressions.



Social media marketing is an inherently transactional discipline. It is engineered to guide a specific demographic, progressing from initial awareness to consideration and culminating in a conversion, such as a purchase or subscription.

In contemporary social media ecosystems, attention is heavily commodified, observers and analysts naturally default to quantitative metrics, such as aggregate views, share velocities and algorithmic impressions to evaluate the efficacy of online campaigns. However, when applied to the complex and high-stakes domain of narrative communication, this assumption constitutes a profound analytical fallacy. In the narrative game, sheer numerical volume is rarely the primary objective. While aggregate reach can occasionally function as a blunt instrument, numerical data of likes and views does not serve as the true yardstick of narrative construction. The authentic metrics of success operate on an entirely distinct plane: one that is fundamentally psychological, deeply strategic and overwhelmingly qualitative. Epistemological Divergence To accurately assess the efficacy of information proliferation, it is imperative to disentangle the concept of narrative building from the practices of social media based businesses and marketing activities. Because both the systems utilise identical digital infrastructures, they are frequently conflated in public discourse and superficial analyses. Yet, their underlying mechanisms and ultimate objectives are the extreme opposites. Social media marketing is an inherently transactional discipline. It is engineered to guide a specific demographic, progressing from initial awareness to consideration and culminating in a conversion, such as a purchase or subscription. Conversely, narrative building operates within the cognitive, ideological domains and each narrative has specific desired end state. It seeks the systematic alteration of perceived reality. The strategic objective is to strengthen the correct and dismantle wrongly entrenched belief systems. Narrative communication seeks to fundamentally shift a target population’s perception of a geopolitical conflict, the legitimacy of state institutions or the validity of societal norms. Applying the transactional metrics of marketing to the realities of narrative communication results in a misinterpretation of the battlespace. A viral piece of digital media may represent a triumph in marketing, but it fails to permanently alter the underlying ideological convictions of its audience, a structural failure in the narrative building domain. Theme Builder and the Shifting Paradigms of Evaluation Within the architecture of information communication, the yardsticks of success are exclusively aligned with the "theme builder", the strategic architect of the overarching narrative. Because strategic intent varies significantly from one campaign to the next, the criteria for success must vary proportionally. There exists no universal quantitative dashboard for victory; the goalposts are dynamic, shifting strictly according to the Theme Builder’s specific intent. In this arena, success is measured by behavioural modification and psychological impact rather than mere distribution. In the context of cognitive communication, the efficacy of narrative is not measured by the aggregate blast radius of a message, but by the structural damage inflicted upon an opponent's psychological resolve or decision-making capacity. Cognitive Yardsticks The theme builder's strategic intent dictates the evaluative yardsticks, the targets of narratives are exceptionally diverse. An examination of these specific target categories demonstrates precisely why reliance on aggregate numerical data is analytically deficient. Depending on the overarching intent, the objectives will shift across several distinct typologies: Geospatial Precision and Penetration: A narrative engineered to cultivate required context in an area relies entirely on specific geographical penetration. In such scenarios, millions of algorithmic impressions generated in a distant, secure metropolis are devoid of strategic value if the narrative fails to take root in the designated zone. The appropriate yardstick in this context is geographic and demographic density, rather than aggregate digital volume. Elite Capture and Decision-Makers: Often, the designated target audience is not a mass populace, but a group of influential actors. Narratives are engineered to influence specific policymakers, leadership, cultural elites or economic regulators. Success is evaluated through the lens of asymmetrical influence. Maintenance of Domestic Cohesion: A significant portion of narrative building is defensive to sustain national resilience at all times. The evaluative yardsticks in these mechanisms are societal unity, psychological resilience and the active prevention of panic. Success is paradoxically measured by absence: the civil unrest that fails to materialise or the societal fractures that do not expand. Strategic Deterrence of Adversaries: Outward-facing narratives are frequently designed to project strength, unpredictability or technological superiority, with the intent of deterring hostile actions by adversarial states. The primary objective is to cultivate hesitation and cognitive paralysis within the adversary's strategic command. The success of deterrence cannot be quantified via digital engagement analytics; it is strictly measured by the adversary's sustained reluctance to initiate conflict. Tactical Reach and Algorithmic Manipulation: It must be acknowledged that high numerical reach can occasionally function as a yardstick, though primarily when the theme builder’s intent involves mass societal support or the algorithmic flooding of an information environment to suppress misinformation. In these specific, tactical deployments, sheer volume becomes a temporary yardstick. However, this represents merely one specialised tactic within a broader strategic arsenal. Information communication and narrative construction transcend the rudimentary mechanics of mass digital distribution. Analysts and observers who attempt to measure the efficacy of a narrative campaign purely through the lens of viral metrics and quantitative analytics fundamentally miscalculate the nature of cognitive threats. Unlike commercial marketing endeavours, narrative building is entirely devoid of seasonality. It is characterised by the relentless, continuous shaping of the cognitive domain, extending in the Time Domain. The yardsticks of the narrative game are entirely subordinated to the theme builder's strategic intent, shifting seamlessly among the psychological conditioning of key elites, hyper-local geospatial penetration, the preservation of domestic cohesion and the active deterrence of adversarial forces. To achieve a rigorous understanding of modern information manifestation, the analytical community must pivot away from aggregate numerical counting and prioritise the evaluation of cognitive yardsticks, as the narrative game is way bigger than that of numbers and maximum hits/ impressions.

Social media marketing is an inherently transactional discipline. It is engineered to guide a specific demographic, progressing from initial awareness to consideration and culminating in a conversion, such as a purchase or subscription.

Narrative communication: Beyond social media views and impressions

The resignation of India's Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan is not merely the fall of a cabinet minister. It is the culmination of one of the most significant student-led movements India has witnessed in recent years, a reminder that when young voices unite around a common cause, even the most powerful governments are compelled to listen. For decades, India's students have carried the weight of a fiercely competitive education system. Every year, millions prepare for examinations that often determine the course of their lives. They accept sleepless nights, financial sacrifices and immense psychological pressure because they believe the system, though imperfect, rewards merit.&nbsp;That belief was shaken when allegations of irregularities surrounding the NEET examination surfaced. For nearly two million medical aspirants, the controversy was never just about a paper leak. It was about trust. Students questioned whether years of hard work could be undone by corruption, negligence or administrative failure. It was this loss of faith, not just the examination itself, that ignited protests across the country.&nbsp;The government responded with investigations, a fresh examination and promises of reforms. Yet, for thousands of students, those steps did not answer the fundamental question: who would be held accountable? The answer, they believed, could not simply be another committee. It had to begin at the top. That sentiment found an unlikely face in Abhijeet Dipke and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a movement that started as internet satire before transforming into one of India's most influential youth campaigns.&nbsp;The name itself sounded absurd. It was supposed to. Instead of rejecting the label of 'cockroach', a symbol many protesters felt represented how unemployed youth and students were being treated, the movement embraced it. What began as memes and viral videos soon evolved into organised demonstrations, attracting students, job aspirants and young professionals who saw the NEET controversy as part of a much larger crisis.&nbsp;The movement reached its defining moment at Delhi's Jantar Mantar. Unlike many protests driven by political parties, this one was largely fuelled by young Indians themselves. Medical aspirants stood alongside engineering graduates, UPSC candidates and unemployed youth. Their demands extended beyond cancelling examinations or punishing paper leak rackets. They demanded accountability. They demanded transparency. Most importantly, they demanded that someone in authority accept responsibility. That persistence ultimately changed the political conversation.&nbsp;For weeks, the government maintained that corrective measures were already underway. But the protests refused to lose momentum. Social media amplified every speech, every march and every gathering, turning what initially appeared to be an online campaign into a nationwide movement. In an era where many dismiss online activism as mere 'hashtag politics', the students demonstrated that digital mobilisation can become real political pressure when combined with organisation and sustained public participation.&nbsp;Eventually, Dharmendra Pradhan resigned. Whether one believes the resignation was politically inevitable or morally necessary is open to debate. What is beyond debate is the precedent it establishes. Education is no longer a peripheral political issue.The resignation signals that failures affecting students can carry real political consequences. It reminds governments that educational institutions are not merely administrative departments but the foundation of public trust.&nbsp;The larger lesson, however, belongs not to politicians but to students. For years, young Indians have often been described as politically disengaged, more interested in reels than rallies, influencers than institutions. The events surrounding NEET challenge that stereotype completely. This generation organised without traditional political machinery. They built communities online, mobilised offline and sustained a movement despite criticism, fatigue and uncertainty. They proved that democracy does not begin or end at the ballot box. It also lives in peaceful protest, collective action and the courage to question authority.&nbsp;None of this means India's education crisis has been solved. Paper leaks remain a recurring challenge. Coaching culture continues to dominate competitive examinations. Mental health concerns among students are growing, while opportunities remain limited despite rising aspirations. Changing one minister cannot fix structural problems that have developed over decades. But every meaningful reform begins with accountability.&nbsp;&nbsp;If the NEET protests have achieved anything beyond a resignation, it is restoring the belief that citizens, particularly young citizens, can influence public policy when they refuse to be ignored. That may ultimately become the movement's greatest legacy.History will remember the slogans, the crowds at Jantar Mantar and the memes that fuelled a nationwide campaign. But more importantly, it will remember that thousands of students stood together and reminded India's democracy of one simple truth: Power ultimately belongs to the people. This time, the students proved it.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan following the NEET protests marks a watershed moment for student activism in India. Here's why the Jantar Mantar movement changed Indian politics

The resignation of India's Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan is not merely the fall of a cabinet minister. It is the culmination of one of the most significant student-led movements India has witnessed in recent years, a reminder that when young voices unite around a common cause, even the most powerful governments are compelled to listen. For decades, India's students have carried the weight of a fiercely competitive education system. Every year, millions prepare for examinations that often determine the course of their lives. They accept sleepless nights, financial sacrifices and immense psychological pressure because they believe the system, though imperfect, rewards merit. That belief was shaken when allegations of irregularities surrounding the NEET examination surfaced. For nearly two million medical aspirants, the controversy was never just about a paper leak. It was about trust. Students questioned whether years of hard work could be undone by corruption, negligence or administrative failure. It was this loss of faith, not just the examination itself, that ignited protests across the country. The government responded with investigations, a fresh examination and promises of reforms. Yet, for thousands of students, those steps did not answer the fundamental question: who would be held accountable? The answer, they believed, could not simply be another committee. It had to begin at the top. That sentiment found an unlikely face in Abhijeet Dipke and the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a movement that started as internet satire before transforming into one of India's most influential youth campaigns. The name itself sounded absurd. It was supposed to. Instead of rejecting the label of 'cockroach', a symbol many protesters felt represented how unemployed youth and students were being treated, the movement embraced it. What began as memes and viral videos soon evolved into organised demonstrations, attracting students, job aspirants and young professionals who saw the NEET controversy as part of a much larger crisis. The movement reached its defining moment at Delhi's Jantar Mantar. Unlike many protests driven by political parties, this one was largely fuelled by young Indians themselves. Medical aspirants stood alongside engineering graduates, UPSC candidates and unemployed youth. Their demands extended beyond cancelling examinations or punishing paper leak rackets. They demanded accountability. They demanded transparency. Most importantly, they demanded that someone in authority accept responsibility. That persistence ultimately changed the political conversation. For weeks, the government maintained that corrective measures were already underway. But the protests refused to lose momentum. Social media amplified every speech, every march and every gathering, turning what initially appeared to be an online campaign into a nationwide movement. In an era where many dismiss online activism as mere 'hashtag politics', the students demonstrated that digital mobilisation can become real political pressure when combined with organisation and sustained public participation. Eventually, Dharmendra Pradhan resigned. Whether one believes the resignation was politically inevitable or morally necessary is open to debate. What is beyond debate is the precedent it establishes. Education is no longer a peripheral political issue. The resignation signals that failures affecting students can carry real political consequences. It reminds governments that educational institutions are not merely administrative departments but the foundation of public trust. The larger lesson, however, belongs not to politicians but to students. For years, young Indians have often been described as politically disengaged, more interested in reels than rallies, influencers than institutions. The events surrounding NEET challenge that stereotype completely. This generation organised without traditional political machinery. They built communities online, mobilised offline and sustained a movement despite criticism, fatigue and uncertainty. They proved that democracy does not begin or end at the ballot box. It also lives in peaceful protest, collective action and the courage to question authority. None of this means India's education crisis has been solved. Paper leaks remain a recurring challenge. Coaching culture continues to dominate competitive examinations. Mental health concerns among students are growing, while opportunities remain limited despite rising aspirations. Changing one minister cannot fix structural problems that have developed over decades. But every meaningful reform begins with accountability. If the NEET protests have achieved anything beyond a resignation, it is restoring the belief that citizens, particularly young citizens, can influence public policy when they refuse to be ignored. That may ultimately become the movement's greatest legacy. History will remember the slogans, the crowds at Jantar Mantar and the memes that fuelled a nationwide campaign. But more importantly, it will remember that thousands of students stood together and reminded India's democracy of one simple truth: Power ultimately belongs to the people. This time, the students proved it. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

NEET protests forced political accountability as Dharmendra Pradhan resigned, proving united students can reshape India's democratic narrative

Students step up, education minister Dharmendra Pradhan steps down

Islamabad and Beijing wanted 2026 to be the year Gwadar graduated from state-funded infrastructure to private commercial traffic. The insurgency had other plans. Pakistan's military said on July 8 that three militant attacks since July 4 — near Quetta, at a police post guarding the Mangi Dam project in Ziarat, and on an army convoy on the N-25 highway near Bela — had killed 42 police, army personnel and civilians, while security forces killed 54 militants in the operations that followed. That announcement landed just days after a truck-bomb attack on a Pakistan Coast Guard camp near Jiwani on July 3 — more than thirty personnel reportedly killed, according to the Baloch Liberation Army's own claim, which Islamabad has not confirmed — at the worst possible moment for Islamabad's pitch to global investors this year. The body count has reportedly increased since the official update. There was a specific pitch being made to global investors and shipping majors going into this year: Gwadar was ready to move past its first, state-funded phase of breakwaters, roads and terminals and into what Chinese and Pakistani planners liked to call CPEC 2.0 — a second act built on private capital, industrial zones and genuine commercial maritime traffic rather than government-to-government loans. Chinese and Pakistani officials have talked up this shift throughout 2026, describing it as a move from infrastructure to industrialisation, with dozens of new special economic zones approved and Chinese firms courted for manufacturing and assembly. The timing of this year's escalation could not have been worse for that narrative.&nbsp; Consider what the pitch requires to succeed. It needed global shipping conglomerates, operating on wafer-thin margins and unforgiving delivery schedules, to trust that cargo routed through Gwadar would move predictably. It needed private industrial investors willing to build inside the Special Economic Zones adjacent to the port. And it needed a general sense, communicable to insurers, charterers and corporate boards sitting in Singapore, Dubai or Shanghai, that Gwadar in 2026 was a fundamentally different, safer proposition than Gwadar a decade earlier. None of those conditions have been met. Instead, this year has delivered a Coast Guard patrol boat attacked at sea in April, a coordinated multi-district offensive in late January and early February — which the BLA branded Operation Herof 2.0 — that Pakistani forces say required killing over two hundred militants to suppress, a further wave of some 65 coordinated attacks the BLA claimed to have carried out across the province between March 29 and April 1, and now a truck-bomb assault on a coast guard camp near Jiwani that the BLA claims killed more than thirty personnel, followed within days by the military's own admission of 42 more dead in a fresh round of attacks. Each of these episodes, individually, might be absorbed as a cost of doing business in a difficult security environment. Stacked together across a single calendar year, they read as exactly the kind of instability that scares private capital away rather than drawing it in.The mechanics of capital flight here are not abstract. No board of directors approves an industrial facility inside a Special Economic Zone when the neighbouring district has, within the same quarter, required a multi-day military clearance operation to reclaim control of its own highways. No shipping line reroutes its Gulf-to-Asia traffic through a port whose approach roads have been the site of coordinated insurgent blockades. The commercial logic that CPEC 2.0 depended on — Gwadar as a calculable, bankable risk — simply does not survive contact with a year like this one.There is also a quieter cost that rarely makes headlines: the diversion of Gwadar's own development budget. Money originally earmarked for dredging, digital customs infrastructure, warehousing and berth expansion increasingly has to be redirected toward force protection, private security contracting and physical hardening of existing facilities. A port cannot out-build an insurgency and out-compete regional rivals like Dubai's Jebel Ali or Oman's Salalah at the same time on the same budget. For Indian policymakers and businesses watching this unfold, the takeaway is not schadenfreude but a sober read of regional trade geography. Every year Gwadar remains a security project rather than a commercial one is a year in which established, stable alternatives consolidate their share of Gulf and South Asian shipping traffic. CPEC 2.0 was meant to be Gwadar's coming-of-age story. In 2026, with the latest Jiwani bombing arriving in the same week Pakistan's own military disclosed a further 42 dead across the province, it has instead become a case study in how quickly an investment narrative can be undone by a security narrative that refuses to end. There is a broader lesson here for how investment pitches around conflict-adjacent infrastructure tend to age. Master plans and summit declarations can describe a port's future capacity in glowing detail, but they cannot retroactively rewrite a year's worth of attack headlines once those headlines exist. Sovereign wealth funds, container-shipping majors and industrial investors making decisions with multi-decade time horizons will, in the end, weigh the last several years of lived security experience far more heavily than the next several years of promised stability. On that basis, 2026 has made the CPEC 2.0 pitch a considerably harder sell than it was even twelve months ago, regardless of how the underlying construction and infrastructure work at the port itself continues to progress on paper. About the author: Commodore (Dr.) Johnson Odakkal is a maritime scholar, strategic affairs analyst, and a former Indian Naval Wargame and Strategic Planner and Research Analyst. He is a specialist in Global Politics and Theory of Knowledge and an Adjunct Faculty member of the Maritime and Strategic Studies at the Naval War College, Goa. &nbsp;He can be reached at ceo@johnsonodakkal.com &nbsp;

In 2026, severe insurgent attacks by the BLA have shattered the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC 2.0) narrative, scaring off private investors and stalling Gwadar Port’s transition into a commercial hub.

Islamabad and Beijing wanted 2026 to be the year Gwadar graduated from state-funded infrastructure to private commercial traffic. The insurgency had other plans. Pakistan's military said on July 8 that three militant attacks since July 4 — near Quetta, at a police post guarding the Mangi Dam project in Ziarat, and on an army convoy on the N-25 highway near Bela — had killed 42 police, army personnel and civilians, while security forces killed 54 militants in the operations that followed. That announcement landed just days after a truck-bomb attack on a Pakistan Coast Guard camp near Jiwani on July 3 — more than thirty personnel reportedly killed, according to the Baloch Liberation Army's own claim, which Islamabad has not confirmed — at the worst possible moment for Islamabad's pitch to global investors this year. The body count has reportedly increased since the official update. There was a specific pitch being made to global investors and shipping majors going into this year: Gwadar was ready to move past its first, state-funded phase of breakwaters, roads and terminals and into what Chinese and Pakistani planners liked to call CPEC 2.0 — a second act built on private capital, industrial zones and genuine commercial maritime traffic rather than government-to-government loans. Chinese and Pakistani officials have talked up this shift throughout 2026, describing it as a move from infrastructure to industrialisation, with dozens of new special economic zones approved and Chinese firms courted for manufacturing and assembly. The timing of this year's escalation could not have been worse for that narrative. Consider what the pitch requires to succeed. It needed global shipping conglomerates, operating on wafer-thin margins and unforgiving delivery schedules, to trust that cargo routed through Gwadar would move predictably. It needed private industrial investors willing to build inside the Special Economic Zones adjacent to the port. And it needed a general sense, communicable to insurers, charterers and corporate boards sitting in Singapore, Dubai or Shanghai, that Gwadar in 2026 was a fundamentally different, safer proposition than Gwadar a decade earlier. None of those conditions have been met. Instead, this year has delivered a Coast Guard patrol boat attacked at sea in April, a coordinated multi-district offensive in late January and early February — which the BLA branded Operation Herof 2.0 — that Pakistani forces say required killing over two hundred militants to suppress, a further wave of some 65 coordinated attacks the BLA claimed to have carried out across the province between March 29 and April 1, and now a truck-bomb assault on a coast guard camp near Jiwani that the BLA claims killed more than thirty personnel, followed within days by the military's own admission of 42 more dead in a fresh round of attacks. Each of these episodes, individually, might be absorbed as a cost of doing business in a difficult security environment. Stacked together across a single calendar year, they read as exactly the kind of instability that scares private capital away rather than drawing it in. The mechanics of capital flight here are not abstract. No board of directors approves an industrial facility inside a Special Economic Zone when the neighbouring district has, within the same quarter, required a multi-day military clearance operation to reclaim control of its own highways. No shipping line reroutes its Gulf-to-Asia traffic through a port whose approach roads have been the site of coordinated insurgent blockades. The commercial logic that CPEC 2.0 depended on — Gwadar as a calculable, bankable risk — simply does not survive contact with a year like this one. There is also a quieter cost that rarely makes headlines: the diversion of Gwadar's own development budget. Money originally earmarked for dredging, digital customs infrastructure, warehousing and berth expansion increasingly has to be redirected toward force protection, private security contracting and physical hardening of existing facilities. A port cannot out-build an insurgency and out-compete regional rivals like Dubai's Jebel Ali or Oman's Salalah at the same time on the same budget. For Indian policymakers and businesses watching this unfold, the takeaway is not schadenfreude but a sober read of regional trade geography. Every year Gwadar remains a security project rather than a commercial one is a year in which established, stable alternatives consolidate their share of Gulf and South Asian shipping traffic. CPEC 2.0 was meant to be Gwadar's coming-of-age story. In 2026, with the latest Jiwani bombing arriving in the same week Pakistan's own military disclosed a further 42 dead across the province, it has instead become a case study in how quickly an investment narrative can be undone by a security narrative that refuses to end. There is a broader lesson here for how investment pitches around conflict-adjacent infrastructure tend to age. Master plans and summit declarations can describe a port's future capacity in glowing detail, but they cannot retroactively rewrite a year's worth of attack headlines once those headlines exist. Sovereign wealth funds, container-shipping majors and industrial investors making decisions with multi-decade time horizons will, in the end, weigh the last several years of lived security experience far more heavily than the next several years of promised stability. On that basis, 2026 has made the CPEC 2.0 pitch a considerably harder sell than it was even twelve months ago, regardless of how the underlying construction and infrastructure work at the port itself continues to progress on paper. About the author: Commodore (Dr.) Johnson Odakkal is a maritime scholar, strategic affairs analyst, and a former Indian Naval Wargame and Strategic Planner and Research Analyst. He is a specialist in Global Politics and Theory of Knowledge and an Adjunct Faculty member of the Maritime and Strategic Studies at the Naval War College, Goa. He can be reached at ceo@johnsonodakkal.com

In 2026, severe insurgent attacks by the BLA have shattered the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC 2.0) narrative, scaring off private investors and stalling Gwadar Port’s transition into a commercial hub.

CPEC 2.0 was supposed to bring investors to Gwadar. It's bringing body bags instead

When we hang up our uniforms, the oath to serve the nation does not expire; it merely finds a new canvas. In the scorching expanse of the Thar Desert, where temperatures regularly breach the 50-degree mark, a quiet revolution is taking place. It is a story of jointsmanship and civil-military liaison, in which the Indian Army and its veterans have stepped up to serve as the ultimate shield for our nation's most vulnerable: the wildlife of the desert ecosystem.<h2>Healing the Lifeline of the Desert</h2>My journey into this latest chapter began when, in May 2026, Amaraah Foundation, New Delhi, led by its deeply compassionate, animal-loving Managing Trustee, Mrs Jyotsana Sharma, expressed a desire to assist DCF Sandeep K. Chalani. The challenge was clear. His Wildlife Rescue Centre in Bikaner desperately needed medical succour and permanent assets for distressed animals. Amaraah Foundation had to enable it. As the CSR Consultant for the Foundation, it fell to me to bridge the gap between intent and execution.The Foundation is funded entirely as a corollary of a multi-business Select Group, New Delhi, led by her husband, the equally and exceptionally compassionate Chairman and MD, Mr Arjun Sharma. Its core work is the daily feeding, medical care, and sterilisation of over 500 stray dogs and cats across NCR, besides support to Gaushalas and bird-rescue NGOs.It is, in every sense, a voice for abandoned animals in distress. Amaraah Foundation is itself just one strand of this family’s much wider legacy of giving. Their philanthropy spans the Inder Sharma Foundation, which has granted nearly 250 scholarships in Travel and Tourism education; the Pandit Kanshi Ram &amp; Pandit Kripa Ram Charitable and Welfare Trust, which has run a free rural dispensary in Punjab since 2006 and enabled 1,654 cataract surgeries for the financially humble rural population of Gurdaspur; personal support to The Earth Saviours Foundation for over 1,200 abandoned elderly and destitute individuals; outreach to NGO Aarohi in Uttarakhand, a 300 Native tree forest in the lower Aravallis at Manesar, the Rotary Naqshband Institute for the Physically Challenged, and various children's cancer-care and blind-welfare organisations.It is this same ethics of quiet, sustained service that shaped how swiftly Bikaner's rescue centre came together, not as an isolated gesture, but as one more chapter in the family's decades-old habit of showing up for those who cannot ask. Leveraging the unbreakable bonds of our military brotherhood, I reached out to a Senior Engineer Officer, who was my ex-cadet from my days as Adjutant at the National Defence Academy (NDA) and is now also my Echo Squadron type.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/from-inventory-to-architecture-the-drone-general-s-real-achievement-1782502219186">From inventory to architecture: The Drone General’s real achievement</a>The response was classic Indian Army--swift, precise, and efficient. Within 48 hours, a representative from the Bikaner Engineers had delivered an exceptionally detailed site report. A local contractor of repute was engaged, and through daily remote monitoring, we converted an abandoned animal mortuary into a fully equipped, modern Treatment Room by May 31.By July 2, 2026, a brand-new Recovery Room stood beside it, built precisely to DCF Chalani's specifications. A quarterly medicine support package worth ₹20,000 was also assured, and has been delivered on schedule for the quarter ending September 2026.This effort mirrors parallel initiatives by the Army's Konark Corps, which recently desilted abandoned desert water structures, transforming dry terrain into what locals now call a "lifeline of blooms" for chinkaras, desert foxes, and migratory birds.<h2>A Nationwide Legacy of Green Warriors:&nbsp;</h2>What we achieved in Bikaner is part of a much larger, time-honoured tradition. As veterans, we are uniquely positioned to lead ecological conservation across India:The Ecological Task Force (ETF): For decades, the Territorial Army's ETF — manned almost entirely by military veterans — has been India's premier green force. From stabilising shifting sand dunes along the Indira Gandhi Canal in Rajasthan to reforesting the degraded hills of Mussoorie, these veterans have planted millions of trees, turning barren landscapes into thriving ecosystems.The Ladakh Ecological Conservation Force: More recently, in the fragile high-altitude cold desert of the north, veterans have been mobilised into specialised units to combat illegal off-roading, prevent habitat destruction, and protect endangered species like the snow leopard and the black-necked crane. Whether on active duty or in veteran life, our military training in discipline, logistical expertise, and sheer willpower makes us natural guardians of Mother Nature.The collaboration between Amaraah Foundation, local Bikaner authorities and the Indian Army proves that when the spirit of jointsmanship is applied to conservation, we don't just protect borders, we protect universal life itself.

Indian Army veterans, the Amaraah Foundation and local authorities transformed a wildlife rescue centre in Bikaner, highlighting how military expertise is supporting conservation in Rajasthan's Thar Desert.

When we hang up our uniforms, the oath to serve the nation does not expire; it merely finds a new canvas. In the scorching expanse of the Thar Desert, where temperatures regularly breach the 50-degree mark, a quiet revolution is taking place. It is a story of jointsmanship and civil-military liaison, in which the Indian Army and its veterans have stepped up to serve as the ultimate shield for our nation's most vulnerable: the wildlife of the desert ecosystem. Healing the Lifeline of the Desert My journey into this latest chapter began when, in May 2026, Amaraah Foundation, New Delhi, led by its deeply compassionate, animal-loving Managing Trustee, Mrs Jyotsana Sharma, expressed a desire to assist DCF Sandeep K. Chalani. The challenge was clear. His Wildlife Rescue Centre in Bikaner desperately needed medical succour and permanent assets for distressed animals. Amaraah Foundation had to enable it. As the CSR Consultant for the Foundation, it fell to me to bridge the gap between intent and execution. The Foundation is funded entirely as a corollary of a multi-business Select Group, New Delhi, led by her husband, the equally and exceptionally compassionate Chairman and MD, Mr Arjun Sharma. Its core work is the daily feeding, medical care, and sterilisation of over 500 stray dogs and cats across NCR, besides support to Gaushalas and bird-rescue NGOs. It is, in every sense, a voice for abandoned animals in distress. Amaraah Foundation is itself just one strand of this family’s much wider legacy of giving. Their philanthropy spans the Inder Sharma Foundation, which has granted nearly 250 scholarships in Travel and Tourism education; the Pandit Kanshi Ram & Pandit Kripa Ram Charitable and Welfare Trust, which has run a free rural dispensary in Punjab since 2006 and enabled 1,654 cataract surgeries for the financially humble rural population of Gurdaspur; personal support to The Earth Saviours Foundation for over 1,200 abandoned elderly and destitute individuals; outreach to NGO Aarohi in Uttarakhand, a 300 Native tree forest in the lower Aravallis at Manesar, the Rotary Naqshband Institute for the Physically Challenged, and various children's cancer-care and blind-welfare organisations. It is this same ethics of quiet, sustained service that shaped how swiftly Bikaner's rescue centre came together, not as an isolated gesture, but as one more chapter in the family's decades-old habit of showing up for those who cannot ask. Leveraging the unbreakable bonds of our military brotherhood, I reached out to a Senior Engineer Officer, who was my ex-cadet from my days as Adjutant at the National Defence Academy (NDA) and is now also my Echo Squadron type. Also Read: From inventory to architecture: The Drone General’s real achievement The response was classic Indian Army--swift, precise, and efficient. Within 48 hours, a representative from the Bikaner Engineers had delivered an exceptionally detailed site report. A local contractor of repute was engaged, and through daily remote monitoring, we converted an abandoned animal mortuary into a fully equipped, modern Treatment Room by May 31. By July 2, 2026, a brand-new Recovery Room stood beside it, built precisely to DCF Chalani's specifications. A quarterly medicine support package worth ₹20,000 was also assured, and has been delivered on schedule for the quarter ending September 2026. This effort mirrors parallel initiatives by the Army's Konark Corps, which recently desilted abandoned desert water structures, transforming dry terrain into what locals now call a "lifeline of blooms" for chinkaras, desert foxes, and migratory birds. A Nationwide Legacy of Green Warriors: What we achieved in Bikaner is part of a much larger, time-honoured tradition. As veterans, we are uniquely positioned to lead ecological conservation across India: The Ecological Task Force (ETF): For decades, the Territorial Army's ETF — manned almost entirely by military veterans — has been India's premier green force. From stabilising shifting sand dunes along the Indira Gandhi Canal in Rajasthan to reforesting the degraded hills of Mussoorie, these veterans have planted millions of trees, turning barren landscapes into thriving ecosystems. The Ladakh Ecological Conservation Force: More recently, in the fragile high-altitude cold desert of the north, veterans have been mobilised into specialised units to combat illegal off-roading, prevent habitat destruction, and protect endangered species like the snow leopard and the black-necked crane. Whether on active duty or in veteran life, our military training in discipline, logistical expertise, and sheer willpower makes us natural guardians of Mother Nature. The collaboration between Amaraah Foundation, local Bikaner authorities and the Indian Army proves that when the spirit of jointsmanship is applied to conservation, we don't just protect borders, we protect universal life itself.

Indian Army veterans, the Amaraah Foundation and local authorities transformed a wildlife rescue centre in Bikaner, highlighting how military expertise is supporting conservation in Rajasthan's Thar Desert.

Guardians of the frontier, protectors of nature: An insider's account of the Indian army and veterans rejuvenating the Thar desert

WASHINGTON: Injecting politics into speeches many Americans had hoped would carry unifying messages, US President Donald Trump has revived memories of the 1950s when the country was gripped by anti-Communist hysteria.Marking America’s 250th birthday, he warned his citizens that “Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty. It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbour, or even 9-11. We’re not going to let this happen to us. Believe me, we’re not letting it happen."“Because communism is the enemy of free people everywhere, everywhere in the world. Never works. It’s the enemy of the Constitution. Above all, it’s the enemy of July 4th, 1776. It is the enemy indeed.” He returned to the subject a day later, describing Communism as a cancer “that must be cut out fast.”Trump’s warnings about Communism grew more strident after June 23, when a string of far-left candidates who identify as democratic socialists won primary contests in New York. This was followed by primary victories in Colorado and Maine. The country’s most prominent democratic socialist, New York mayor Zohran Mamdami, endorsed the winners.That prompted the president to warn of Communism 81 times in the span of two weeks, giving his political team plenty of material to test whether the message resonates beyond his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base. &nbsp;The reason for Trump’s anti-Communist tirades is obvious: in the run-up to mid-term elections for the House of Representatives, he wants to implant in the mind of voters the idea that the establishment Democratic Party is being pulled to the far left by democratic socialists.For students of American history in the 20th century, Trump sounded like the Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, who, beginning in 1950, waged a campaign to root out alleged Communists in the government, the arts, and Hollywood in what became known as the Red Scare. &nbsp;In the next four years of intense anti-Communist paranoia, thousands of Americans lost their jobs after being blacklisted. The anti-Communist fever burnt itself out when the US Senate censured McCarthy at the end of a series of hearings on allegations by a McCarthy subcommittee that Communists infiltrated the US Army.There is no serving or aspiring American politician or public figure who describes himself as a communist, so what prompted the President’s return to a dark and now discredited chapter of American history?As Dough Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University, put it: “This is Joe McCarthy red scare idiocy. He (Trump) is out there talking about this communist menace as if it’s the Cold War years. It’s just what he wants the Republicans to run on in this election cycle.”This is a concern of a good number of moderate members of the Democratic Party which so far is favoured to win back the House of Representatives, where Republicans now have a three-seat majority.For Trump, whose statements tend to be echoed endlessly on social media, there is no such things as democratic socialists. “These are hardcore, godless communists,” he told the policy conference on the eve of Independence Day. “This is the most serious threat to our country since its existence, in my opinion, 250 years ago. A major threat to our country.”Democratic socialists believe in taxing the wealthy, universal health care, and an end to arms supplies and unconditional U.S. support for Israel – all demands that enjoy considerable public support.In an ideal world, America’s 250th year would have been a unifying event. Instead, it shows the deep political divisions of a country whose citizens are in a sour mood, according to surveys, and whose global image has darkened to a remarkable degree.According to the Pew Research Center, a Washington think tank, roughly two-thirds of Americans believe their country is on the wrong track. . Public trust in government has sunk to a record low, from 40 per cent in 1976 to just 17 per cent in 2025.Today’s perceptions contrast with decades of the United States enjoying a positive image both at home and in much of the world, more so after the end of World War II, when it began its rise to become the world’s dominant superpower.How senior US officials (and many ordinary citizens) saw their country was reflected by then Secretary of State Madeline Albright in a 1998 television interview: “We…are America, we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.”Coming from a measured diplomat, that soaring language produced little or no pushback from “the West” (short for Washington’s allies), which had accepted the US as its leader in international affairs. &nbsp;But the perception of America as a force for good has been fading gradually and virtually vanished after Donald Trump entered politics and began his second term in office in January 2025, perpetuating the concept of “America First” he developed in his first term from 2017 to 2021.He cast aside the notion that the United States is an exceptional country destined to exert global leadership and promote democracy and human rights around the world. Trump disdains international organisations and his administration has withdrawn from 66, including the World Health Organization and the Paris Agreement on climate change, which was adopted by 195 countries.This move underscored the extent to which the United States has abandoned the concept of “soft power”. For years, that served as an important tool to influence other countries by attraction and persuasion rather than coercion, force, and commercial transactions. The world took notice of the emphasis on military might.Nothing highlights how that has changed perceptions more than a global survey in May that showed more positive views of China and Russia than America.The survey is an annual exercise commissioned by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, a watchdog group based in Denmark.Its findings were drawn from polling more than 94,000 &nbsp;respondents in 85 countries. It is said to be the largest survey of its kind.In the countries surveyed, citizens in 82 held negative views of the United States. “The fast decline of the United States’ perception around the world is saddening but not shocking,” former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said when he presented the survey results.“US foreign policy over the past 18 months has, among other things, called into question the transatlantic relationship, imposed widespread tariffs and threatened to invade a NATO ally’s territory, “ a reference to President Trump’s repeatedly stated intention to take control of Greenland, a Danish territory.Add the painful economic impact resulting from the unprovoked war on Iran that Trump launched on February 28, announcing it in a pre-dawn social media posting, and it is easy to understand why Rasmussen, a former Prime Minister of Denmark, said the unprecedented decline of views of America was “not shocking.”In the countries surveyed, citizens in 82 held negative views of the United States. “The fast decline of the United States’ perception around the world is saddening but not shocking,” former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said when he presented the survey results.But perhaps the most remarkable poll of the mood in America’s birth year has come from Gallup, one of the world’s most respected polling organisations. It found that the share of Americans who are extremely or very proud of their country has fallen to a historic low — just 58%.Pride in the United States has long been in the DNA of the country but Gallup found that it has declined by deep partisan divides and shifting generational trends, i.e., sceptical views from the young.In the past, there have been good reasons for pride. Massive waves of immigration around the turn of the 20th century — more than 20 million people arrived between 1880 and 1920 — helped turn the country into a centre of innovation, science and enterprise.The United States has won more Nobel Prizes than any other country since the prize was first awarded in 1901. According to the Institute of Immigration Research, 142 of the 400 U.S. citizens who won academic Nobel Prizes were immigrants.This was an era when immigrants were welcomed. &nbsp;A sonnet written by Emma Lazarus to help fund the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty conveys a bygone culture: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.”In 1903, it was engraved on a bronze plaque and placed inside the pedestal. Now, both legal and illegal immigration have been sharply reduced by sweeping restrictions. Trump administration decrees have halted the granting of visas for nationals from nearly 40 countries. &nbsp;

The reason for Trump’s anti-Communist tirades is obvious: in the run-up to mid-term elections for the House of Representatives, he wants to implant in the mind of voters the idea that the establishment Democratic Party is being pulled to the far left by democratic socialists.



WASHINGTON: Injecting politics into speeches many Americans had hoped would carry unifying messages, US President Donald Trump has revived memories of the 1950s when the country was gripped by anti-Communist hysteria. Marking America’s 250th birthday, he warned his citizens that “Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty. It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbour, or even 9-11. We’re not going to let this happen to us. Believe me, we’re not letting it happen." “Because communism is the enemy of free people everywhere, everywhere in the world. Never works. It’s the enemy of the Constitution. Above all, it’s the enemy of July 4th, 1776. It is the enemy indeed.” He returned to the subject a day later, describing Communism as a cancer “that must be cut out fast.” Trump’s warnings about Communism grew more strident after June 23, when a string of far-left candidates who identify as democratic socialists won primary contests in New York. This was followed by primary victories in Colorado and Maine. The country’s most prominent democratic socialist, New York mayor Zohran Mamdami, endorsed the winners. That prompted the president to warn of Communism 81 times in the span of two weeks, giving his political team plenty of material to test whether the message resonates beyond his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base. The reason for Trump’s anti-Communist tirades is obvious: in the run-up to mid-term elections for the House of Representatives, he wants to implant in the mind of voters the idea that the establishment Democratic Party is being pulled to the far left by democratic socialists. For students of American history in the 20th century, Trump sounded like the Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, who, beginning in 1950, waged a campaign to root out alleged Communists in the government, the arts, and Hollywood in what became known as the Red Scare. In the next four years of intense anti-Communist paranoia, thousands of Americans lost their jobs after being blacklisted. The anti-Communist fever burnt itself out when the US Senate censured McCarthy at the end of a series of hearings on allegations by a McCarthy subcommittee that Communists infiltrated the US Army. There is no serving or aspiring American politician or public figure who describes himself as a communist, so what prompted the President’s return to a dark and now discredited chapter of American history? As Dough Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University, put it: “This is Joe McCarthy red scare idiocy. He (Trump) is out there talking about this communist menace as if it’s the Cold War years. It’s just what he wants the Republicans to run on in this election cycle.” This is a concern of a good number of moderate members of the Democratic Party which so far is favoured to win back the House of Representatives, where Republicans now have a three-seat majority. For Trump, whose statements tend to be echoed endlessly on social media, there is no such things as democratic socialists. “These are hardcore, godless communists,” he told the policy conference on the eve of Independence Day. “This is the most serious threat to our country since its existence, in my opinion, 250 years ago. A major threat to our country.” Democratic socialists believe in taxing the wealthy, universal health care, and an end to arms supplies and unconditional U.S. support for Israel – all demands that enjoy considerable public support. In an ideal world, America’s 250th year would have been a unifying event. Instead, it shows the deep political divisions of a country whose citizens are in a sour mood, according to surveys, and whose global image has darkened to a remarkable degree. According to the Pew Research Center, a Washington think tank, roughly two-thirds of Americans believe their country is on the wrong track. . Public trust in government has sunk to a record low, from 40 per cent in 1976 to just 17 per cent in 2025. Today’s perceptions contrast with decades of the United States enjoying a positive image both at home and in much of the world, more so after the end of World War II, when it began its rise to become the world’s dominant superpower. How senior US officials (and many ordinary citizens) saw their country was reflected by then Secretary of State Madeline Albright in a 1998 television interview: “We…are America, we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.” Coming from a measured diplomat, that soaring language produced little or no pushback from “the West” (short for Washington’s allies), which had accepted the US as its leader in international affairs. But the perception of America as a force for good has been fading gradually and virtually vanished after Donald Trump entered politics and began his second term in office in January 2025, perpetuating the concept of “America First” he developed in his first term from 2017 to 2021. He cast aside the notion that the United States is an exceptional country destined to exert global leadership and promote democracy and human rights around the world. Trump disdains international organisations and his administration has withdrawn from 66, including the World Health Organization and the Paris Agreement on climate change, which was adopted by 195 countries. This move underscored the extent to which the United States has abandoned the concept of “soft power”. For years, that served as an important tool to influence other countries by attraction and persuasion rather than coercion, force, and commercial transactions. The world took notice of the emphasis on military might. Nothing highlights how that has changed perceptions more than a global survey in May that showed more positive views of China and Russia than America. The survey is an annual exercise commissioned by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, a watchdog group based in Denmark. Its findings were drawn from polling more than 94,000 respondents in 85 countries. It is said to be the largest survey of its kind. In the countries surveyed, citizens in 82 held negative views of the United States. “The fast decline of the United States’ perception around the world is saddening but not shocking,” former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said when he presented the survey results. “US foreign policy over the past 18 months has, among other things, called into question the transatlantic relationship, imposed widespread tariffs and threatened to invade a NATO ally’s territory, “ a reference to President Trump’s repeatedly stated intention to take control of Greenland, a Danish territory. Add the painful economic impact resulting from the unprovoked war on Iran that Trump launched on February 28, announcing it in a pre-dawn social media posting, and it is easy to understand why Rasmussen, a former Prime Minister of Denmark, said the unprecedented decline of views of America was “not shocking.” In the countries surveyed, citizens in 82 held negative views of the United States. “The fast decline of the United States’ perception around the world is saddening but not shocking,” former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said when he presented the survey results. But perhaps the most remarkable poll of the mood in America’s birth year has come from Gallup, one of the world’s most respected polling organisations. It found that the share of Americans who are extremely or very proud of their country has fallen to a historic low — just 58%. Pride in the United States has long been in the DNA of the country but Gallup found that it has declined by deep partisan divides and shifting generational trends, i.e., sceptical views from the young. In the past, there have been good reasons for pride. Massive waves of immigration around the turn of the 20th century — more than 20 million people arrived between 1880 and 1920 — helped turn the country into a centre of innovation, science and enterprise. The United States has won more Nobel Prizes than any other country since the prize was first awarded in 1901. According to the Institute of Immigration Research, 142 of the 400 U.S. citizens who won academic Nobel Prizes were immigrants. This was an era when immigrants were welcomed. A sonnet written by Emma Lazarus to help fund the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty conveys a bygone culture: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.” In 1903, it was engraved on a bronze plaque and placed inside the pedestal. Now, both legal and illegal immigration have been sharply reduced by sweeping restrictions. Trump administration decrees have halted the granting of visas for nationals from nearly 40 countries.

The reason for Trump’s anti-Communist tirades is obvious: in the run-up to mid-term elections for the House of Representatives, he wants to implant in the mind of voters the idea that the establishment Democratic Party is being pulled to the far left by democratic socialists.

Trump’s latest addition to domestic enemies list: ‘Godless communists’

After actor-turned-politician Vijay’s TVK party won the April 2026 assembly elections in Tamil Nadu, the first-ever consultative meeting among the TVK government's coalition partners took place near Chennai last week. This gathering marks a significant step forward in fostering collaboration and unity among the partners. Manickam Tagore, MP, the new Tamil Nadu Congress President, calls this is a ‘good start.’ Though the Left parties did not attend the meeting, other coalition members participated in the discussion with a positive attitude. In Tamil Nadu politics, May 10th, 2026 (swearing-in of Chief Minister Vijay and his cabinet colleagues) is historic, and TVK’s victory will always be remembered.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/tamil-nadu-can-vijay-s-tvk-alter-centre-state-dynamics-1783341696133/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/tamil-nadu-can-vijay-s-tvk-alter-centre-state-dynamics-1783341696133/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Further, the formation of the coalition government is a ‘new social justice’ in Tamil Nadu politics. The bigger question is how the TVK, a newbie in Tamil Nadu politics, can synergise with its allies and negotiate the rough-and-tumble of the state's politics.Tamil Nadu's political landscape has changed significantly, shifting from a bipolar system to a coalition government after 59 years. To improve cooperation, mutual trust and increase power-sharing among coalition partners, several constructive recommendations are proposed here.&nbsp;Since coalition dharma is new to Tamil Nadu politics, it is imperative to appoint conveners at the state, district, and block levels to strengthen the coalition framework and address alliance partners' grievances. The state convenor bears the critical responsibility of conducting regular monthly meetings with the directly allied political parties, as well as those providing external support. It is essential that significant discussions, encompassing policy-level issues, divergent viewpoints, and Centre-State relations, are effectively managed at the state level. The convener should enhance the stability of a coalition government; it is crucial to ensure a fair distribution of power among the participating parties across all sectors. It is better to formulate a Common Minimum Programme.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bail-plea-rejected-dmk-mla-arrested-for-remarks-against-cm-vijay-1783087812896">Bail plea rejected; DMK MLA arrested for remarks against CM Vijay</a>&nbsp;For decades, the Congress Party was in the DMK alliance. The recent poll results prompted the Congress to quit the DMK alliance and partner with the TVK. This process could have hurt TVK candidates who lost in the five constituencies where Congress candidates won. The TVK leadership should address this and help heal the wounds of the past.&nbsp;To strengthen the coalition and enable jointness on the ground, it is important to inform the district presidents and MLAs of the coalition parties whenever the Ministers visit their districts. Recently, it was encouraging to witness TVK flags displayed to welcome the Tourism minister Rajesh Kumar(a Congress MLA) during his visit to several locations near Chennai.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/jana-nayagan-tamil-nadu-cm-vijay-s-film-eyes-july-release-after-censor-clearance-1782967491471">Jana Nayagan: Tamil Nadu CM Vijay's film eyes July release after censor clearance?</a>&nbsp;It is important to impress upon the two Dravidian majors that offering a share in power should also apply to local elections, without conflicts among coalition partners. Therefore, the TVK's alliance partners should carefully dissect and discuss each mayoral position, panchayat, municipality, and ward with the coalition partners. Winning every local body seat should be treated as a high-priority goal; this is essential for the TVK's Government in the state and helps the party prepare for the next parliamentary poll.&nbsp;Regular meetings of coalition partners' MLAs help them face assembly sessions with courage and determination against the DMK and AIADMK. Those within the alliance must be willing to openly speak about how the TVK Government is treating them with fraternal affection, as opposed to how the DMK had treated them back in the day.&nbsp;In the interest of transparency and democratic functioning, it is important for all members of the coalition government to provide necessary updates to the media regarding the establishment of a secular coalition government. This communication helps inform the public about the government's intentions and structure. To effectively communicate the benefits and welfare measures of the coalition government's policies, it is crucial to organise a series of public and street meetings that bring together coalition partners.Further, a robust social media strategy needs to be implemented to ensure that all the IT Wings are well coordinated in actively promoting and defending the coalition's policies. This would also involve crafting timely and thoughtful responses to opposition critiques, which will not only bolster the coalition's standing but also foster a sense of unity and purpose among its stakeholders.&nbsp;The recent success of the TVK in Tamil Nadu has changed the state's political dynamics, with many supporters and veteran leaders from established parties switching their loyalty. However, TVK leaders should not accept disgraced opposition MLAs or former members, as this could harm their reputation.&nbsp;In the context of Tamil Nadu, coalition governance and power sharing represent a novel approach. This historic moment ought to be preserved. To sustain this important achievement, it is essential to build mutual respect, dignity, and fair power-sharing among coalition partners. If the coalition leaders achieve these goals, the government will successfully complete its five-year term. Moreover, future governments in Tamil Nadu could potentially form coalitions to enhance governance and address the diverse needs of the state's population.

The bigger question is how the TVK, a newbie in Tamil Nadu politics, can synergise with its allies and negotiate the rough-and-tumble of the state's politics.

After actor-turned-politician Vijay’s TVK party won the April 2026 assembly elections in Tamil Nadu, the first-ever consultative meeting among the TVK government's coalition partners took place near Chennai last week. This gathering marks a significant step forward in fostering collaboration and unity among the partners. Manickam Tagore, MP, the new Tamil Nadu Congress President, calls this is a ‘good start.’ Though the Left parties did not attend the meeting, other coalition members participated in the discussion with a positive attitude. In Tamil Nadu politics, May 10th, 2026 (swearing-in of Chief Minister Vijay and his cabinet colleagues) is historic, and TVK’s victory will always be remembered. https://www.wionews.com/videos/tamil-nadu-can-vijay-s-tvk-alter-centre-state-dynamics-1783341696133/embed Further, the formation of the coalition government is a ‘new social justice’ in Tamil Nadu politics. The bigger question is how the TVK, a newbie in Tamil Nadu politics, can synergise with its allies and negotiate the rough-and-tumble of the state's politics. Tamil Nadu's political landscape has changed significantly, shifting from a bipolar system to a coalition government after 59 years. To improve cooperation, mutual trust and increase power-sharing among coalition partners, several constructive recommendations are proposed here. Since coalition dharma is new to Tamil Nadu politics, it is imperative to appoint conveners at the state, district, and block levels to strengthen the coalition framework and address alliance partners' grievances. The state convenor bears the critical responsibility of conducting regular monthly meetings with the directly allied political parties, as well as those providing external support. It is essential that significant discussions, encompassing policy-level issues, divergent viewpoints, and Centre-State relations, are effectively managed at the state level. The convener should enhance the stability of a coalition government; it is crucial to ensure a fair distribution of power among the participating parties across all sectors. It is better to formulate a Common Minimum Programme. Also read: Bail plea rejected; DMK MLA arrested for remarks against CM Vijay For decades, the Congress Party was in the DMK alliance. The recent poll results prompted the Congress to quit the DMK alliance and partner with the TVK. This process could have hurt TVK candidates who lost in the five constituencies where Congress candidates won. The TVK leadership should address this and help heal the wounds of the past. To strengthen the coalition and enable jointness on the ground, it is important to inform the district presidents and MLAs of the coalition parties whenever the Ministers visit their districts. Recently, it was encouraging to witness TVK flags displayed to welcome the Tourism minister Rajesh Kumar(a Congress MLA) during his visit to several locations near Chennai. Also read: Jana Nayagan: Tamil Nadu CM Vijay's film eyes July release after censor clearance? It is important to impress upon the two Dravidian majors that offering a share in power should also apply to local elections, without conflicts among coalition partners. Therefore, the TVK's alliance partners should carefully dissect and discuss each mayoral position, panchayat, municipality, and ward with the coalition partners. Winning every local body seat should be treated as a high-priority goal; this is essential for the TVK's Government in the state and helps the party prepare for the next parliamentary poll. Regular meetings of coalition partners' MLAs help them face assembly sessions with courage and determination against the DMK and AIADMK. Those within the alliance must be willing to openly speak about how the TVK Government is treating them with fraternal affection, as opposed to how the DMK had treated them back in the day. In the interest of transparency and democratic functioning, it is important for all members of the coalition government to provide necessary updates to the media regarding the establishment of a secular coalition government. This communication helps inform the public about the government's intentions and structure. To effectively communicate the benefits and welfare measures of the coalition government's policies, it is crucial to organise a series of public and street meetings that bring together coalition partners. Further, a robust social media strategy needs to be implemented to ensure that all the IT Wings are well coordinated in actively promoting and defending the coalition's policies. This would also involve crafting timely and thoughtful responses to opposition critiques, which will not only bolster the coalition's standing but also foster a sense of unity and purpose among its stakeholders. The recent success of the TVK in Tamil Nadu has changed the state's political dynamics, with many supporters and veteran leaders from established parties switching their loyalty. However, TVK leaders should not accept disgraced opposition MLAs or former members, as this could harm their reputation. In the context of Tamil Nadu, coalition governance and power sharing represent a novel approach. This historic moment ought to be preserved. To sustain this important achievement, it is essential to build mutual respect, dignity, and fair power-sharing among coalition partners. If the coalition leaders achieve these goals, the government will successfully complete its five-year term. Moreover, future governments in Tamil Nadu could potentially form coalitions to enhance governance and address the diverse needs of the state's population.

The bigger question is how the TVK, a newbie in Tamil Nadu politics, can synergise with its allies and negotiate the rough-and-tumble of the state's politics.

Opinion: CM Vijay’s coalition govt; How can TVK synergise with allies?

The first memories between India and Indonesia began long before embassies, official visits and formal agreements. They began with the sea. Traders, monks, scholars, craftsmen, storytellers and pilgrims carried more than goods across the water. They carried words, scripts, gods, stories, food habits, and ways of seeing the world. &nbsp;&nbsp;Somewhere in this movement of people and ideas, the figure of Rishi Agastya also entered the Indonesian imagination. In Java, he came to be remembered as a teacher, a bearer of Hindu knowledge, discipline and spiritual learning. His presence in temple traditions, including Prambanan, shows how deeply Indian thought reached the islands before gradually becoming something uniquely Indonesian. &nbsp;&nbsp;The old kingdoms strengthened these connections. Sriwijaya in Sumatra became an important centre of Buddhist learning with close ties to Nalanda in India. In Java and Bali, the Ramayana and Mahabharata found new life in dance, theatre, sculpture, names and ritual. When an Indian stands before Borobudur or Prambanan, there is often a strange feeling of recognition. The stories are familiar, yet their expression is unmistakably Indonesian. &nbsp;&nbsp;Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/70-to-90-hour-work-weeks-meet-karoshi-the-japanese-phenomenon-india-should-think-twice-before-importing-1783064331804">India-Japan ties go far beyond trade. Here's one thing India shouldn't import: Karoshi</a>&nbsp;Rabindranath Tagore must have felt something similar when he travelled through Java and Bali in 1927. Perhaps because he was a poet, he noticed what hurried visitors often miss. He saw temples, dance, music, rituals and village life, but above all, he noticed the quiet discipline with which beauty was woven into everyday living. He recognised echoes of India, yet each one had found an Indonesian voice. The epics remained, but they moved with Javanese grace. Hindu thought survived, but in Bali it breathed through local ceremonies, offerings, community life and reverence for nature. Gamelan had its own patience. Dance had its own silence. The body moved slowly, the face remained calm, yet the story still reached the heart. &nbsp;&nbsp;I have often felt the same. In Indonesia, the past rarely announces itself. It sits quietly inside names, ceremonies, temples, family customs, and even in the way people allow time to do its work. &nbsp;&nbsp;The years of independence gave this ancient cultural closeness a deeper emotional meaning. India and Indonesia both knew the weight of colonial rule. People in both countries understood what it meant for outsiders to control land, trade, movement, education and dignity. Indonesia proclaimed independence in 1945 and fought a long struggle for international recognition. India reached freedom only two years later. Across Asia, societies were reclaiming their own voices after generations of foreign rule. India’s support for Indonesia came not only from diplomacy, but from shared historical memory - the love of one old civilisation for another seeking to recover its place in the world. Water separated the two countries; the languages and colonial histories were different, but the feeling behind freedom was remarkably similar.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/india-s-brahmos-vs-usa-s-tomahawk-russia-s-kalibr-and-china-s-yj-18-why-nations-are-lining-up-for-the-make-in-india-missile-1782892168517">India's BrahMos vs USA's Tomahawk, Russia's Kalibr and China's YJ-18: Why nations are lining up for the Make-in-India missile</a>After independence, the relationship acquired an official framework. But for those who have lived between the two countries, it has always appeared in smaller ways. Indonesia today is the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, and its Islamic life is visible everywhere, in greetings, prayers, festivals, food, family habits, and the rhythm of ordinary days. At the same time, the older layers have not disappeared. They remain in names, stories, temples, dances, village customs, respect for elders, Javanese refinement, Balinese devotion and the many influences that came through the sea over centuries. I have always found this very Indonesian. It does not keep its past separate. It allows different layers to sit together in daily life.&nbsp;I have seen it in Indonesian names like Dewi, Putri, Indra, Wisnu, and Surya. &nbsp;I have seen it in a Ramayana performance in Java where the story begins in India, but the movement, music, and mood belong entirely to Indonesia. &nbsp;I have seen it in Bali, where a visitor from India may hear familiar mantras but see a different rhythm of worship, offerings, temple life, and community discipline.&nbsp;I have seen it in Jakarta, where Indian food, films, yoga, Ayurveda, business, education, and family networks sit quietly beside Indonesian warmth, Bahasa, manners, and hospitality. &nbsp;&nbsp;The July visit from India to Indonesia enters this living tradition. For me, it touches something I have experienced in everyday life for many years.&nbsp;&nbsp;I arrived in Indonesia as an ordinary Indian professional. The first thing the country challenged was my sense of speed. I came with the Indian habit of asking quickly, deciding quickly, following up quickly and assuming that if something was clear to me, it should quickly become clear to everyone else. &nbsp;Indonesia did not argue with that habit. It simply made me wait. &nbsp;&nbsp;A conversation would begin with tea. A decision would emerge after many small exchanges. Even a “yes” needed time. A nanti could mean many things. At first, I became restless. Slowly, I realised that people were not testing my efficiency; they were quietly discovering whether I could be trusted, whether I could listen, and whether I could remain calm when life refused to follow my timetable.&nbsp;&nbsp;During my first Idul Fitri, I heard people say, “Mohon maaf lahir dan batin.” It reminded me of the Jain phrase “Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ” - asking forgiveness for any hurt caused knowingly or unknowingly. The language was different. The faith tradition was different. Yet the feeling was instantly familiar. I saw families visiting elders, carrying food, asking forgiveness, speaking gently and placing relationships above ego. I had seen the same values in Indian homes - sometimes during festivals, sometimes after family disagreements and often in the quiet respect shown to elders without anyone explaining why. These small experiences became the soil from which my book, Sabar, Sambal &amp; Survival, slowly grew. &nbsp;&nbsp;Today, when I think about India and Indonesia, I see the relationship through these small moments. An Indian learning Bahasa before entering an Indonesian home. An Indonesian friend explaining a local custom without making a foreigner feel foolish. A family meal where sambal sits beside Indian food and somehow both belong on the same table. A festival greeting that carries the same spirit of forgiveness I had heard in another language back home. &nbsp;&nbsp;Indonesia taught me new ways of understanding people, hierarchy, respect, humour, food, faith, family, language and belonging. In India, I had often heard the saying, “Sabr ka phal meetha hota hai” which means that the fruit of patience is sweet. After living in Indonesia, I came to understand it differently. Here, patience is never preached. It arrives with waiting, tea, silence, family, food, a smile and sometimes a little sambal on the side. By the time it reaches you, it is no longer only sweet. &nbsp;&nbsp;It has flavour! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

The years of independence gave this ancient cultural closeness a deeper emotional meaning. India and Indonesia both knew the weight of colonial rule. People in both countries understood what it meant for outsiders to control land, trade, movement, education and dignity.

The first memories between India and Indonesia began long before embassies, official visits and formal agreements. They began with the sea. Traders, monks, scholars, craftsmen, storytellers and pilgrims carried more than goods across the water. They carried words, scripts, gods, stories, food habits, and ways of seeing the world. Somewhere in this movement of people and ideas, the figure of Rishi Agastya also entered the Indonesian imagination. In Java, he came to be remembered as a teacher, a bearer of Hindu knowledge, discipline and spiritual learning. His presence in temple traditions, including Prambanan, shows how deeply Indian thought reached the islands before gradually becoming something uniquely Indonesian. The old kingdoms strengthened these connections. Sriwijaya in Sumatra became an important centre of Buddhist learning with close ties to Nalanda in India. In Java and Bali, the Ramayana and Mahabharata found new life in dance, theatre, sculpture, names and ritual. When an Indian stands before Borobudur or Prambanan, there is often a strange feeling of recognition. The stories are familiar, yet their expression is unmistakably Indonesian. Also read | India-Japan ties go far beyond trade. Here's one thing India shouldn't import: Karoshi Rabindranath Tagore must have felt something similar when he travelled through Java and Bali in 1927. Perhaps because he was a poet, he noticed what hurried visitors often miss. He saw temples, dance, music, rituals and village life, but above all, he noticed the quiet discipline with which beauty was woven into everyday living. He recognised echoes of India, yet each one had found an Indonesian voice. The epics remained, but they moved with Javanese grace. Hindu thought survived, but in Bali it breathed through local ceremonies, offerings, community life and reverence for nature. Gamelan had its own patience. Dance had its own silence. The body moved slowly, the face remained calm, yet the story still reached the heart. I have often felt the same. In Indonesia, the past rarely announces itself. It sits quietly inside names, ceremonies, temples, family customs, and even in the way people allow time to do its work. The years of independence gave this ancient cultural closeness a deeper emotional meaning. India and Indonesia both knew the weight of colonial rule. People in both countries understood what it meant for outsiders to control land, trade, movement, education and dignity. Indonesia proclaimed independence in 1945 and fought a long struggle for international recognition. India reached freedom only two years later. Across Asia, societies were reclaiming their own voices after generations of foreign rule. India’s support for Indonesia came not only from diplomacy, but from shared historical memory - the love of one old civilisation for another seeking to recover its place in the world. Water separated the two countries; the languages and colonial histories were different, but the feeling behind freedom was remarkably similar. Also read | India's BrahMos vs USA's Tomahawk, Russia's Kalibr and China's YJ-18: Why nations are lining up for the Make-in-India missile After independence, the relationship acquired an official framework. But for those who have lived between the two countries, it has always appeared in smaller ways. Indonesia today is the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, and its Islamic life is visible everywhere, in greetings, prayers, festivals, food, family habits, and the rhythm of ordinary days. At the same time, the older layers have not disappeared. They remain in names, stories, temples, dances, village customs, respect for elders, Javanese refinement, Balinese devotion and the many influences that came through the sea over centuries. I have always found this very Indonesian. It does not keep its past separate. It allows different layers to sit together in daily life. I have seen it in Indonesian names like Dewi, Putri, Indra, Wisnu, and Surya. I have seen it in a Ramayana performance in Java where the story begins in India, but the movement, music, and mood belong entirely to Indonesia. I have seen it in Bali, where a visitor from India may hear familiar mantras but see a different rhythm of worship, offerings, temple life, and community discipline. I have seen it in Jakarta, where Indian food, films, yoga, Ayurveda, business, education, and family networks sit quietly beside Indonesian warmth, Bahasa, manners, and hospitality. The July visit from India to Indonesia enters this living tradition. For me, it touches something I have experienced in everyday life for many years. I arrived in Indonesia as an ordinary Indian professional. The first thing the country challenged was my sense of speed. I came with the Indian habit of asking quickly, deciding quickly, following up quickly and assuming that if something was clear to me, it should quickly become clear to everyone else. Indonesia did not argue with that habit. It simply made me wait. A conversation would begin with tea. A decision would emerge after many small exchanges. Even a “yes” needed time. A nanti could mean many things. At first, I became restless. Slowly, I realised that people were not testing my efficiency; they were quietly discovering whether I could be trusted, whether I could listen, and whether I could remain calm when life refused to follow my timetable. During my first Idul Fitri, I heard people say, “Mohon maaf lahir dan batin.” It reminded me of the Jain phrase “Micchāmi Dukkaḍaṃ” - asking forgiveness for any hurt caused knowingly or unknowingly. The language was different. The faith tradition was different. Yet the feeling was instantly familiar. I saw families visiting elders, carrying food, asking forgiveness, speaking gently and placing relationships above ego. I had seen the same values in Indian homes - sometimes during festivals, sometimes after family disagreements and often in the quiet respect shown to elders without anyone explaining why. These small experiences became the soil from which my book, Sabar, Sambal & Survival, slowly grew. Today, when I think about India and Indonesia, I see the relationship through these small moments. An Indian learning Bahasa before entering an Indonesian home. An Indonesian friend explaining a local custom without making a foreigner feel foolish. A family meal where sambal sits beside Indian food and somehow both belong on the same table. A festival greeting that carries the same spirit of forgiveness I had heard in another language back home. Indonesia taught me new ways of understanding people, hierarchy, respect, humour, food, faith, family, language and belonging. In India, I had often heard the saying, “Sabr ka phal meetha hota hai” which means that the fruit of patience is sweet. After living in Indonesia, I came to understand it differently. Here, patience is never preached. It arrives with waiting, tea, silence, family, food, a smile and sometimes a little sambal on the side. By the time it reaches you, it is no longer only sweet. It has flavour! DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

The years of independence gave this ancient cultural closeness a deeper emotional meaning. India and Indonesia both knew the weight of colonial rule. People in both countries understood what it meant for outsiders to control land, trade, movement, education and dignity.

India and Indonesia: An ancient relationship seen through one Indian life

On a humid June evening in Washington, five elderly gentlemen stood quietly beyond the White House gates, watching crowds gather beneath floodlights and giant television screens.George Washington seemed uneasy. Thomas Jefferson gazed upward at drones moving across the night sky. Alexander Hamilton studied the security cordons with professional interest. Benjamin Franklin appeared delighted by nearly everything he saw. John Adams already looked irritated.“What is occurring here?” Washington finally asked.A young passerby overheard him.“You don’t know? It’s the mixed-martial-arts tournament for President Trump’s birthday. And for the country’s birthday too, General Washington. Two hundred and fifty years.”“The country’s birthday?” Washington asked cautiously.“Yes sir. Big celebration.”Franklin smiled.“Well, George, tavern brawls in Philadelphia were once conducted with considerably less ceremony.”Music thundered across the White House grounds as giant American flags flashed across digital screens.Hamilton folded his arms.“The republic has acquired a taste for spectacle,” he observed.“So had Rome,” Adams muttered. “By the end.”A few blocks away, and across the country on other screens, another phrase appeared: No Kings. On Flag Day itself, while one celebration gathered around the presidency, another invoked the oldest American warning against monarchy.Adams noticed the words first.“At least,” he said dryly, “someone remembers the point.”As they moved through the city, another controversy appeared across television broadcasts: proposals for a commemorative 250-dollar note bearing the portrait of the sitting presidentJefferson stopped walking.“A living face upon the nation’s currency?” he asked. “Have Americans grown fond of kings again?”Hamilton raised an eyebrow.“No, Thomas. Only men who mistake popularity for legitimacy.”Washington remained silent for several moments.“The presidency,” he finally said, “was meant to restrain ambition, not advertise it.”Yet even in their unease, they could not dismiss the sheer magnitude of what America had become.They passed through cities illuminated brighter than daylight. They learned that aircraft carried thousands of people across oceans in hours. They saw surgeons repairing damaged hearts, scientists altering genes, and children holding in their hands devices containing more knowledge than existed in entire libraries during the Revolution.Franklin was transfixed.“We once drew fire from the clouds,” he declared. “These people appear to have domesticated it.”At a medical research institute, Jefferson listened in amazement as physicians described treatments that had extended human life beyond anything his century could have imagined.“Millions live now,” he said softly, “who in our time would surely have died.”Hamilton was equally captivated by New York.From a high room overlooking lower Manhattan at night, he watched financial markets move across immense electronic screens.“The commercial republic succeeded beyond even my imagination,” he admitted. “Energy, capital, industry — they built a power no European empire could have conceived.”Adams looked down toward the streets below.“And yet,” he replied, “they do not appear especially content.”That judgment followed them across the country.In Philadelphia they passed homeless encampments standing in the shadows of glittering towers. In struggling rural towns they heard of addiction, despair, and communities hollowed out by economic change.Everywhere Americans argued bitterly over immigration, race, religion, identity, and patriotism itself.Citizens no longer merely disagreed with one another. Increasingly, they regarded opponents as enemies.“The oldest danger to republics,” Adams warned, “is faction.”Jefferson was less certain.“The people are loud,” he admitted. “Passionate. Divided. Yet perhaps liberty has always sounded this way.”“And perhaps,” Adams replied sharply, “civilisations collapse sounding exactly the same.”Washington listened quietly as citizens debated elections with bitterness bordering upon hatred.“I warned against the spirit of party,” he said at last.“Yet party now seems to have become a form of national religion.”Their most difficult moment came at the National Archives.There they stood before the Declaration of Independence itself, preserved beneath glass and guarded almost like scripture. Schoolchildren from every imaginable background passed before it — Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, immigrants speaking languages from every continent.Jefferson stared silently at his own words.“All men are created equal.”Franklin leaned closer to the parchment.“Hancock still takes up half the room,” he said.Adams frowned.“Yes, but at least he attached his flourish to a declaration.”Hamilton glanced toward a television screen nearby, where the president’s looping signature appeared beneath another proclamation.“In this age,” he said, “the flourish sometimes seems to have become the declaration.”Nearby, an elected official spoke proudly of a nation where women served as judges, governors, military commanders, and corporate leaders.Washington seemed genuinely astonished.“In our time,” he admitted quietly, “such a thing would scarcely have been imagined.”Franklin smiled.“Then perhaps our imaginations were too small.”But the founders’ deepest discomfort emerged when they confronted slavery and the long struggle that followed it. They visited memorials to the Civil War and the civil rights movement. They listened to the words of Martin Luther King Jr. echoing across Washington.Jefferson appeared shaken.“The republic fought a terrible war over the contradiction embedded within its own birth,” he said.“Yes,” Adams replied. “Because once a principle is declared, later generations may insist upon taking it seriously.”Washington removed his hat before the memorial to Abraham Lincoln.“He preserved the Union,” he said solemnly. “And perhaps redeemed it.”They walked next to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, where names descended into black stone as though the republic itself had been cut open.Hamilton, who had spoken so confidently of power, said nothing.Washington ran his fingers lightly over the polished wall.“A republic may possess armies,” he said, “but it must never grow careless with the lives it asks of citizens.”Jefferson looked at the reflected faces of visitors moving across the stone.“Here,” he said, “victory is not the only measure of history.”For a long moment none of them spoke.Finally Jefferson asked quietly:“Do they judge us harshly?”A young Black student standing nearby overheard the question.“Sometimes,” she answered honestly. “But the story did not end with you.”Jefferson looked at her carefully and, for the first time that day, smiled faintly.At the Pentagon they heard briefings on tensions with China, instability in the Middle East, cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, and fears surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They learned that America maintained military commitments across oceans and continents unimaginable to the fragile republic born in 1776.Washington appeared weary.“We once hoped to avoid permanent entanglements of this kind.”Jefferson nodded.“Yes. But perhaps a nation this powerful cannot remain untouched by the world.”On the evening of the Fourth of July, the five founders stood at the edge of a crowd watching fireworks rise above the National Mall. Hundreds of thousands gathered around them. Children waved flags. Immigrants took oaths of citizenship. Protesters marched peacefully nearby. Soldiers stood watch. Church bells echoed across the capital.For a long time, the founders said nothing.Then Franklin spoke softly.“Well, gentlemen, the experiment appears not to have failed.”“No,” Washington replied, gazing across the immense republic before him. “But neither is it finished.”Jefferson watched the crowds.“They are still arguing about liberty.”Adams reluctantly smiled.“That may be the clearest evidence,” he admitted, “that the republic yet lives.”Hamilton looked toward the illuminated skyline stretching into the distance.“History will judge our failures,” he said. “But no one will say the American experiment lacked ambition.”Fireworks thundered across the summer sky.And somewhere within the spectacle, the wealth, the division, the triumphs and anxieties of two and a half centuries, one truth remained self-evident: the experiment in self-government was still alive, and still unfinished.&nbsp;

America's founders imagine visiting the US at 250, marveling at its progress while confronting deep political divisions, inequality and unresolved ideals, concluding the democratic experiment remains unfinished.

On a humid June evening in Washington, five elderly gentlemen stood quietly beyond the White House gates, watching crowds gather beneath floodlights and giant television screens. George Washington seemed uneasy. Thomas Jefferson gazed upward at drones moving across the night sky. Alexander Hamilton studied the security cordons with professional interest. Benjamin Franklin appeared delighted by nearly everything he saw. John Adams already looked irritated. “What is occurring here?” Washington finally asked. A young passerby overheard him. “You don’t know? It’s the mixed-martial-arts tournament for President Trump’s birthday. And for the country’s birthday too, General Washington. Two hundred and fifty years.” “The country’s birthday?” Washington asked cautiously. “Yes sir. Big celebration.” Franklin smiled. “Well, George, tavern brawls in Philadelphia were once conducted with considerably less ceremony.” Music thundered across the White House grounds as giant American flags flashed across digital screens. Hamilton folded his arms. “The republic has acquired a taste for spectacle,” he observed. “So had Rome,” Adams muttered. “By the end.” A few blocks away, and across the country on other screens, another phrase appeared: No Kings. On Flag Day itself, while one celebration gathered around the presidency, another invoked the oldest American warning against monarchy. Adams noticed the words first. “At least,” he said dryly, “someone remembers the point.” As they moved through the city, another controversy appeared across television broadcasts: proposals for a commemorative 250-dollar note bearing the portrait of the sitting president Jefferson stopped walking. “A living face upon the nation’s currency?” he asked. “Have Americans grown fond of kings again?” Hamilton raised an eyebrow. “No, Thomas. Only men who mistake popularity for legitimacy.” Washington remained silent for several moments. “The presidency,” he finally said, “was meant to restrain ambition, not advertise it.” Yet even in their unease, they could not dismiss the sheer magnitude of what America had become. They passed through cities illuminated brighter than daylight. They learned that aircraft carried thousands of people across oceans in hours. They saw surgeons repairing damaged hearts, scientists altering genes, and children holding in their hands devices containing more knowledge than existed in entire libraries during the Revolution. Franklin was transfixed. “We once drew fire from the clouds,” he declared. “These people appear to have domesticated it.” At a medical research institute, Jefferson listened in amazement as physicians described treatments that had extended human life beyond anything his century could have imagined. “Millions live now,” he said softly, “who in our time would surely have died.” Hamilton was equally captivated by New York. From a high room overlooking lower Manhattan at night, he watched financial markets move across immense electronic screens. “The commercial republic succeeded beyond even my imagination,” he admitted. “Energy, capital, industry — they built a power no European empire could have conceived.” Adams looked down toward the streets below. “And yet,” he replied, “they do not appear especially content.” That judgment followed them across the country. In Philadelphia they passed homeless encampments standing in the shadows of glittering towers. In struggling rural towns they heard of addiction, despair, and communities hollowed out by economic change. Everywhere Americans argued bitterly over immigration, race, religion, identity, and patriotism itself. Citizens no longer merely disagreed with one another. Increasingly, they regarded opponents as enemies. “The oldest danger to republics,” Adams warned, “is faction.” Jefferson was less certain. “The people are loud,” he admitted. “Passionate. Divided. Yet perhaps liberty has always sounded this way.” “And perhaps,” Adams replied sharply, “civilisations collapse sounding exactly the same.” Washington listened quietly as citizens debated elections with bitterness bordering upon hatred. “I warned against the spirit of party,” he said at last. “Yet party now seems to have become a form of national religion.” Their most difficult moment came at the National Archives. There they stood before the Declaration of Independence itself, preserved beneath glass and guarded almost like scripture. Schoolchildren from every imaginable background passed before it — Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, immigrants speaking languages from every continent. Jefferson stared silently at his own words. “All men are created equal.” Franklin leaned closer to the parchment. “Hancock still takes up half the room,” he said. Adams frowned. “Yes, but at least he attached his flourish to a declaration.” Hamilton glanced toward a television screen nearby, where the president’s looping signature appeared beneath another proclamation. “In this age,” he said, “the flourish sometimes seems to have become the declaration.” Nearby, an elected official spoke proudly of a nation where women served as judges, governors, military commanders, and corporate leaders. Washington seemed genuinely astonished. “In our time,” he admitted quietly, “such a thing would scarcely have been imagined.” Franklin smiled. “Then perhaps our imaginations were too small.” But the founders’ deepest discomfort emerged when they confronted slavery and the long struggle that followed it. They visited memorials to the Civil War and the civil rights movement. They listened to the words of Martin Luther King Jr. echoing across Washington. Jefferson appeared shaken. “The republic fought a terrible war over the contradiction embedded within its own birth,” he said. “Yes,” Adams replied. “Because once a principle is declared, later generations may insist upon taking it seriously.” Washington removed his hat before the memorial to Abraham Lincoln. “He preserved the Union,” he said solemnly. “And perhaps redeemed it.” They walked next to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, where names descended into black stone as though the republic itself had been cut open. Hamilton, who had spoken so confidently of power, said nothing. Washington ran his fingers lightly over the polished wall. “A republic may possess armies,” he said, “but it must never grow careless with the lives it asks of citizens.” Jefferson looked at the reflected faces of visitors moving across the stone. “Here,” he said, “victory is not the only measure of history.” For a long moment none of them spoke. Finally Jefferson asked quietly: “Do they judge us harshly?” A young Black student standing nearby overheard the question. “Sometimes,” she answered honestly. “But the story did not end with you.” Jefferson looked at her carefully and, for the first time that day, smiled faintly. At the Pentagon they heard briefings on tensions with China, instability in the Middle East, cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, and fears surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They learned that America maintained military commitments across oceans and continents unimaginable to the fragile republic born in 1776. Washington appeared weary. “We once hoped to avoid permanent entanglements of this kind.” Jefferson nodded. “Yes. But perhaps a nation this powerful cannot remain untouched by the world.” On the evening of the Fourth of July, the five founders stood at the edge of a crowd watching fireworks rise above the National Mall. Hundreds of thousands gathered around them. Children waved flags. Immigrants took oaths of citizenship. Protesters marched peacefully nearby. Soldiers stood watch. Church bells echoed across the capital. For a long time, the founders said nothing. Then Franklin spoke softly. “Well, gentlemen, the experiment appears not to have failed.” “No,” Washington replied, gazing across the immense republic before him. “But neither is it finished.” Jefferson watched the crowds. “They are still arguing about liberty.” Adams reluctantly smiled. “That may be the clearest evidence,” he admitted, “that the republic yet lives.” Hamilton looked toward the illuminated skyline stretching into the distance. “History will judge our failures,” he said. “But no one will say the American experiment lacked ambition.” Fireworks thundered across the summer sky. And somewhere within the spectacle, the wealth, the division, the triumphs and anxieties of two and a half centuries, one truth remained self-evident: the experiment in self-government was still alive, and still unfinished.

America's founders imagine visiting the US at 250, marvelling at its progress while confronting deep political divisions, inequality and unresolved ideals, concluding the democratic experiment remains unfinished.

The founders return at 250

A recent judgment surrounding an Iranian singer, Parastoo Ahmadi, has sparked global debate. Reports that Ahmadi has been sentenced to 74 lashes after allegedly performing without a hijab have resulted in a global argument over the religious headscarf. There are two sides. On one side are the people who see the hijab as a symbol of oppression. On the other are those who see it as a symbol of faith and identity. But both sides (often) miss the most important element of the debate - freedom of choice. The issue was never the piece of cloth. It is who gets to decide whether and how it is worn.&nbsp;The outrage is understandable. A punishment of this nature, linked to personal appearance and artistic expression, naturally raises questions about freedom and individual rights. But reducing the discussion to solely “hijab versus no hijab” oversimplifies a much deeper issue.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/another-one-bites-the-dust-larry-the-cat-is-now-fed-up-with-pms-resignations-in-the-uk-doesn-t-want-to-remember-their-names-1782134836315">'Another one bites the dust': Larry the cat is now fed up with PMs resignations in the UK, doesn't want to remember their names</a>&nbsp;Millions of Muslim women across the world wear the hijab every day because … they want to. For them, it represents faith, dignity, identity or personal conviction. Their decision deserves respect. Equally, some women choose not to wear hijab. And their decision also deserves respect.A right only exists when both choices are possible.<h2>Women’s clothes remain a subject of politics - but why?</h2>In many parts of Europe, several countries have restricted the wearing of religious head coverings in schools or public institutions. Whereas in Iran, women who remove the hijab can face legal consequences. The politics is entirely different. But the underlying problem is similar. In both cases, the state decides what women should wear.<h2>So where is the freedom?</h2>Real empowerment does not come from replacing one form of compulsion with another. It comes from allowing individuals to make personal decisions without fear of punishment or exclusion. Cases like Ahmadi’s and Amini’s resonate far beyond one courtroom because they touch on a universal principle. Clothing is one of the most visible expressions of identity, but it should remain exactly that: an expression, not an obligation.<h2>Who makes the decision?</h2>A large group of people will continue to disagree on the religious significance of the hijab. That debate has existed for generations and will likely continue. But what should not be controversial is the idea that governments should exercise caution before policing personal choices that do not directly harm others.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/what-are-the-chances-us-iran-agreement-will-work-out-expert-says-less-than-50-here-s-why-1782571965238">What are the chances US-Iran agreement will work out? Expert says less than 50%. Here's why</a>&nbsp;Ultimately, the real question is not whether women should wear the hijab. It is whether that decision belongs to the state, to society, her family or to the woman herself.&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

The sentencing of Iranian singer Parastoo Ahmadi exposes a deeper global conflict regarding the hijab, illustrating how true empowerment hinges entirely on a woman's individual freedom of choice.

A recent judgment surrounding an Iranian singer, Parastoo Ahmadi, has sparked global debate. Reports that Ahmadi has been sentenced to 74 lashes after allegedly performing without a hijab have resulted in a global argument over the religious headscarf. There are two sides. On one side are the people who see the hijab as a symbol of oppression. On the other are those who see it as a symbol of faith and identity. But both sides (often) miss the most important element of the debate - freedom of choice. The issue was never the piece of cloth. It is who gets to decide whether and how it is worn. The outrage is understandable. A punishment of this nature, linked to personal appearance and artistic expression, naturally raises questions about freedom and individual rights. But reducing the discussion to solely “hijab versus no hijab” oversimplifies a much deeper issue. Also read: 'Another one bites the dust': Larry the cat is now fed up with PMs resignations in the UK, doesn't want to remember their names Millions of Muslim women across the world wear the hijab every day because … they want to. For them, it represents faith, dignity, identity or personal conviction. Their decision deserves respect. Equally, some women choose not to wear hijab. And their decision also deserves respect. A right only exists when both choices are possible. Women’s clothes remain a subject of politics - but why? In many parts of Europe, several countries have restricted the wearing of religious head coverings in schools or public institutions. Whereas in Iran, women who remove the hijab can face legal consequences. The politics is entirely different. But the underlying problem is similar. In both cases, the state decides what women should wear. So where is the freedom? Real empowerment does not come from replacing one form of compulsion with another. It comes from allowing individuals to make personal decisions without fear of punishment or exclusion. Cases like Ahmadi’s and Amini’s resonate far beyond one courtroom because they touch on a universal principle. Clothing is one of the most visible expressions of identity, but it should remain exactly that: an expression, not an obligation. Who makes the decision? A large group of people will continue to disagree on the religious significance of the hijab. That debate has existed for generations and will likely continue. But what should not be controversial is the idea that governments should exercise caution before policing personal choices that do not directly harm others. Also read: What are the chances US-Iran agreement will work out? Expert says less than 50%. Here's why Ultimately, the real question is not whether women should wear the hijab. It is whether that decision belongs to the state, to society, her family or to the woman herself. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

The sentencing of Iranian singer Parastoo Ahmadi exposes a deeper global conflict regarding the hijab, illustrating how true empowerment hinges entirely on a woman's individual freedom of choice.

Hijab isn’t the issue. It’s the absence of choice

The proposal to establish Gwadar Port as Tajikistan’s primary transit hub identifies road connectivity as central to making the corridor work. What the proposal does not foreground is that the only viable overland route from Gwadar to Tajikistan passes through Afghanistan.&nbsp;For a landlocked country that currently relies on Afghanistan for transit and pays an economic premium for the associated risk and delay, the question Tajikistan’s trade planners are likely asking is straightforward: how does routing through Gwadar change the Afghan dependency?&nbsp;<h2>Torkham and Chaman are the bottlenecks</h2>&nbsp;Any cargo moving from Gwadar’s coast toward Tajikistan must pass through either Torkham, on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, or Chaman, in Balochistan. Both crossings are documented bottlenecks. Truck queues at both terminals run to days during peak periods. Border infrastructure is chronically underfunded for current trade volumes it is asked to handle, customs procedures are slow, and coordination between Pakistani and Afghan border management is inconsistent. Pakistan’s proposal treats road connectivity to Tajikistan as a discussion point. The discussion should begin with these two crossings and the documented record of their performance.&nbsp;<h2>Taliban governance is not a stable transit guarantee</h2><h2>&nbsp;</h2>Afghanistan under Taliban governance since August 2021 has not provided the predictable, rule-based transit environment that scheduled commercial freight requires. Border closures, arbitrary duties, and political disputes between Kabul and Islamabad have periodically disrupted trade. The Torkham crossing was shut for days in 2023 following a dispute between Pakistani and Afghan border authorities, directly affecting cargo in transit. Any transit framework Pakistan builds for Tajikistan through this corridor is contingent on a political relationship with Kabul that has been volatile and a security environment that has been unpredictable. These are not abstract risks. They are documented events.&nbsp;<h2>Weak infrastructure inside Afghanistan</h2>&nbsp;Beyond the border terminals, the road infrastructure inside Afghanistan on the Gwadar-to-Tajikistan overland route is inadequate for the kind of high-volume, multi-commodity commercial transit Tajikistan requires. Road quality, bridge capacity, and fuel availability along the corridor are all constraints that add time, cost, and risk to each shipment. International freight insurers already price these conditions into their Afghan corridor premiums, and those premiums compound the insurance surcharges that Gwadar itself attracts because of active Baloch insurgency.&nbsp;<h2>Chabahar bypasses Afghanistan</h2>&nbsp;The Iran-Tajikistan corridor through Chabahar does not pass through Afghanistan. It leverages Iranian territory and Turkmen and Uzbek networks under treaty-backed protocols, connecting to infrastructure developed for Iran’s Central Asian strategy. Iran and Tajikistan have now signed formal agreements to operationalise Chabahar as a transit corridor, including a railway transit MoU that enables Iranian freight wagons to operate on Tajikistan’s network.&nbsp;For Tajikistan, this is the material difference between the two proposals. Gwadar asks Tajikistan to continue depending on Afghan transit but via a different port. Chabahar removes that dependency. That distinction is no longer just an argument being made in deliberations. It is now the basis of a signed framework.

The Iran-Tajikistan corridor through Chabahar does not pass through Afghanistan. It leverages Iranian territory and Turkmen and Uzbek networks under treaty-backed protocols, connecting to infrastructure developed for Iran’s Central Asian strategy.

The proposal to establish Gwadar Port as Tajikistan’s primary transit hub identifies road connectivity as central to making the corridor work. What the proposal does not foreground is that the only viable overland route from Gwadar to Tajikistan passes through Afghanistan. For a landlocked country that currently relies on Afghanistan for transit and pays an economic premium for the associated risk and delay, the question Tajikistan’s trade planners are likely asking is straightforward: how does routing through Gwadar change the Afghan dependency? Torkham and Chaman are the bottlenecks Any cargo moving from Gwadar’s coast toward Tajikistan must pass through either Torkham, on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, or Chaman, in Balochistan. Both crossings are documented bottlenecks. Truck queues at both terminals run to days during peak periods. Border infrastructure is chronically underfunded for current trade volumes it is asked to handle, customs procedures are slow, and coordination between Pakistani and Afghan border management is inconsistent. Pakistan’s proposal treats road connectivity to Tajikistan as a discussion point. The discussion should begin with these two crossings and the documented record of their performance. Taliban governance is not a stable transit guarantee Afghanistan under Taliban governance since August 2021 has not provided the predictable, rule-based transit environment that scheduled commercial freight requires. Border closures, arbitrary duties, and political disputes between Kabul and Islamabad have periodically disrupted trade. The Torkham crossing was shut for days in 2023 following a dispute between Pakistani and Afghan border authorities, directly affecting cargo in transit. Any transit framework Pakistan builds for Tajikistan through this corridor is contingent on a political relationship with Kabul that has been volatile and a security environment that has been unpredictable. These are not abstract risks. They are documented events. Weak infrastructure inside Afghanistan Beyond the border terminals, the road infrastructure inside Afghanistan on the Gwadar-to-Tajikistan overland route is inadequate for the kind of high-volume, multi-commodity commercial transit Tajikistan requires. Road quality, bridge capacity, and fuel availability along the corridor are all constraints that add time, cost, and risk to each shipment. International freight insurers already price these conditions into their Afghan corridor premiums, and those premiums compound the insurance surcharges that Gwadar itself attracts because of active Baloch insurgency. Chabahar bypasses Afghanistan The Iran-Tajikistan corridor through Chabahar does not pass through Afghanistan. It leverages Iranian territory and Turkmen and Uzbek networks under treaty-backed protocols, connecting to infrastructure developed for Iran’s Central Asian strategy. Iran and Tajikistan have now signed formal agreements to operationalise Chabahar as a transit corridor, including a railway transit MoU that enables Iranian freight wagons to operate on Tajikistan’s network. For Tajikistan, this is the material difference between the two proposals. Gwadar asks Tajikistan to continue depending on Afghan transit but via a different port. Chabahar removes that dependency. That distinction is no longer just an argument being made in deliberations. It is now the basis of a signed framework.

The Iran-Tajikistan corridor through Chabahar does not pass through Afghanistan. It leverages Iranian territory and Turkmen and Uzbek networks under treaty-backed protocols, connecting to infrastructure developed for Iran’s Central Asian strategy.

Gwadar reroutes Tajikistan’s Afghan dependency. Chabahar ends it

The Ketan Agarwal murder mystery has absolutely dominated national headlines, prime-time television, and social media feeds. So much so that Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis met with Ketan's father and agreed to fast-track the case, appointing renowned advocate Ujjwal Nikam as the special public prosecutor. It had all the elements of a perfect drama- a scenic 400 ft gorge, a love triangle and a female perpetrator, to direct collective outrage.Roughly 1300 kilometres north, in a cramped tenement in Delhi's Madanpur Khadar, Nisha Parveen, a 19-year-old pregnant woman, was found dead under suspicious and violent circumstances. Nisha left her home two years earlier to marry a Hindu man named Ankit. What followed, they say, was not a life but an ordeal: repeated beatings, isolation, violence that left marks her relatives would later describe with a particular kind of grief, the kind that comes from having warned someone and being unable to stop what happened anyway. Her family learned about her death from a friend of her brother. When the family reached her, the scene was brutal, and the description from her family seemed like a scene from a German neo noir film. They found her face severely clawed and swollen, she was bleeding from her ears and mouth, both hands were broken, and her pregnant stomach was bruised with marks of stomping. The family claimed that she was gang raped.&nbsp;There was no mainstream media coverage, no social media hashtags, no Chief Minister appointing special advocates; in fact, the family claimed that the police did not register an FIR until there was a protest from the family and local residents outside the Police Station, with her dead body. The key perpetrator, Ankit, has been arrested, but others are absconding.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-is-justice-s-muralidhar-un-gaza-war-crimes-report-1782555201194">Who is Justice S Muralidhar? Indian jurist behind the UN report concluding Israel committed genocide in Gaza</a><h2>Sexism, xenophobia and institutional neglect</h2>Ketan Agarwal, a 26-year-old upper-caste Hindu male from a wealthy real estate family, died when he was allegedly pushed off a fort by his fiancée and her lover. Whereas Nisha Parveen, a 19-year-old pregnant Muslim female, died after sustained alleged abuse by her husband and his associates. Her injuries suggest prolonged violence. By any measure of severity and vulnerability of the victim, number of accused, degree of alleged violence, institutional failure, the Delhi case is the graver crime.The systemic isolation of Nisha Parveen's murder and the meticulous speed of solving Ketan Agrwal's murder mystery is a moral indictment of how society and state machinery value human lives based on their social situation. The latter is domestic violence, which kills women in this country every day. The NCRB data suggests that at least 4,45,256 cases of crime against women are registered annually, among them over 31 per cent by family and relatives. The sheer volume should produce outrage, but it has induced numbness. The Indian audience has been increasingly desensitised to male perpetrators and grown apathetic to female victims. This moral apathy and desensitisation is nothing but sexism and internalised misogyny. The first one has an exception, a female killer, which fascinates the imagination of the Indian audience. It has an initial psychological shock value; it shatters the traditional archetype of the “ideal, passive Indian woman”, and then the public and media reaction frequently crosses into blatant sexism and misogyny, with hyper-scrutiny of morality, femme fatale tropes, and demand medieval-style punishment like “throw her off the cliff.”Further, the religious identity of Nisha Parveen and her husband, Ankit, shuts down coverage from all directions. While official reports do not hint at it, local claims alleged that Ankit had affiliated himself with right-wing groups like the Bajrang Dal after the marriage. He had increasingly grown hostile and used to make anti muslim rant towards Muslims using derogatory language like “mullah” in his locality. The mainstream media has long peddled the narrative of Muslim men as predators and Hindu women as victims. This runs counter to the curated, majoritarian ideological script and dominant political ideoscapes. On the other hand, independent media, conditioned against the weaponisation of interfaith violence, completely avoids it. The majoritarian upper caste Hindu and their exercise of the cultural project of purity creates an anxiety of incompleteness as long as the minority exists within the border. This erases the state of urgency when law enforcement sees violence against an individual who is at the intersection of multiple marginalised identities of religion, gender and class. It does not see them as citizens but as an anomaly. The fact that Nisha's family had to literally place her dead body on the highway outside the Kalindi Kunj police station to force the authorities to file an FIR shows that a minority woman’s life has been dehumanised, it is not an aberration, rather a patten. Whether it was the night cremation of a Dalit woman without her family's consent in Hathras or garlanding the perpetrators of Bilkis Bano or the institutional silence around Nisha Parveen, the thread is consistent: when gender, caste, and religion converge in a single victim, the institutional apparatus does not just fail, it disappears them. This is xenophobia and the othering of communities, not because they came from outside, but because a dominant political movement has decided they should be made to feel that way.

The death of one man becomes a national spectacle while the death of another woman doesn't reach the footnote of any mainstream news outlets. The difference was not the crime. It was who they were.

The Ketan Agarwal murder mystery has absolutely dominated national headlines, prime-time television, and social media feeds. So much so that Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis met with Ketan's father and agreed to fast-track the case, appointing renowned advocate Ujjwal Nikam as the special public prosecutor. It had all the elements of a perfect drama- a scenic 400 ft gorge, a love triangle and a female perpetrator, to direct collective outrage. Roughly 1300 kilometres north, in a cramped tenement in Delhi's Madanpur Khadar, Nisha Parveen, a 19-year-old pregnant woman, was found dead under suspicious and violent circumstances. Nisha left her home two years earlier to marry a Hindu man named Ankit. What followed, they say, was not a life but an ordeal: repeated beatings, isolation, violence that left marks her relatives would later describe with a particular kind of grief, the kind that comes from having warned someone and being unable to stop what happened anyway. Her family learned about her death from a friend of her brother. When the family reached her, the scene was brutal, and the description from her family seemed like a scene from a German neo noir film. They found her face severely clawed and swollen, she was bleeding from her ears and mouth, both hands were broken, and her pregnant stomach was bruised with marks of stomping. The family claimed that she was gang raped. There was no mainstream media coverage, no social media hashtags, no Chief Minister appointing special advocates; in fact, the family claimed that the police did not register an FIR until there was a protest from the family and local residents outside the Police Station, with her dead body. The key perpetrator, Ankit, has been arrested, but others are absconding. Also Read: Who is Justice S Muralidhar? Indian jurist behind the UN report concluding Israel committed genocide in Gaza Sexism, xenophobia and institutional neglect Ketan Agarwal, a 26-year-old upper-caste Hindu male from a wealthy real estate family, died when he was allegedly pushed off a fort by his fiancée and her lover. Whereas Nisha Parveen, a 19-year-old pregnant Muslim female, died after sustained alleged abuse by her husband and his associates. Her injuries suggest prolonged violence. By any measure of severity and vulnerability of the victim, number of accused, degree of alleged violence, institutional failure, the Delhi case is the graver crime. The systemic isolation of Nisha Parveen's murder and the meticulous speed of solving Ketan Agrwal's murder mystery is a moral indictment of how society and state machinery value human lives based on their social situation. The latter is domestic violence, which kills women in this country every day. The NCRB data suggests that at least 4,45,256 cases of crime against women are registered annually, among them over 31 per cent by family and relatives. The sheer volume should produce outrage, but it has induced numbness. The Indian audience has been increasingly desensitised to male perpetrators and grown apathetic to female victims. This moral apathy and desensitisation is nothing but sexism and internalised misogyny. The first one has an exception, a female killer, which fascinates the imagination of the Indian audience. It has an initial psychological shock value; it shatters the traditional archetype of the “ideal, passive Indian woman”, and then the public and media reaction frequently crosses into blatant sexism and misogyny, with hyper-scrutiny of morality, femme fatale tropes, and demand medieval-style punishment like “throw her off the cliff.” Further, the religious identity of Nisha Parveen and her husband, Ankit, shuts down coverage from all directions. While official reports do not hint at it, local claims alleged that Ankit had affiliated himself with right-wing groups like the Bajrang Dal after the marriage. He had increasingly grown hostile and used to make anti muslim rant towards Muslims using derogatory language like “mullah” in his locality. The mainstream media has long peddled the narrative of Muslim men as predators and Hindu women as victims. This runs counter to the curated, majoritarian ideological script and dominant political ideoscapes. On the other hand, independent media, conditioned against the weaponisation of interfaith violence, completely avoids it. The majoritarian upper caste Hindu and their exercise of the cultural project of purity creates an anxiety of incompleteness as long as the minority exists within the border. This erases the state of urgency when law enforcement sees violence against an individual who is at the intersection of multiple marginalised identities of religion, gender and class. It does not see them as citizens but as an anomaly. The fact that Nisha's family had to literally place her dead body on the highway outside the Kalindi Kunj police station to force the authorities to file an FIR shows that a minority woman’s life has been dehumanised, it is not an aberration, rather a patten. Whether it was the night cremation of a Dalit woman without her family's consent in Hathras or garlanding the perpetrators of Bilkis Bano or the institutional silence around Nisha Parveen, the thread is consistent: when gender, caste, and religion converge in a single victim, the institutional apparatus does not just fail, it disappears them. This is xenophobia and the othering of communities, not because they came from outside, but because a dominant political movement has decided they should be made to feel that way.

The death of one man becomes a national spectacle while the death of another woman doesn't reach the footnote of any mainstream news outlets. The difference was not the crime, but it was who they were.

Nisha Parveen and Ketan Agarwal: How sexism and xenophobia determine whose death matters

When the history of India’s drone revolution is written, General Upendra Dwivedi’s name will appear not merely as a procurement champion but as the officer who understood the difference between buying drones and building a drone-capable force. That distinction, between inventory and architecture, is the Drone General’s real and most technically significant contribution.&nbsp;The numbers are well established. From a few hundred drones at the start of his tenure to over 50,000 by the time he retires on June 30, 2026. More than 25 Drone and Counter-Drone Hubs have been established across military stations. Precision engagement and surveillance systems extended to ranges approaching 500 kilometres. These figures represent genuine capability growth, but they are outputs. The more interesting question is what produced them.&nbsp;The answer lies in infrastructure, doctrine and indigenous development, pursued simultaneously rather than sequentially. The Drone and Counter-Drone Hubs were not simply storage facilities. They were designed as integrated nodes for training, induction, maintenance, and operational employment, giving the Army the ability to sustain drone operations across multiple theatres rather than concentrating capability in a handful of specialist units.&nbsp;New warfighting formations were built to embed drone employment at every echelon. Bhairav Battalions at the formation level, Ashni Platoons at the sub-unit level, Divyastra Batteries and Shaktibaan Regiments at higher formations, together with the continuing evolution of Integrated Battle Groups, represent a layered architecture in which unmanned systems are integral to combined arms operations rather than bolted on as an afterthought.&nbsp;The indigenous dimension is technically significant. Partnerships with DRDO, private sector firms, start-ups and MSMEs accelerated the development of Indian-designed and manufactured drones, counter-drone systems and AI-enabled battlefield technologies. This matters not just for self-reliance, but for adaptability, domestically produced systems can be modified, upgraded and tailored to specific operational requirements in ways that off-the-shelf foreign acquisitions cannot.&nbsp;Counter-drone capability received equal attention, a reflection of mature thinking. A force that invests heavily in offensive drone capacity while neglecting protection against adversary systems creates a dangerous asymmetry. The Drone General understood that the same revolution making drones central to Indian operations was simultaneously making Indian forces more vulnerable to adversary drones. The hub network and the counter-drone formations were built as a paired response to that reality.&nbsp;Operation Sindoor served as the system-level test. The integration of drones, loitering munitions, electronic warfare and real-time intelligence in a single coordinated campaign demonstrated not just that individual systems worked, but that the architecture connecting them functioned under operational conditions. That is the harder problem, and its resolution in a live context carries more weight than any exercise outcome.&nbsp;Nearly 25 doctrines and policy documents issued during his tenure provided the conceptual scaffolding. The ambition stated explicitly within them, that every soldier should be drone-capable, set a training and readiness standard that will define capability assessments for years to come.&nbsp;The Drone General leaves behind not a collection of unmanned systems but a force-wide architecture for employing them. That is the achievement that will endure.&nbsp;&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

During Operation Sindoor, the integration of drones, loitering munitions, electronic warfare and real-time intelligence in a single coordinated campaign demonstrated not just that individual systems worked, but that the architecture connecting them functioned under operational conditions.

When the history of India’s drone revolution is written, General Upendra Dwivedi’s name will appear not merely as a procurement champion but as the officer who understood the difference between buying drones and building a drone-capable force. That distinction, between inventory and architecture, is the Drone General’s real and most technically significant contribution. The numbers are well established. From a few hundred drones at the start of his tenure to over 50,000 by the time he retires on June 30, 2026. More than 25 Drone and Counter-Drone Hubs have been established across military stations. Precision engagement and surveillance systems extended to ranges approaching 500 kilometres. These figures represent genuine capability growth, but they are outputs. The more interesting question is what produced them. The answer lies in infrastructure, doctrine and indigenous development, pursued simultaneously rather than sequentially. The Drone and Counter-Drone Hubs were not simply storage facilities. They were designed as integrated nodes for training, induction, maintenance, and operational employment, giving the Army the ability to sustain drone operations across multiple theatres rather than concentrating capability in a handful of specialist units. New warfighting formations were built to embed drone employment at every echelon. Bhairav Battalions at the formation level, Ashni Platoons at the sub-unit level, Divyastra Batteries and Shaktibaan Regiments at higher formations, together with the continuing evolution of Integrated Battle Groups, represent a layered architecture in which unmanned systems are integral to combined arms operations rather than bolted on as an afterthought. The indigenous dimension is technically significant. Partnerships with DRDO, private sector firms, start-ups and MSMEs accelerated the development of Indian-designed and manufactured drones, counter-drone systems and AI-enabled battlefield technologies. This matters not just for self-reliance, but for adaptability, domestically produced systems can be modified, upgraded and tailored to specific operational requirements in ways that off-the-shelf foreign acquisitions cannot. Counter-drone capability received equal attention, a reflection of mature thinking. A force that invests heavily in offensive drone capacity while neglecting protection against adversary systems creates a dangerous asymmetry. The Drone General understood that the same revolution making drones central to Indian operations was simultaneously making Indian forces more vulnerable to adversary drones. The hub network and the counter-drone formations were built as a paired response to that reality. Operation Sindoor served as the system-level test. The integration of drones, loitering munitions, electronic warfare and real-time intelligence in a single coordinated campaign demonstrated not just that individual systems worked, but that the architecture connecting them functioned under operational conditions. That is the harder problem, and its resolution in a live context carries more weight than any exercise outcome. Nearly 25 doctrines and policy documents issued during his tenure provided the conceptual scaffolding. The ambition stated explicitly within them, that every soldier should be drone-capable, set a training and readiness standard that will define capability assessments for years to come. The Drone General leaves behind not a collection of unmanned systems but a force-wide architecture for employing them. That is the achievement that will endure. (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.)

During Operation Sindoor, the integration of drones, loitering munitions, electronic warfare and real-time intelligence in a single coordinated campaign demonstrated not just that individual systems worked, but that the architecture connecting them functioned under operational conditions.

From inventory to architecture: The Drone General’s real achievement

Some films do more than entertain; they stay with us long after the credits roll. Whether it is the emotional depth, memorable performances, or powerful storytelling, certain films leave a lasting impression. Theri is one such film for me. Released in 2016, the Atlee directorial stars Vijay in what I consider one of the finest performances of his career. Years later, whenever Joseph Kuruvilla appears on screen and G.V. Prakash Kumar's background score kicks in, it still gives me goosebumps. While Vijay has delivered several iconic performances over the years, there is something about Theri that continues to resonate with me every time I revisit it.<h2>Unforgettable moments and dialogues of Theri</h2>What makes Theri memorable is its ability to balance action with emotion. The film is filled with moments that continue to resonate years after its release, thanks to its memorable characters and heartfelt storytelling.&nbsp;One of the film's greatest strengths is the bond between Joseph Kuruvilla and his daughter, Nivi. From Joseph affectionately calling her ‘Baby’ to the playful yet meaningful conversations they share, their relationship forms the emotional heart of the story. Their chemistry feels genuine, making audiences emotionally invested in their journey.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/cm-vijay-s-birthday-special-5-best-films-every-fan-must-rewatch-1782134336542">CM Vijay's birthday special: 5 blockbusters every fan must rewatch</a><figure class="image"><img src="https://static.toiimg.com/photo/51745727.cms?imgsize=88338" alt="Theri Movie Photos | Theri Movie Stills | Theri Tamil Movie Photo Gallery - Eisamay Photogallery"></figure>Among the most powerful moments is when Nivi's life is threatened. In an instant, the soft-spoken bakery owner transforms back into the fearless DCP Vijay Kumar. The scene perfectly captures the lengths a father will go to protect his child and serves as a reminder that beneath Joseph's calm exterior lies a man carrying immense grief and responsibility.<figure class="image"><img src="https://mrwallpaper.com/images/hd/theri-movie-vijay-hands-on-hips-zhciipf61ylf007b.jpg" alt="Download free Theri Movie Vijay Hands On Hips Wallpaper - MrWallpaper.com"></figure>The film is also packed with memorable dialogues. One standout moment comes when Joseph's mother jokingly asks him for a lift. His response reflects his unwavering sense of duty: "I'm a DCP, not an Uber-Ola driver. Before I am your son, I am the son of Mother India." Another emotionally charged scene arrives when Joseph reflects on his daughter choosing compassion despite learning painful truths about her family's past. It becomes a defining moment about parenting, values, and humanity.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/left-peak-stardom-to-serve-people-ram-charan-hails-cm-vijay-says-he-s-very-very-proud-1780154799170">'Left peak stardom to serve people': Ram Charan hails CM Vijay, says he's very, very proud</a><figure class="image"><img src="https://i.redd.it/7yur4h5jgene1.jpeg" alt="in Theri , IPS Vijay being hidden after than incident is understandable... but why did Rajendran Character left his job to join Vijay in Bakery ??? : r/kollywood"></figure>The film also delivers a powerful social message through Vijay's character. He argues that society's failure to raise boys with respect and responsibility contributes to crimes against women. Even years later, the dialogue remains relevant and thought-provoking.<h2>Vijay's performance in Theri</h2>What makes Theri special is Vijay's ability to portray two vastly different sides of the same character with remarkable ease. As Joseph Kuruvilla, he is warm, gentle, and deeply devoted to his daughter. He runs a bakery, lives a simple life, and finds happiness in the smallest moments with Nivi. Despite experiencing unimaginable loss, Joseph's warmth never fades whenever he is around his daughter. It is this vulnerability that makes the character feel so human.&nbsp;As DCP Vijay Kumar, however, the transformation is electrifying. The moment he re-emerges, the atmosphere changes instantly. His commanding presence, intense expressions, and unwavering pursuit of justice create some of the film's most thrilling moments.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/did-cm-c-joseph-vijay-trisha-krishnan-arrive-together-at-ajith-kumar-s-chennai-home-after-mother-s-demise-here-s-what-we-know-watch-1780197731328">Did CM C Joseph Vijay, Trisha Krishnan arrive together at Ajith Kumar's Chennai home? | Watch</a>&nbsp;Vijay effortlessly balances action, emotion, humour, and heartbreak throughout the film. His performance gives Theri a warmth that extends beyond its commercial elements and ensures that audiences remain invested in Joseph's journey from beginning to end.<h2>Why does every rewatch of Theri feel different and still resonates years later?</h2>One of Theri's greatest strengths is its rewatch value. During the first viewing, audiences are often focused on the action sequences, twists, and dramatic revelations. However, with each revisit, the emotional layers become more apparent. Because the story's outcome is already known, viewers begin to notice the smaller details—the quiet moments between Joseph and Nivi, the pain hidden behind Joseph's smile, and the sacrifices he makes to protect those he loves.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/vijay-brings-back-mgr-magic-in-tamil-nadu-election-result-kamal-hassan-trisha-jayalaitha-affair-thalapathy-vaathi-coming-tvk-who-will-be-tamil-nadu-cm-1777898435333">Vijay brings back MGR magic in Tamil Nadu politics: Which 'jackal' will Thalapathy 'the lion' choose?</a>&nbsp;Every rewatch brings a new perspective and a deeper appreciation for Joseph's gentle yet fiercely protective nature. Beyond the father-daughter relationship, Theri also taps into public frustration with corruption and failures within the justice system. Through Vijay's character, the film delivers a sense of justice that many viewers wish they could see in the real world. Watching him stand up against powerful and corrupt individuals creates a sense of satisfaction that continues to resonate with audiences.<figure class="image"><img src="https://images.hindustantimes.com/rf/image_size_800x600/HT/p2/2016/02/05/Pictures/_f20e5fb6-cbea-11e5-9f1f-e42e029c5977.jpg" alt="Theri teaser: Star feast for Tamil star Vijay fans | Entertainment News"></figure>That is why Theri remains so beloved years after its release. It is not just a mass entertainer filled with action, memorable dialogues, and larger-than-life moments. At its heart is a story about family, love, sacrifice, and justice. Every revisit offers something new to appreciate. And for me, that is what makes Theri more than just another Vijay film; it is a film that continues to leave a lasting impact years later.<h2>About Theri</h2>Helmed by Atlee, Theri is produced by Kalaipuli S Thanu under the banner V Creations. Apart from Vijay, the film also stars Samantha Ruth Prabhu, Amy Jackson and Nainika, among others. The music was composed by G. V. Prakash Kumar, with cinematography handled by George C. Williams and editing by Ruben.

Nearly a decade after its release, Theri still remains a favourite as it has so much to offer to the viewers. But why, after these many years, does Vijay-Samantha Ruth Prabhu's film feel new and exciting to watch? Read to know more.

Some films do more than entertain; they stay with us long after the credits roll. Whether it is the emotional depth, memorable performances, or powerful storytelling, certain films leave a lasting impression. Theri is one such film for me. Released in 2016, the Atlee directorial stars Vijay in what I consider one of the finest performances of his career. Years later, whenever Joseph Kuruvilla appears on screen and G.V. Prakash Kumar's background score kicks in, it still gives me goosebumps. While Vijay has delivered several iconic performances over the years, there is something about Theri that continues to resonate with me every time I revisit it. Unforgettable moments and dialogues of Theri What makes Theri memorable is its ability to balance action with emotion. The film is filled with moments that continue to resonate years after its release, thanks to its memorable characters and heartfelt storytelling. One of the film's greatest strengths is the bond between Joseph Kuruvilla and his daughter, Nivi. From Joseph affectionately calling her ‘Baby’ to the playful yet meaningful conversations they share, their relationship forms the emotional heart of the story. Their chemistry feels genuine, making audiences emotionally invested in their journey. Also Read: CM Vijay's birthday special: 5 blockbusters every fan must rewatch Among the most powerful moments is when Nivi's life is threatened. In an instant, the soft-spoken bakery owner transforms back into the fearless DCP Vijay Kumar. The scene perfectly captures the lengths a father will go to protect his child and serves as a reminder that beneath Joseph's calm exterior lies a man carrying immense grief and responsibility. The film is also packed with memorable dialogues. One standout moment comes when Joseph's mother jokingly asks him for a lift. His response reflects his unwavering sense of duty: "I'm a DCP, not an Uber-Ola driver. Before I am your son, I am the son of Mother India." Another emotionally charged scene arrives when Joseph reflects on his daughter choosing compassion despite learning painful truths about her family's past. It becomes a defining moment about parenting, values, and humanity. Also Read: 'Left peak stardom to serve people': Ram Charan hails CM Vijay, says he's very, very proud The film also delivers a powerful social message through Vijay's character. He argues that society's failure to raise boys with respect and responsibility contributes to crimes against women. Even years later, the dialogue remains relevant and thought-provoking. Vijay's performance in Theri What makes Theri special is Vijay's ability to portray two vastly different sides of the same character with remarkable ease. As Joseph Kuruvilla, he is warm, gentle, and deeply devoted to his daughter. He runs a bakery, lives a simple life, and finds happiness in the smallest moments with Nivi. Despite experiencing unimaginable loss, Joseph's warmth never fades whenever he is around his daughter. It is this vulnerability that makes the character feel so human. As DCP Vijay Kumar, however, the transformation is electrifying. The moment he re-emerges, the atmosphere changes instantly. His commanding presence, intense expressions, and unwavering pursuit of justice create some of the film's most thrilling moments. Also Read: Did CM C Joseph Vijay, Trisha Krishnan arrive together at Ajith Kumar's Chennai home? | Watch Vijay effortlessly balances action, emotion, humour, and heartbreak throughout the film. His performance gives Theri a warmth that extends beyond its commercial elements and ensures that audiences remain invested in Joseph's journey from beginning to end. Why does every rewatch of Theri feel different and still resonates years later? One of Theri's greatest strengths is its rewatch value. During the first viewing, audiences are often focused on the action sequences, twists, and dramatic revelations. However, with each revisit, the emotional layers become more apparent. Because the story's outcome is already known, viewers begin to notice the smaller details—the quiet moments between Joseph and Nivi, the pain hidden behind Joseph's smile, and the sacrifices he makes to protect those he loves. Also Read: Vijay brings back MGR magic in Tamil Nadu politics: Which 'jackal' will Thalapathy 'the lion' choose? Every rewatch brings a new perspective and a deeper appreciation for Joseph's gentle yet fiercely protective nature. Beyond the father-daughter relationship, Theri also taps into public frustration with corruption and failures within the justice system. Through Vijay's character, the film delivers a sense of justice that many viewers wish they could see in the real world. Watching him stand up against powerful and corrupt individuals creates a sense of satisfaction that continues to resonate with audiences. That is why Theri remains so beloved years after its release. It is not just a mass entertainer filled with action, memorable dialogues, and larger-than-life moments. At its heart is a story about family, love, sacrifice, and justice. Every revisit offers something new to appreciate. And for me, that is what makes Theri more than just another Vijay film; it is a film that continues to leave a lasting impact years later. About Theri Helmed by Atlee, Theri is produced by Kalaipuli S Thanu under the banner V Creations. Apart from Vijay, the film also stars Samantha Ruth Prabhu, Amy Jackson and Nainika, among others. The music was composed by G. V. Prakash Kumar, with cinematography handled by George C. Williams and editing by Ruben.

Nearly a decade after its release, Theri still remains a favourite as it has so much to offer to the viewers. But why, after these many years, does Vijay-Samantha Ruth Prabhu's film feel new and exciting to watch? Read to know more.

Revisiting Theri: Vijay-Samantha Ruth Prabhu's film that still resonates years later

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

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

Americans are falling out of love with Israel

The verdict: Indian politicians need to stop mimicking Gen Zs

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

What the Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan pact means for Asia's strategic balance?"

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

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

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

A protest, a resignation, and a decade in service of India's youth

The democratic adaptation gap: Can democracies respond before streets take over?

Will the CJP momentum exterminate the ‘cockroaches’ in India’s education system?