Janhvi Kapoor channels mom Sridevi's iconic Nagina avatar for Halloween 2026, recreates film poster with Orry

US midterms: Early voting crosses record 47.9 million, Democrats lead Republicans

Ukraine targets Russian oil refinery in massive drone attack, Moscow says

Delhi's new vehicle entry rules, construction ban comes into effect. Here's all you need to know

Germany protesters loot stores in Frankfurt as protests turn violent | VIDEO

IND vs NZ: Shreyas Iyer breaks record for most T20I runs by an Indian captain in a year

Marvel’s 2,000-drone show takes over Seoul’s Han River ahead of Avengers: Doomsday release | Watch

Halloween 2026: Robert Downey Jr and Pedro Pascal swap MCU roles, dress up as Doctor Doom and Mister Fantastic

Kaabil 2 was in the works: Rakesh Roshan reveals Sanjay Gupta had finished the script

Doomsday warning? Why governments are warning people to stockpile emergency supplies for 72 hours

Omar Abdullah marries journalist Nidhi Razdan, announces ‘new journey’ on social media

Rubio: US had no role in Bolsonaro's exit, Trump yet to decide on Iran strikes

INDIA bloc rally today: Rahul Gandhi urges protesters to support local traders, says 'march and go shopping'

Anirudh Ravichander-Kavya Maran wedding celebrations begin: Jailer 2 composer grooves to dhol beats | See viral pics

Bangladesh garment workers defy wage board call, demand 30,000 taka minimum pay

Israeli-American rabbi ridicules Hindu beliefs over cow worship, faces backlash | Video

India U-19 Asia Cup Squad: Aaryavir Sehwag and Anvay Dravid picked; check full team

'My job is not to make everyone happy': Gambhir opens up on India's team selection

Breakthrough in US-Iran negotiations? Report says direct talks expected in Doha

Israel Elections: Eisenkot vows to use Knesset majority against Netanyahu as Arab leader backs PM's ouster

Pune woman, six-year-old son die after fall from 18th floor; 8-page suicide note recovered

No jeans, T-shirts or DJ parties: Bihar tightens rules for teachers, school events

All votes counted, Netanyahu’s Likud emerges as biggest party with 27 seats; majority eludes both blocs

Ishan Kishan sets new record for most T20I runs by an Indian in a year

Iran says US has 'completely shifted tone' in JD Vance's letter on peace talks

US flags possible 'mass-casualty' attack threat in Moscow, Russia takes measures

'One little banana heist': UP Police shares elephant mom-calf clip to teach honesty, internet teaches it a lesson instead | Viral video

Did rebels shoot down helicopter carrying Lt Gen Sanjay Mitra's family in Uttarakhand? Indian Army fact-check reveals...

HorrorCon India 2026 opens in Delhi with W.i.S.H., horror experiences and Halloween celebrations

Trump says Obama 'doesn't understand quality' over White House makeover

R Madhavan teams up with Vishal Furia for a new horror film

Captured on CCTV video: Six-year-old special needs girl brutally attacked by Class III student at Panchkula school

VIDEO: High speed SUV hits multiple cars in Gurugram, dashcam captures accident

Tehran may move enriched uranium stockpile to another country, open Hormuz under new proposal: Report

The electoral triumph of Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva and the jubilant return of Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado have brought in sharp focus that the US President wields less influence over Latin America than he and his team believe.Both cases dealt a blow to the Donroe Doctrine, a plan first articulated in last November’s National Security Strategy. It is meant to establish a US “sphere of influence” and takes its name from the 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine, originally was established to keep European powers out of the Americas. The Donroe doctrine goes further.Let’s start with Brazil, Latin America’s most populous country, where the elections pitted de Silva, popularly known as Lula, against Flavio Bolsonaro, whose father, Jair, was president from 2019 to 2023. Self-described as the Trump of the Tropics, Jair was sentenced to 27 years in prison for planning a coup to keep in power after losing elections.According to Reuters, quoting current and former US officials, the US Department of State led a campaign to tilt the elections in Flavio’s favour. State Department officials told diplomats it was US policy to back a member of the Bolsonaro family.While Flavio won the first round of the vote, Lula won the second and overall, more than five million votes ahead of his right-wing opponent. Brazilian Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Flavio to surrender his passport. But before that happened, he fled the country to Miami. The US immediately granted him and his family visas.With Lula in charge for the next four years, the Donroe Doctrine’s aim “ to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere,” as the National Security Strategy put it, remains wishful thinking. Washington fears that Brazil will tilt further to China, which overtook the US as Brazil’s largest trading partner in 2009.How far that tilt will go and what Washington can do to stop it remains to be seen. The result of the October 25 elections brought to mind a statement by Lula at the end of a G-20 meeting he hosted in 2024—“Trump was elected president of the United States, not emperor of the world.”In his victory speech, Lula told thousands of supporters that “we are no one’s backyard,” a reference to a US habit over the years to describe Latin America as the backyard of the US. But it also means that the leftist Brazilian leader does not want to tie his country too closely to any of the world’s superpowers.The other country that throws doubt over the efficiency of the Donroe Doctrine and Trump’s influence is Venezuela, in particular its most popular politician, Maria Corina Machado. She won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize “for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela.”Machado had been under a strict travel ban imposed by her country’s dictatorial ruler, Nicolas Maduro and had to be smuggled out in December 2025 by a complicated route worked out by a private rescue team to travel to Oslo to receive her prize. Blocked from returning, she spent 10 months in self-exile in Panama.While she was there, a team of US Special Operations forces captured Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores in a meticulously planned and meticulously executed operation that lasted just two and a half hours on January 3. They were flown to New York to face charges of narco-terrorism and cocaine trafficking.Two weeks later, Machado visited the White House and presented her prize, in a gold-framed plaque, to Trump. The dedication read “presented as a symbol of gratitude on behalf of the Venezuelan people in recognition of President Trump’s principled and decisive action to secure a free Venezuela.”The Nobel committee swiftly commented that while it was legitimate to hand over the medal, the prize itself could not be shared.If Machado expected that a grateful Trump would push for her to return to Venezuela in a leading role on the way to democracy, she was disappointed. Washington instead opted to make Maduro’s Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez, Acting President.The repressive state institution she and Maduro built up over years remained unchanged. Trump has established close ties with Rodriguez who is eager to comply with Trump’s wishes and swiftly changed Venezuela’s hydrocarbon law to invite more American investment.She made a deal, denounced as questionable by critics, to give the US government, through a private company, the rights to exploit 17 oilfields. Large shares of Venezuela’s oil wealth will go to the US in line with Trump’s oft-repeated assertion that “to the victor belong the spoils.”Where does the cosy Rodriguez-Trump relationship leave Machado, who returned to Venezuela on Sunday (Nov.25) to greetings by thousands of jubilant supporters.Her return can be seen as an act of defiance because Trump repeatedly made clear he would prefer her to stay away. His comment on the joyous welcome she received spoke volumes: “She’s a very nice woman. But we are doing really well in Venezuela.”I translate that as “Delcy will do what we say. Corina probably won’t.”

While she was there, a team of US Special Operations forces captured Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores in a meticulously planned and meticulously executed operation that lasted just two and a half hours on January 3. 

The electoral triumph of Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva and the jubilant return of Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado have brought in sharp focus that the US President wields less influence over Latin America than he and his team believe. Both cases dealt a blow to the Donroe Doctrine, a plan first articulated in last November’s National Security Strategy. It is meant to establish a US “sphere of influence” and takes its name from the 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine, originally was established to keep European powers out of the Americas. The Donroe doctrine goes further. Let’s start with Brazil, Latin America’s most populous country, where the elections pitted de Silva, popularly known as Lula, against Flavio Bolsonaro, whose father, Jair, was president from 2019 to 2023. Self-described as the Trump of the Tropics, Jair was sentenced to 27 years in prison for planning a coup to keep in power after losing elections. According to Reuters, quoting current and former US officials, the US Department of State led a campaign to tilt the elections in Flavio’s favour. State Department officials told diplomats it was US policy to back a member of the Bolsonaro family. While Flavio won the first round of the vote, Lula won the second and overall, more than five million votes ahead of his right-wing opponent. Brazilian Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Flavio to surrender his passport. But before that happened, he fled the country to Miami. The US immediately granted him and his family visas. With Lula in charge for the next four years, the Donroe Doctrine’s aim “ to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere,” as the National Security Strategy put it, remains wishful thinking. Washington fears that Brazil will tilt further to China, which overtook the US as Brazil’s largest trading partner in 2009. How far that tilt will go and what Washington can do to stop it remains to be seen. The result of the October 25 elections brought to mind a statement by Lula at the end of a G-20 meeting he hosted in 2024—“Trump was elected president of the United States, not emperor of the world.” In his victory speech, Lula told thousands of supporters that “we are no one’s backyard,” a reference to a US habit over the years to describe Latin America as the backyard of the US. But it also means that the leftist Brazilian leader does not want to tie his country too closely to any of the world’s superpowers. The other country that throws doubt over the efficiency of the Donroe Doctrine and Trump’s influence is Venezuela, in particular its most popular politician, Maria Corina Machado. She won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize “for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela.” Machado had been under a strict travel ban imposed by her country’s dictatorial ruler, Nicolas Maduro and had to be smuggled out in December 2025 by a complicated route worked out by a private rescue team to travel to Oslo to receive her prize. Blocked from returning, she spent 10 months in self-exile in Panama. While she was there, a team of US Special Operations forces captured Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores in a meticulously planned and meticulously executed operation that lasted just two and a half hours on January 3. They were flown to New York to face charges of narco-terrorism and cocaine trafficking. Two weeks later, Machado visited the White House and presented her prize, in a gold-framed plaque, to Trump. The dedication read “presented as a symbol of gratitude on behalf of the Venezuelan people in recognition of President Trump’s principled and decisive action to secure a free Venezuela.” The Nobel committee swiftly commented that while it was legitimate to hand over the medal, the prize itself could not be shared. If Machado expected that a grateful Trump would push for her to return to Venezuela in a leading role on the way to democracy, she was disappointed. Washington instead opted to make Maduro’s Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez, Acting President. The repressive state institution she and Maduro built up over years remained unchanged. Trump has established close ties with Rodriguez who is eager to comply with Trump’s wishes and swiftly changed Venezuela’s hydrocarbon law to invite more American investment. She made a deal, denounced as questionable by critics, to give the US government, through a private company, the rights to exploit 17 oilfields. Large shares of Venezuela’s oil wealth will go to the US in line with Trump’s oft-repeated assertion that “to the victor belong the spoils.” Where does the cosy Rodriguez-Trump relationship leave Machado, who returned to Venezuela on Sunday (Nov.25) to greetings by thousands of jubilant supporters. Her return can be seen as an act of defiance because Trump repeatedly made clear he would prefer her to stay away. His comment on the joyous welcome she received spoke volumes: “She’s a very nice woman. But we are doing really well in Venezuela.” I translate that as “Delcy will do what we say. Corina probably won’t.”

While she was there, a team of US Special Operations forces captured Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores in a meticulously planned and meticulously executed operation that lasted just two and a half hours on January 3.&nbsp;

Brazil, Venezuela show limits of Trump’s ‘Donroe Doctrine’

Vote chori seems to be the flavour of the election season, not just in India, but globally.&nbsp;PM Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Arab parties of stealing elections. In fact, Israel's election head has asked the intelligence agency, Shin Bet, to probe suspected Qatari influence on the voting.&nbsp;His friend, President Trump, is also claiming vote theft, ahead of the midterm elections on November 3. He says the Democrats are manipulating voters and stealing votes to ensure that his Republican Party loses the crucial polls.&nbsp;But that's not all. Just a few miles away, Brazil's Flavio Bolsonaro, who lost the recently held elections to&nbsp;President Lula, has accused him of vote theft in the last few hours of voting. and he didn't stop here. He fled Brazil, reached America and declared himself the president-elect of Brazil.&nbsp;&nbsp;

So essentially, all those who lost or fear losing elections are claiming vote theft.But here's the important point: when election results come out, the winner says, “The people have spoken!” The loser claims "vote theft". And the citizen says, “Excuse me, I voted for better roads. Can somebody please get me those?" On a more serious note, an allegation of vote theft is not proof of vote theft. But dismissing every allegation without a transparent investigation also does not build public confidence.If votes have been manipulated, investigate, establish the facts, and punish those who are responsible...and if the allegations are false, expose the falsehood with evidence.Citizens must never lose trust in the democratic process. Here in India, or in Israel, or Brazil, or the United States. No party owns democracy, and no politician has ever owned people's mandate. Let the losers gracefully accept defeat and make amends. Let the winners ensure that probes reach their logical conclusion. The ballot must be protected because the citizen must never become the casualty of political warfare.

An allegation of vote theft is not proof of vote theft. But dismissing every allegation without a transparent investigation also does not build public confidence. No party owns democracy, and no politician has ever owned people's mandate. Let the losers gracefully accept defeat.

Vote chori seems to be the flavour of the election season, not just in India, but globally. PM Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Arab parties of stealing elections. In fact, Israel's election head has asked the intelligence agency, Shin Bet, to probe suspected Qatari influence on the voting. His friend, President Trump, is also claiming vote theft, ahead of the midterm elections on November 3. He says the Democrats are manipulating voters and stealing votes to ensure that his Republican Party loses the crucial polls. But that's not all. Just a few miles away, Brazil's Flavio Bolsonaro, who lost the recently held elections to President Lula, has accused him of vote theft in the last few hours of voting. and he didn't stop here. He fled Brazil, reached America and declared himself the president-elect of Brazil.

An allegation of vote theft is not proof of vote theft. But dismissing every allegation without a transparent investigation also does not build public confidence. No party owns democracy, and no politician has ever owned people's mandate. Let the losers gracefully accept defeat.

The Verdict | Vote Chori goes global: From India to Israel, Brazil and the US

In a span of 10 months, US duplicity towards Latin America came into full display. A president was captured in a military raid in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas and taken to New York in January to face narcotics charges. In October, a defeated presidential candidate facing a money-laundering investigation back home in Brazil was welcomed into the US along with his family, despite a court order requiring him to surrender his passports. The stark contrasts in the fates of Nicolas Maduro and Flavio Bolsonaro are the latest in a long series of US interventions in Latin America, where Washington has repeatedly tried to influence the region’s political direction.<h2>Maduro: 'The kingpin of a narcotics organisation’&nbsp;</h2>First, the facts. Nicholas Maduro was portrayed as the kingpin of a narcotics organisation that, in the American telling, operated as a cartel. The Cartel of the Suns is a term used for years to describe alleged drug-trafficking networks involving Venezuelan military and government officials. But it doesn't necessarily represent a coherent, hierarchical cartel comparable to Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel or Colombia’s Cali cartel. At best, it is a loose network of officials and criminal interests. That distinction matters, particularly when the label is used as a broad stroke to justify extraordinary military action.After the US military raid on Venezuela's presidential complex on the night of January 3, President Donald Trump made clear that control over the country’s oil was central to his administration’s plans. Washington has since secured an agreement giving US interests significant influence over Venezuelan oil production. So it's not just about bringing a president to justice: it is also about gaining access to one of the world’s largest oil reserves, in a country where the oil industry was nationalised in the 1970s and the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), &nbsp;became central to the socialist government's budget.&nbsp;<h2>Flavio: The boy with a silver spoon</h2>Cut to Brazil. Flavio is the son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump admirer whose right-wing populism, hostility towards the Left and emphasis on law and order echoed the politics of the first Trump administration. The former army captain came to power in 2019 after a campaign marked by an anti-establishment message. A stabbing attack during the campaign turned him into a symbol of political victimhood among his supporters.There were major changes to Brazil’s economy under Bolsonaro. His administration introduced privatisation of Eletrobras in 2022, the sale of Petrobras's fuel-distribution subsidiary BR Distribuidora in 2019, and concessions covering airports, ports, railways and roads. These opened further opportunities for private and foreign investment.Bolsonaro also clashed with Brazil’s cultural establishment. He attacked what he described as the excessive sexualisation of Carnival - the most important festive season of Brazil - and criticised cultural funding. His politics combined social conservatism, hostility towards progressive causes and a militarised approach to public security.He promised to clean up Brazil, from raids in the country’s favelas to a supposedly uncompromising war on crime. He militarised the police, which showed excessive brutality during his term in power.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/lula-wins-fourth-term-the-rise-of-lula-s-political-army-1793169350798/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/lula-wins-fourth-term-the-rise-of-lula-s-political-army-1793169350798/embed</a><h2>Cracking down on political opponents didn't help Bolsonaro</h2>During Bolsanaro's term in office, the cases against his predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, continued. The former president had been convicted in cases like the Operation Car Wash, a triplex apartment in Guarujá and a ranch in Atibaia, amid allegations of benefits connected to corruption involving Petrobras. But in 2021, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court annulled the convictions because the court in Curitiba that had handled the cases lacked jurisdiction. The ruling restored Lula’s eligibility to contest elections, which he won.&nbsp;Jair Bolsonaro’s own legal troubles mounted in the past few years. In 2023, Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court ruled him ineligible to stand for office until 2030 over his abuse of political power and misuse of the media in attacking Brazil’s electoral system during his term in power. In 2025, the Supreme Federal Court convicted him of participating in a coup plot intended to prevent Lula from taking office after the 2022 election, and sentenced him to 27 years in prison.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/flavio-bolsonaro-claims-he-is-brazil-s-elected-president-after-fleeing-to-us-trump-says-he-won-t-get-involved-1793224385997">Flavio Bolsonaro claims he is Brazil's 'elected president' after fleeing to US; Trump says he 'won't get involved'</a><h2>Flavio's rise was allegedly helped from outside&nbsp;</h2>By 2026, Bolsonaro's son Flavio emerged as the principal presidential candidate for the Bolsonaro camp. The long-serving senator became the standard-bearer for the Brazilian right. There have been allegations of American support for the Bolsonaro political camp, including claims about money, intelligence and the power of US technology companies to influence social-media algorithms. Washington’s political sympathies towards the Bolsonaro camp were made clear when Flavio met Trump at the Oval Office.&nbsp;Aided by his political base and a polarised electorate, Flavio came remarkably close to the presidency. In the first round on 4 October, he secured 47.03 per cent of valid votes against Lula’s 45.16 per cent, forcing a run-off on October 25. Lula’s supporters mobilised at the grassroots level, including through street demonstrations and online campaigning, ending in a remarkable reversal. Lula won 51.79 per cent of the valid vote against Flavio’s 48.21 per cent in the run-off.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brazil-s-flavio-bolsonaro-flees-to-us-after-presidential-election-defeat-to-lula-1793127266337">Brazil's Flavio Bolsonaro flees to US after presidential election defeat to Lula</a><h2>Venezuela: Ruled from Washington when all else failed</h2>Venezuela had been governed by the socialist movement founded by Hugo Chávez since 1999. Maduro’s removal has not dismantled that political system, but placed it under extraordinary American pressure and influene. Maduro’s former vice-president, Delcy Rodríguez, became interim president after the US captured him. She is now working with Washington on economic and political arrangements. The Trump administration has recognised her government, restored diplomatic relations and negotiated greater American access to Venezuelan oil. The irony is striking: Washington removed Maduro but chose to work with his former allies rather than immediately transfer power to the opposition. Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado has now returned to Venezuela after spending months in hiding before escaping abroad in December 2025.&nbsp;<h2>What post-election developments for Flavio tell us about American approach to Latin America</h2>Following his defeat on 25 October, Flavio Bolsonaro was ordered by Brazil Supreme Federal Court to surrender his passports as part of an investigation into suspected money laundering and foreign-exchange offences. The inquiry involves lawyer and businessman Willer Tomaz. Flavio was ordered not to communicate with Tomaz. &nbsp;There's also a probe into financial links involving banker Daniel Vorcaro, and funding associated with a film about Jair Bolsonaro.&nbsp;Despite all this, Flavio and members of his family obtained US visas and travelled to Florida after the election. He left Brazil in defiance of the order to surrender his passports.&nbsp;How was he able to travel without passport?That is the power of American “democracy”.That is the power of regime-change attempts.And that is why the question of US duplicity towards Latin America won't go away.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The writer's views do not represent those of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer. &nbsp;

Nicholas Maduro’s capture by the US and Flavio Bolsonaro’s flight to Florida expose a sharp reality of US interventions in Latin America. America wants Venezuela’s oil, and seeks to help Brazil’s right-wing political camp.

In a span of 10 months, US duplicity towards Latin America came into full display. A president was captured in a military raid in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas and taken to New York in January to face narcotics charges. In October, a defeated presidential candidate facing a money-laundering investigation back home in Brazil was welcomed into the US along with his family, despite a court order requiring him to surrender his passports. The stark contrasts in the fates of Nicolas Maduro and Flavio Bolsonaro are the latest in a long series of US interventions in Latin America, where Washington has repeatedly tried to influence the region’s political direction. Maduro: 'The kingpin of a narcotics organisation’ First, the facts. Nicholas Maduro was portrayed as the kingpin of a narcotics organisation that, in the American telling, operated as a cartel. The Cartel of the Suns is a term used for years to describe alleged drug-trafficking networks involving Venezuelan military and government officials. But it doesn't necessarily represent a coherent, hierarchical cartel comparable to Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel or Colombia’s Cali cartel. At best, it is a loose network of officials and criminal interests. That distinction matters, particularly when the label is used as a broad stroke to justify extraordinary military action. After the US military raid on Venezuela's presidential complex on the night of January 3, President Donald Trump made clear that control over the country’s oil was central to his administration’s plans. Washington has since secured an agreement giving US interests significant influence over Venezuelan oil production. So it's not just about bringing a president to justice: it is also about gaining access to one of the world’s largest oil reserves, in a country where the oil industry was nationalised in the 1970s and the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), became central to the socialist government's budget. Flavio: The boy with a silver spoon Cut to Brazil. Flavio is the son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump admirer whose right-wing populism, hostility towards the Left and emphasis on law and order echoed the politics of the first Trump administration. The former army captain came to power in 2019 after a campaign marked by an anti-establishment message. A stabbing attack during the campaign turned him into a symbol of political victimhood among his supporters. There were major changes to Brazil’s economy under Bolsonaro. His administration introduced privatisation of Eletrobras in 2022, the sale of Petrobras's fuel-distribution subsidiary BR Distribuidora in 2019, and concessions covering airports, ports, railways and roads. These opened further opportunities for private and foreign investment. Bolsonaro also clashed with Brazil’s cultural establishment. He attacked what he described as the excessive sexualisation of Carnival - the most important festive season of Brazil - and criticised cultural funding. His politics combined social conservatism, hostility towards progressive causes and a militarised approach to public security. He promised to clean up Brazil, from raids in the country’s favelas to a supposedly uncompromising war on crime. He militarised the police, which showed excessive brutality during his term in power. https://www.wionews.com/videos/lula-wins-fourth-term-the-rise-of-lula-s-political-army-1793169350798/embed Cracking down on political opponents didn't help Bolsonaro During Bolsanaro's term in office, the cases against his predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, continued. The former president had been convicted in cases like the Operation Car Wash, a triplex apartment in Guarujá and a ranch in Atibaia, amid allegations of benefits connected to corruption involving Petrobras. But in 2021, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court annulled the convictions because the court in Curitiba that had handled the cases lacked jurisdiction. The ruling restored Lula’s eligibility to contest elections, which he won. Jair Bolsonaro’s own legal troubles mounted in the past few years. In 2023, Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court ruled him ineligible to stand for office until 2030 over his abuse of political power and misuse of the media in attacking Brazil’s electoral system during his term in power. In 2025, the Supreme Federal Court convicted him of participating in a coup plot intended to prevent Lula from taking office after the 2022 election, and sentenced him to 27 years in prison. Also read: Flavio Bolsonaro claims he is Brazil's 'elected president' after fleeing to US; Trump says he 'won't get involved' Flavio's rise was allegedly helped from outside By 2026, Bolsonaro's son Flavio emerged as the principal presidential candidate for the Bolsonaro camp. The long-serving senator became the standard-bearer for the Brazilian right. There have been allegations of American support for the Bolsonaro political camp, including claims about money, intelligence and the power of US technology companies to influence social-media algorithms. Washington’s political sympathies towards the Bolsonaro camp were made clear when Flavio met Trump at the Oval Office. Aided by his political base and a polarised electorate, Flavio came remarkably close to the presidency. In the first round on 4 October, he secured 47.03 per cent of valid votes against Lula’s 45.16 per cent, forcing a run-off on October 25. Lula’s supporters mobilised at the grassroots level, including through street demonstrations and online campaigning, ending in a remarkable reversal. Lula won 51.79 per cent of the valid vote against Flavio’s 48.21 per cent in the run-off. Also read: Brazil's Flavio Bolsonaro flees to US after presidential election defeat to Lula Venezuela: Ruled from Washington when all else failed Venezuela had been governed by the socialist movement founded by Hugo Chávez since 1999. Maduro’s removal has not dismantled that political system, but placed it under extraordinary American pressure and influene. Maduro’s former vice-president, Delcy Rodríguez, became interim president after the US captured him. She is now working with Washington on economic and political arrangements. The Trump administration has recognised her government, restored diplomatic relations and negotiated greater American access to Venezuelan oil. The irony is striking: Washington removed Maduro but chose to work with his former allies rather than immediately transfer power to the opposition. Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado has now returned to Venezuela after spending months in hiding before escaping abroad in December 2025. What post-election developments for Flavio tell us about American approach to Latin America Following his defeat on 25 October, Flavio Bolsonaro was ordered by Brazil Supreme Federal Court to surrender his passports as part of an investigation into suspected money laundering and foreign-exchange offences. The inquiry involves lawyer and businessman Willer Tomaz. Flavio was ordered not to communicate with Tomaz. There's also a probe into financial links involving banker Daniel Vorcaro, and funding associated with a film about Jair Bolsonaro. Despite all this, Flavio and members of his family obtained US visas and travelled to Florida after the election. He left Brazil in defiance of the order to surrender his passports. How was he able to travel without passport? That is the power of American “democracy”. That is the power of regime-change attempts. And that is why the question of US duplicity towards Latin America won't go away. Disclaimer: The writer's views do not represent those of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Nicholas Maduro’s capture by the US and Flavio Bolsonaro’s flight to Florida expose a sharp reality of US interventions in Latin America. America wants Venezuela’s oil, and seeks to help Brazil’s right-wing political camp.

Maduro in handcuffs, Flavio in Florida: The US duplicity in Latin America on a president and a wannabe president

When the United States and Cuba clash at the United Nations, it's not just a fight of a few minutes. It’s a conflict spanning generations.&nbsp;The United States speaks of democracy, freedom and human rights. But when it comes to Cuba, Washington has spent decades enforcing an economic embargo that has hurt ordinary Cubans, restricted economic opportunities, and deepened the suffering of an already struggling people.&nbsp;However, remember Cuba cannot escape scrutiny either. Its government must answer for the restrictions on political dissent, freedom of expression and the rights of its own citizens. Opposition to American pressure does not automatically make a government democratic.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/unga-showdown-goes-viral-waltz-and-parrilla-clash-in-heated-confrontation-1793202649844/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/unga-showdown-goes-viral-waltz-and-parrilla-clash-in-heated-confrontation-1793202649844/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;America has the greater economic and diplomatic power. With that power comes greater responsibility...and Cuba has every right to demand sovereignty and oppose external pressure.&nbsp;&nbsp;If the United States must be held accountable for the consequences of its policies, Cuba must be held accountable for the treatment of its people.&nbsp;International law cannot be a weapon used against enemies and ignored when it becomes inconvenient.Ordinary people continue to pay the price while powerful governments fight over ideology and influence.And so, if civilians suffer while leaders score political points, the world must ask a very pertinent question - who exactly is winning?

Cuba cannot escape scrutiny either. Its government must answer for the restrictions on political dissent, freedom of expression and the rights of its own citizens. Opposition to American pressure does not automatically make a government democratic.

When the United States and Cuba clash at the United Nations, it's not just a fight of a few minutes. It’s a conflict spanning generations. The United States speaks of democracy, freedom and human rights. But when it comes to Cuba, Washington has spent decades enforcing an economic embargo that has hurt ordinary Cubans, restricted economic opportunities, and deepened the suffering of an already struggling people. However, remember Cuba cannot escape scrutiny either. Its government must answer for the restrictions on political dissent, freedom of expression and the rights of its own citizens. Opposition to American pressure does not automatically make a government democratic. https://www.wionews.com/videos/unga-showdown-goes-viral-waltz-and-parrilla-clash-in-heated-confrontation-1793202649844/embed America has the greater economic and diplomatic power. With that power comes greater responsibility...and Cuba has every right to demand sovereignty and oppose external pressure. If the United States must be held accountable for the consequences of its policies, Cuba must be held accountable for the treatment of its people. International law cannot be a weapon used against enemies and ignored when it becomes inconvenient. Ordinary people continue to pay the price while powerful governments fight over ideology and influence. And so, if civilians suffer while leaders score political points, the world must ask a very pertinent question - who exactly is winning?

Cuba cannot escape scrutiny either. Its government must answer for the restrictions on political dissent, freedom of expression and the rights of its own citizens. Opposition to American pressure does not automatically make a government democratic.

The Verdict | US-Cuba clash: Who is winning while civilians suffer?

At 11:51 pm on the night of October 30, a three-stage, 50-foot, 420-tonne GSLV-F18 rocket will rise from Sriharikota carrying far more than the 2,250-kg NVS-03 satellite. Delayed repeatedly from a planned late-2025 date, it carries a quiet national embarrassment, the hopes of thousands of engineers, and a decision breaking with 51 years of ISRO tradition.&nbsp;It will reportedly be the first time ever that an Indian satellite will leave the ground with its pyro valves already open. Picture a pyro valve as a sealed door whose only key is a tiny firecracker: once an electrical command fires the charge, the door bursts open and can never shut again. Its job is to keep fuel and oxidiser, the chemical that lets fuel burn in airless space, locked in their tanks until the engines are needed.&nbsp;Why abandon the sealed door? Because on January 29, 2025, NVS-02 was stranded. GSLV-F15 delivered it to the Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit, the stretched, egg-shaped parking lane from which satellites climb to their final home, but the signal meant to fire the oxidiser pyro valve never arrived. Starved of oxidiser, the Liquid Apogee Motor, the small onboard engine meant to make that climb to about 37,023 km, stayed silent. A high-level investigation team, the Apex Committee, blamed a loose or disconnected contact inside a connector that broke both the main and backup electrical paths.&nbsp;Pre-opening the valves simply deletes the step that failed. Yet experts warn the risk has moved, not vanished. Think of it this way: the one-time explosive door is already open, so an ordinary electric door further down the pipe, the Isolation Latch Valve, must now do the sealing job through ground handling and the violent vibration, pressure swings and acceleration of launch. Leaking propellant could reach it; if it refuses to open in orbit, the mission dies. One specialist feels ISRO may eventually switch to latch valves entirely. ISRO Chairman Dr V Narayanan did not reply when asked what extra checks were done, whether the committee's connector fixes were adopted, or whether primary and backup signals now travel through physically separate connectors. NVS-04 and NVS-05, the remaining second-generation satellites, will inherit whatever NVS-03 teaches.&nbsp;The stakes reach back to the Kargil War of 1999, when Indian soldiers were denied American GPS data on the battlefield. India resolved never again to borrow its sense of place. The answer was NavIC, Navigation with Indian Constellation, formally the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System: seven satellites parked high above the subcontinent, covering India and 1,500 km beyond its borders with 10-metre accuracy for all, plus a sharper paid service for the armed forces and large construction projects. Since GPS signals reach India slanting in from afar, NavIC's overhead satellites serve deep valleys and thick forests better. Already 8,700 of 12,000 targeted trains carry NavIC trackers for live monitoring.&nbsp;The dream has faltered. Since July 2013, when IRNSS-1A flew, ISRO has launched 11 navigation satellites costing nearly ₹2,250 crore. Six have failed, mostly because imported atomic clocks died. These clocks time a radio signal's journey so precisely that a receiver can turn it into distance; without them, there is no navigation. A 2018 CAG report added a painful footnote: receivers for phones were developed only from 2017, so the four satellites orbiting by 2015 spent years broadcasting to almost nobody, their 10-year lives ticking away. Two replacements were lost: IRNSS-1H when the PSLV's protective heat shield failed to separate, and NVS-02.&nbsp;Earlier this year, the government told Parliament that only IRNSS-1B, IRNSS-1I and NVS-01 remain usable, one short of the four needed to fix a position. NavIC still delivers precise time, but it cannot tell anyone where they are.&nbsp;The second generation, begun with NVS-01 in May 2023, is built to change that. These satellites carry Indian-made atomic clocks alongside purchased ones, last 12 years, and broadcast on L1 as well as L5 and S. L1 is the frequency GPS speaks, so smartwatches and low-power single-frequency chips can finally hear NavIC.&nbsp;Globally, GPS runs about 32 satellites, GLONASS 24, Galileo 27 and BeiDou 30, mostly circling 19,000 to 24,000 km up in Medium Earth Orbit, though BeiDou also uses higher orbits; Japan's four-satellite QZSS, like NavIC, sits high to strengthen GPS over Asia and Oceania, and India has long discussed widening NavIC's own reach.&nbsp;That must wait. On the night of October 30, with several hundred crore and the country's defence and security riding along, one valve left deliberately open must simply hold so that India can regain the quiet dignity of finding itself.

The stakes reach back to the Kargil War of 1999, when Indian soldiers were denied American GPS data on the battlefield. India resolved never again to borrow its sense of place. The answer was NavIC, Navigation with Indian Constellation, formally the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System

At 11:51 pm on the night of October 30, a three-stage, 50-foot, 420-tonne GSLV-F18 rocket will rise from Sriharikota carrying far more than the 2,250-kg NVS-03 satellite. Delayed repeatedly from a planned late-2025 date, it carries a quiet national embarrassment, the hopes of thousands of engineers, and a decision breaking with 51 years of ISRO tradition. It will reportedly be the first time ever that an Indian satellite will leave the ground with its pyro valves already open. Picture a pyro valve as a sealed door whose only key is a tiny firecracker: once an electrical command fires the charge, the door bursts open and can never shut again. Its job is to keep fuel and oxidiser, the chemical that lets fuel burn in airless space, locked in their tanks until the engines are needed. Why abandon the sealed door? Because on January 29, 2025, NVS-02 was stranded. GSLV-F15 delivered it to the Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit, the stretched, egg-shaped parking lane from which satellites climb to their final home, but the signal meant to fire the oxidiser pyro valve never arrived. Starved of oxidiser, the Liquid Apogee Motor, the small onboard engine meant to make that climb to about 37,023 km, stayed silent. A high-level investigation team, the Apex Committee, blamed a loose or disconnected contact inside a connector that broke both the main and backup electrical paths. Pre-opening the valves simply deletes the step that failed. Yet experts warn the risk has moved, not vanished. Think of it this way: the one-time explosive door is already open, so an ordinary electric door further down the pipe, the Isolation Latch Valve, must now do the sealing job through ground handling and the violent vibration, pressure swings and acceleration of launch. Leaking propellant could reach it; if it refuses to open in orbit, the mission dies. One specialist feels ISRO may eventually switch to latch valves entirely. ISRO Chairman Dr V Narayanan did not reply when asked what extra checks were done, whether the committee's connector fixes were adopted, or whether primary and backup signals now travel through physically separate connectors. NVS-04 and NVS-05, the remaining second-generation satellites, will inherit whatever NVS-03 teaches. The stakes reach back to the Kargil War of 1999, when Indian soldiers were denied American GPS data on the battlefield. India resolved never again to borrow its sense of place. The answer was NavIC, Navigation with Indian Constellation, formally the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System: seven satellites parked high above the subcontinent, covering India and 1,500 km beyond its borders with 10-metre accuracy for all, plus a sharper paid service for the armed forces and large construction projects. Since GPS signals reach India slanting in from afar, NavIC's overhead satellites serve deep valleys and thick forests better. Already 8,700 of 12,000 targeted trains carry NavIC trackers for live monitoring. The dream has faltered. Since July 2013, when IRNSS-1A flew, ISRO has launched 11 navigation satellites costing nearly ₹2,250 crore. Six have failed, mostly because imported atomic clocks died. These clocks time a radio signal's journey so precisely that a receiver can turn it into distance; without them, there is no navigation. A 2018 CAG report added a painful footnote: receivers for phones were developed only from 2017, so the four satellites orbiting by 2015 spent years broadcasting to almost nobody, their 10-year lives ticking away. Two replacements were lost: IRNSS-1H when the PSLV's protective heat shield failed to separate, and NVS-02. Earlier this year, the government told Parliament that only IRNSS-1B, IRNSS-1I and NVS-01 remain usable, one short of the four needed to fix a position. NavIC still delivers precise time, but it cannot tell anyone where they are. The second generation, begun with NVS-01 in May 2023, is built to change that. These satellites carry Indian-made atomic clocks alongside purchased ones, last 12 years, and broadcast on L1 as well as L5 and S. L1 is the frequency GPS speaks, so smartwatches and low-power single-frequency chips can finally hear NavIC. Globally, GPS runs about 32 satellites, GLONASS 24, Galileo 27 and BeiDou 30, mostly circling 19,000 to 24,000 km up in Medium Earth Orbit, though BeiDou also uses higher orbits; Japan's four-satellite QZSS, like NavIC, sits high to strengthen GPS over Asia and Oceania, and India has long discussed widening NavIC's own reach. That must wait. On the night of October 30, with several hundred crore and the country's defence and security riding along, one valve left deliberately open must simply hold so that India can regain the quiet dignity of finding itself.

The stakes reach back to the Kargil War of 1999, when Indian soldiers were denied American GPS data on the battlefield. India resolved never again to borrow its sense of place. The answer was NavIC, Navigation with Indian Constellation, formally the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System

Born from Kargil, tested in orbit: Can NVS-03 rescue India’s faltering constellation?

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

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

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

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

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

Durga Puja 2026 will be remembered as the year when West Bengal was stripped of its cultural ethos. A festival that celebrates good over evil, &nbsp;worships a goddess with limitless powers, and her homecoming, Durga Puja this year was in the news not for its stunning pandals, intricate idols, or the social messages represented through art each year. It was, instead, in the news for diktats, tragic deaths, hooliganism, and the death of intellect.&nbsp;Bengal, a land of artists and people known for their intellectual acumen, has been celebrating Durga Puja for centuries. The festival is as much a celebration of the goddess as it is a celebration of the state’s art and culture, and the collective intellect of its people. For Bengalis, Pujo is not just about devotion but also about feasting, pandal hopping, devouring the newest Pujo Sankhyas (Puja magazines), and reading a long-pending Tagore classic on a late afternoon post-bhog. In 2026, however, things considered staple by Bengalis saw intervention from the outside.&nbsp;Months after the BJP government came to power in the state for the first time, there has been a significant cultural shift, including about the way the party wants the people of Bengal to celebrate its beloved festival.<h2>The Veg Diktat: Imposing Norms on a Feasting Culture</h2>Weeks before iron rods were planted and blueprints carved into the ground for grand, state-wide pandals, the VHP threw a wrench into preparations with a startling decree. The Hindu group, along with Bageshwar Dham’s Dhirendra Krishna Shastri, urged pandal organisers to observe strict vegetarianism within pandals and keep vendors serving non-vegetarian food away from them. Some leaders also urged residents of the state to consume vegetarian food.&nbsp;One of the defining features of Durga Puja celebrations lies in Bengal’s cultural synthesis and inclusivity. Unlike the rest of India, where nine days of Navratri are observed with strict vegetarianism, Bengal celebrates Durga Puja as a feast, enjoying non-vegetarian culinary delights as they welcome the Goddess home.&nbsp;Thus, for many, the diktat felt like an indoctrination. The question was, how could some people or groups- that included those from outside the state - &nbsp;dictate dietary rules during the most-awaited festival of the year? The public pushback was almost immediate, as a feeling grew that it was an attempt to impose external religious norms on Bengal’s otherwise liberal socio-cultural customs. To many, it felt like an attack on individual freedom and the religious heritage that the festival historically embodied.<h2>Redefining Mahalaya: A Grand Spectacle That Missed the Mark</h2>&nbsp;As CM Suvendu Adhikari cleared Shastri’s stance, terming it only a ‘request’, his government faced fresh allegations of north-Indianizing the Mahalaya celebrations at Eden Gardens.&nbsp;Mahalaya, which marks the beginning of Devipaksha in the Hindu calendar, has been considered sacred for Bengalis from time immemorial. Scores of Bengalis across the world wake up in the wee hours of Mahalaya to hear the booming voice of Birendra Krishna Bhadra chanting the Chandi Path on the radio. It is a ritual that heralds the festivities six days later. Mahalaya has always been about remembering forefathers, accompanied by Bhadra’s voice setting the tone for the season.&nbsp;<blockquote>This year, Adhikari’s government decided to ‘open’ the Durga Utsav with an expansive cultural show at Eden Gardens—a holy place for cricket lovers in India. Imagine a Christmas carnival being celebrated at Lord’s? Yes, unthinkable.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;In Kolkata, Eden became the stage for an extravagance complete with a drone show and loud cheering. There is nothing inherently wrong with the show, except that it fundamentally misread Bengali culture. Somehow, the administration did not understand that Mahalaya is about paying respect and celebration in quiet reverence, not with pyrotechnics.&nbsp;&nbsp;The event met with sharp criticism on social media, with many feeling the ‘crass’ celebration gave Mahalaya a Diwali filter, complete with fireworks. Puritans squirmed: fireworks on the day of Mahalaya? Since when?&nbsp;<h2>The Chorbagan Tragedy: Systemic Neglect and the Cost of Grandiosity</h2>While the Bengali community rued the increasing North Indian influence on the revered festival, the deepest shock came during the main festival days. The tragic stampede in Chorbagan on Saptami evening claimed the lives of 19 people—mostly women and children—and left dozens injured. The Chorbagan pandal was one of the major draws of this year’s Durga Puja in Kolkata. Hundreds of thousands visited the pandal daily, but organizers evidently lacked emergency preparedness.&nbsp;The tragedy exposed severe lapses in crowd management, structural planning, and evacuation protocols. Critics argued that the emphasis on hyper-commercialisation, massive footfalls, and spectacular grandiosity overshadowed basic safety and public welfare. The organisers, comprising several BJP MLAs and leaders, went silent in subsequent days. On the day of the tragedy, eyewitnesses recounted that police personnel were missing at the venue while locals stepped up to handle rescue operations.<h2>Silencing the Written Word: The Vandalism of Literary Stalls</h2> So where was the police? They were ransacking and uprooting bookstalls across the city. The CPI(M) party traditionally puts up bookstalls during the festival, featuring not just books on communism, but also works by Tagore, Sarat Chandra, and more. Viral videos showed political goons ransacking and throwing books onto the road, destroying stalls even as police stood mute at a distance.&nbsp;<blockquote>Just as new clothes embody the spirit of Pujo, new books have long been the soul of Bengali heritage. Imagine a state famed for its intellectuals—a land built on the written word—now surrendering to thugs who relentlessly ransacked bookstalls, flinging the legacy of Tagore and Bengal’s other literary legends into street mud. All the while, state machinery stood by in cowardly silence, refusing to stain its hands as centuries of cultural pride were ground into the dirt.&nbsp;</blockquote>As the BJP came to power, many had breathed a sigh of relief, hoping it was finally the end of the TMC’s 'gunda raj.' But what transpired on the streets of Kolkata—accusing the Left of tarnishing culture and policing ideology via books—was nothing less than hooliganism. The deliberate attack on bookstalls symbolising Bengal’s intelligentsia hinted at changing times within the state where mob culture takes precedence over democratic institutions.&nbsp;In the months since Adhikari was sworn in as Chief Minister, the people of Bengal have witnessed multiple changes—from forced vegetarianism and shifting the fabric of puja celebrations to a tragedy where the state refuses to take accountability.&nbsp;It’s not that the state flourished under TMC rule; clashes between TMC, Left, and right-wing groups were reported during past Pujas, but they were mostly isolated incidents. However, one could witness that crowd management under the previous government during Durga Puja was far better.<h2>Reclaiming the Spirit of Sharodotsav</h2> The confluence of food diktats, the tragic loss of human lives due to systemic neglect, and the silencing of literary spaces left many arguing that Durga Puja 2026 lost touch with its founding spirit. For decades, Bengal’s celebration of the goddess has superseded religion, caste, and class. It is a celebration for all, by all. However, this year, instead of serving as a unifying celebration of art, intellect, and community, the festival became a battleground for political polarisation, commercial excess, and administrative failure.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

Durga Puja 2026 will be remembered as the year when West Bengal was stripped of its cultural ethos. A festival that celebrates good over evil, worships a goddess with limitless powers, and her homecoming, Durga Puja this year was in the news not for its stunning pandals, intricate idols, or the social messages represented through art each year. It was, instead, in the news for diktats, tragic deaths, hooliganism, and the death of intellect. Bengal, a land of artists and people known for their intellectual acumen, has been celebrating Durga Puja for centuries. The festival is as much a celebration of the goddess as it is a celebration of the state’s art and culture, and the collective intellect of its people. For Bengalis, Pujo is not just about devotion but also about feasting, pandal hopping, devouring the newest Pujo Sankhyas (Puja magazines), and reading a long-pending Tagore classic on a late afternoon post-bhog. In 2026, however, things considered staple by Bengalis saw intervention from the outside. Months after the BJP government came to power in the state for the first time, there has been a significant cultural shift, including about the way the party wants the people of Bengal to celebrate its beloved festival. The Veg Diktat: Imposing Norms on a Feasting Culture Weeks before iron rods were planted and blueprints carved into the ground for grand, state-wide pandals, the VHP threw a wrench into preparations with a startling decree. The Hindu group, along with Bageshwar Dham’s Dhirendra Krishna Shastri, urged pandal organisers to observe strict vegetarianism within pandals and keep vendors serving non-vegetarian food away from them. Some leaders also urged residents of the state to consume vegetarian food. One of the defining features of Durga Puja celebrations lies in Bengal’s cultural synthesis and inclusivity. Unlike the rest of India, where nine days of Navratri are observed with strict vegetarianism, Bengal celebrates Durga Puja as a feast, enjoying non-vegetarian culinary delights as they welcome the Goddess home. Thus, for many, the diktat felt like an indoctrination. The question was, how could some people or groups- that included those from outside the state - dictate dietary rules during the most-awaited festival of the year? The public pushback was almost immediate, as a feeling grew that it was an attempt to impose external religious norms on Bengal’s otherwise liberal socio-cultural customs. To many, it felt like an attack on individual freedom and the religious heritage that the festival historically embodied. Redefining Mahalaya: A Grand Spectacle That Missed the Mark As CM Suvendu Adhikari cleared Shastri’s stance, terming it only a ‘request’, his government faced fresh allegations of north-Indianizing the Mahalaya celebrations at Eden Gardens. Mahalaya, which marks the beginning of Devipaksha in the Hindu calendar, has been considered sacred for Bengalis from time immemorial. Scores of Bengalis across the world wake up in the wee hours of Mahalaya to hear the booming voice of Birendra Krishna Bhadra chanting the Chandi Path on the radio. It is a ritual that heralds the festivities six days later. Mahalaya has always been about remembering forefathers, accompanied by Bhadra’s voice setting the tone for the season. This year, Adhikari’s government decided to ‘open’ the Durga Utsav with an expansive cultural show at Eden Gardens—a holy place for cricket lovers in India. Imagine a Christmas carnival being celebrated at Lord’s? Yes, unthinkable. In Kolkata, Eden became the stage for an extravagance complete with a drone show and loud cheering. There is nothing inherently wrong with the show, except that it fundamentally misread Bengali culture. Somehow, the administration did not understand that Mahalaya is about paying respect and celebration in quiet reverence, not with pyrotechnics. The event met with sharp criticism on social media, with many feeling the ‘crass’ celebration gave Mahalaya a Diwali filter, complete with fireworks. Puritans squirmed: fireworks on the day of Mahalaya? Since when? The Chorbagan Tragedy: Systemic Neglect and the Cost of Grandiosity While the Bengali community rued the increasing North Indian influence on the revered festival, the deepest shock came during the main festival days. The tragic stampede in Chorbagan on Saptami evening claimed the lives of 19 people—mostly women and children—and left dozens injured. The Chorbagan pandal was one of the major draws of this year’s Durga Puja in Kolkata. Hundreds of thousands visited the pandal daily, but organizers evidently lacked emergency preparedness. The tragedy exposed severe lapses in crowd management, structural planning, and evacuation protocols. Critics argued that the emphasis on hyper-commercialisation, massive footfalls, and spectacular grandiosity overshadowed basic safety and public welfare. The organisers, comprising several BJP MLAs and leaders, went silent in subsequent days. On the day of the tragedy, eyewitnesses recounted that police personnel were missing at the venue while locals stepped up to handle rescue operations. Silencing the Written Word: The Vandalism of Literary Stalls So where was the police? They were ransacking and uprooting bookstalls across the city. The CPI(M) party traditionally puts up bookstalls during the festival, featuring not just books on communism, but also works by Tagore, Sarat Chandra, and more. Viral videos showed political goons ransacking and throwing books onto the road, destroying stalls even as police stood mute at a distance. Just as new clothes embody the spirit of Pujo, new books have long been the soul of Bengali heritage. Imagine a state famed for its intellectuals—a land built on the written word—now surrendering to thugs who relentlessly ransacked bookstalls, flinging the legacy of Tagore and Bengal’s other literary legends into street mud. All the while, state machinery stood by in cowardly silence, refusing to stain its hands as centuries of cultural pride were ground into the dirt. As the BJP came to power, many had breathed a sigh of relief, hoping it was finally the end of the TMC’s 'gunda raj.' But what transpired on the streets of Kolkata—accusing the Left of tarnishing culture and policing ideology via books—was nothing less than hooliganism. The deliberate attack on bookstalls symbolising Bengal’s intelligentsia hinted at changing times within the state where mob culture takes precedence over democratic institutions. In the months since Adhikari was sworn in as Chief Minister, the people of Bengal have witnessed multiple changes—from forced vegetarianism and shifting the fabric of puja celebrations to a tragedy where the state refuses to take accountability. It’s not that the state flourished under TMC rule; clashes between TMC, Left, and right-wing groups were reported during past Pujas, but they were mostly isolated incidents. However, one could witness that crowd management under the previous government during Durga Puja was far better. Reclaiming the Spirit of Sharodotsav The confluence of food diktats, the tragic loss of human lives due to systemic neglect, and the silencing of literary spaces left many arguing that Durga Puja 2026 lost touch with its founding spirit. For decades, Bengal’s celebration of the goddess has superseded religion, caste, and class. It is a celebration for all, by all. However, this year, instead of serving as a unifying celebration of art, intellect, and community, the festival became a battleground for political polarisation, commercial excess, and administrative failure. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The French Revolution began with a promise to remake politics in the name of liberty and equality. Within a few years, some of its most fervent champions had gone to the guillotine, the republic was struggling to survive, and a general was preparing to concentrate power in his own hands. The revolution that challenged arbitrary authority had helped create the conditions for a new form of it.&nbsp;Nearly 250 years later, its warning remains relevant: overthrowing an order and constructing a durable political alternative are very different undertakings.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/close-up-your-borders-trump-blames-immigration-for-france-unrest-urges-macron-to-tighten-border-policies-1792443945584">'Paris is going to be a Muslim city very soon': Trump blames immigration for France unrest, urges Macron to tighten border policies</a>&nbsp;The revolutionaries were not all cynical opportunists. Maximilien Robespierre invoked civic virtue and equality; Georges Danton was a forceful revolutionary leader; Louis Antoine de Saint-Just pursued an uncompromising vision of republican virtue. Jean-Paul Marat gave voice to popular anger, while Jacques Hébert championed radical popular politics. Their convictions and methods differed, but they operated in an increasingly unforgiving political environment.&nbsp;Hébert was executed in March 1794, Danton in April, and Robespierre and Saint-Just in July. Marat had been assassinated the previous year. Their fates reveal a central paradox: a revolution can become so consumed by ideological purity and the identification of internal enemies that it destroys its own leadership. Yesterday’s champions become tomorrow’s suspects, and the struggle to defend the revolution becomes a struggle over who has the right to define it.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/those-who-have-destroyed-must-pay-macron-says-france-feels-anger-and-shame-over-protest-violence-1792350196466">'Those who have destroyed must pay': Macron says France feels 'anger and shame' over protest violence</a>&nbsp;France faced threats from within and beyond its borders. Royalists and other counter-revolutionary forces challenged the new order, including through major uprisings. The conflict in the Vendée became an especially brutal civil war. European monarchies, alarmed by the overthrow of the French monarchy and the treatment of the royal family, formed military coalitions against revolutionary France.&nbsp;Some threats were real. Yet the Reign of Terror demonstrated how emergency powers could acquire a momentum of their own. Suspicion became an instrument of political control, repression widened, and the distinction between defending the republic and eliminating its opponents grew increasingly blurred. A revolution that promised freedom found itself sacrificing liberty in the name of survival.&nbsp;The American Revolution offers an illuminating comparison. The Marquis de Lafayette participated in both revolutionary struggles, and France supported the American colonistsagainst Britain, partly to weaken its rival. Ironically, the financial cost of that intervention aggravated the French monarchy’s already severe fiscal crisis, contributing to the pressures that preceded revolution at home.&nbsp;Yet the two revolutions unfolded in different circumstances. The American struggle centred on independence from imperial rule and eventually produced a constitutional republic, although its founding ideals coexisted with slavery and restricted political participation. France confronted the more disruptive task of dismantling an established social and political order within its own borders. Its revolution became entangled with civil war, ideological purges and foreign invasion.&nbsp;Neither experience was simple or bloodless. Their contrast illustrates that revolutionary ideals do not determine political outcomes by themselves. Institutions, social structures, leadership, financial capacity and the external environment all matter. A compelling moral purpose cannot substitute for the foundations needed to build a durable political settlement.&nbsp;France’s passage from revolution to authoritarian rule was not inevitable. But the instability of the Directory, continuing war and public exhaustion with political disorder created an opening for Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1799, he seized power in a coup. The revolution that challenged inherited authority ultimately helped produce a new concentration of it.&nbsp;Later revolutionary leaders also studied earlier upheavals. Lenin drew lessons from the French Revolution, particularly the Jacobin experience, in thinking about how revolutionary movements acquire and exercise power. Ho Chi Minh developed his political outlook during his years in France, where he became involved in socialist and anti-colonial politics. Mao Zedong argued that the experience of earlier revolutionary wars should be studied and adapted to present circumstances, not copied mechanically. Yet historical knowledge is no guarantee against historical error: revolutionary movements can still produce coercion and concentrated power.&nbsp;Today, mass mobilisation is a powerful feature of politics across South Asia and beyond, including in France itself. Economic insecurity, inequality and declining confidence in established institutions can bring together citizens who might otherwise have little in common. Digital networks accelerate mobilisation, but the ability to bring large numbers into the streets does not automatically confer a mandate to govern.&nbsp;What unites people in opposition may not unite them in government. A student demanding opportunity, a worker seeking economic security, a professional calling for accountability and a political organisation pursuing power may march together while imagining very different futures. Agreement about what must end is easily mistaken for agreement about what should follow.&nbsp;This does not diminish the legitimacy of peaceful protest or the need for fundamental reform. Institutions that systematically fail their citizens must change. The distinction is between dismantling abuses and dismantling the safeguards that prevent new abuses. Political accountability can become vengeance; removing a leadership can leave a vacuum that the best-organised faction or an opportunist promising order is ready to fill.&nbsp;Every mass movement needs a credible political endgame. How will power be transferred and the transition managed? How will competing interests be reconciled, minorities protected and accountability pursued without turning justice into vengeance? These are not questions to postpone until victory; they are essential to defining it.&nbsp;The French Revolution changed the world, but its legacy cannot be reduced either to its ideals or its violence. It demonstrated the capacity of popular movements to challenge entrenched privilege, but also the danger of allowing the struggle for political purity to overwhelm restraint. Napoleon’s rise was not inevitable, yet it exposed the consequences of a political order unable to secure a stable and legitimate settlement.&nbsp;Winston Churchill is often associated with the observation that studying history is essential to statecraft. History offers no ready-made blueprint, and contemporary movements should not be forced into the mould of eighteenth-century France. But it reveals recurring dangers that political enthusiasm can obscure.&nbsp;The central question for any mass movement is not simply how to bring an old order to an end. It is what kind of order will replace it, and whether those leading the struggle possess the wisdom, discipline and institutional imagination to build it.&nbsp;The ability to mobilise a crowd is not the same as the ability to govern a country. That is a lesson France paid dearly to learn—and one contemporary politics would be unwise to forget.&nbsp;Milinda Moragoda is a former Cabinet Minister and diplomat from Sri Lanka and founder of the Pathfinder Foundation, a strategic affairs think tank.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

The French Revolution began with a promise to remake politics in the name of liberty and equality. Within a few years, some of its most fervent champions had gone to the guillotine, the republic was struggling to survive, and a general was preparing to concentrate power in his own hands. The revolution that challenged arbitrary authority had helped create the conditions for a new form of it. Nearly 250 years later, its warning remains relevant: overthrowing an order and constructing a durable political alternative are very different undertakings. Also read: 'Paris is going to be a Muslim city very soon': Trump blames immigration for France unrest, urges Macron to tighten border policies The revolutionaries were not all cynical opportunists. Maximilien Robespierre invoked civic virtue and equality; Georges Danton was a forceful revolutionary leader; Louis Antoine de Saint-Just pursued an uncompromising vision of republican virtue. Jean-Paul Marat gave voice to popular anger, while Jacques Hébert championed radical popular politics. Their convictions and methods differed, but they operated in an increasingly unforgiving political environment. Hébert was executed in March 1794, Danton in April, and Robespierre and Saint-Just in July. Marat had been assassinated the previous year. Their fates reveal a central paradox: a revolution can become so consumed by ideological purity and the identification of internal enemies that it destroys its own leadership. Yesterday’s champions become tomorrow’s suspects, and the struggle to defend the revolution becomes a struggle over who has the right to define it. Also read: 'Those who have destroyed must pay': Macron says France feels 'anger and shame' over protest violence France faced threats from within and beyond its borders. Royalists and other counter-revolutionary forces challenged the new order, including through major uprisings. The conflict in the Vendée became an especially brutal civil war. European monarchies, alarmed by the overthrow of the French monarchy and the treatment of the royal family, formed military coalitions against revolutionary France. Some threats were real. Yet the Reign of Terror demonstrated how emergency powers could acquire a momentum of their own. Suspicion became an instrument of political control, repression widened, and the distinction between defending the republic and eliminating its opponents grew increasingly blurred. A revolution that promised freedom found itself sacrificing liberty in the name of survival. The American Revolution offers an illuminating comparison. The Marquis de Lafayette participated in both revolutionary struggles, and France supported the American colonists against Britain, partly to weaken its rival. Ironically, the financial cost of that intervention aggravated the French monarchy’s already severe fiscal crisis, contributing to the pressures that preceded revolution at home. Yet the two revolutions unfolded in different circumstances. The American struggle centred on independence from imperial rule and eventually produced a constitutional republic, although its founding ideals coexisted with slavery and restricted political participation. France confronted the more disruptive task of dismantling an established social and political order within its own borders. Its revolution became entangled with civil war, ideological purges and foreign invasion. Neither experience was simple or bloodless. Their contrast illustrates that revolutionary ideals do not determine political outcomes by themselves. Institutions, social structures, leadership, financial capacity and the external environment all matter. A compelling moral purpose cannot substitute for the foundations needed to build a durable political settlement. France’s passage from revolution to authoritarian rule was not inevitable. But the instability of the Directory, continuing war and public exhaustion with political disorder created an opening for Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1799, he seized power in a coup. The revolution that challenged inherited authority ultimately helped produce a new concentration of it. Later revolutionary leaders also studied earlier upheavals. Lenin drew lessons from the French Revolution, particularly the Jacobin experience, in thinking about how revolutionary movements acquire and exercise power. Ho Chi Minh developed his political outlook during his years in France, where he became involved in socialist and anti-colonial politics. Mao Zedong argued that the experience of earlier revolutionary wars should be studied and adapted to present circumstances, not copied mechanically. Yet historical knowledge is no guarantee against historical error: revolutionary movements can still produce coercion and concentrated power. Today, mass mobilisation is a powerful feature of politics across South Asia and beyond, including in France itself. Economic insecurity, inequality and declining confidence in established institutions can bring together citizens who might otherwise have little in common. Digital networks accelerate mobilisation, but the ability to bring large numbers into the streets does not automatically confer a mandate to govern. What unites people in opposition may not unite them in government. A student demanding opportunity, a worker seeking economic security, a professional calling for accountability and a political organisation pursuing power may march together while imagining very different futures. Agreement about what must end is easily mistaken for agreement about what should follow. This does not diminish the legitimacy of peaceful protest or the need for fundamental reform. Institutions that systematically fail their citizens must change. The distinction is between dismantling abuses and dismantling the safeguards that prevent new abuses. Political accountability can become vengeance; removing a leadership can leave a vacuum that the best-organised faction or an opportunist promising order is ready to fill. Every mass movement needs a credible political endgame. How will power be transferred and the transition managed? How will competing interests be reconciled, minorities protected and accountability pursued without turning justice into vengeance? These are not questions to postpone until victory; they are essential to defining it. The French Revolution changed the world, but its legacy cannot be reduced either to its ideals or its violence. It demonstrated the capacity of popular movements to challenge entrenched privilege, but also the danger of allowing the struggle for political purity to overwhelm restraint. Napoleon’s rise was not inevitable, yet it exposed the consequences of a political order unable to secure a stable and legitimate settlement. Winston Churchill is often associated with the observation that studying history is essential to statecraft. History offers no ready-made blueprint, and contemporary movements should not be forced into the mould of eighteenth-century France. But it reveals recurring dangers that political enthusiasm can obscure. The central question for any mass movement is not simply how to bring an old order to an end. It is what kind of order will replace it, and whether those leading the struggle possess the wisdom, discipline and institutional imagination to build it. The ability to mobilise a crowd is not the same as the ability to govern a country. That is a lesson France paid dearly to learn—and one contemporary politics would be unwise to forget. Milinda Moragoda is a former Cabinet Minister and diplomat from Sri Lanka and founder of the Pathfinder Foundation, a strategic affairs think tank. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brazil, Venezuela show limits of Trump’s ‘Donroe Doctrine’

The Verdict | Vote Chori goes global: From India to Israel, Brazil and the US

Maduro vs Flavio: American double standards on Latin America

The Verdict | US-Cuba clash: Who is winning while civilians suffer?

Born from Kargil, tested in orbit: Can NVS-03 rescue NavIC constellation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Malaysian PM and other global leaders turn to Bollywood playlists

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

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

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

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

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