No Pandya as Auqib Nabi earns maiden ODI call-up; Mayank returns for WI T20Is| check full squads

Trump praises India’s Opium crackdown, hails anti-drug efforts 

Sydney Sweeney defends provocative ad choice, the internet is still not impressed

Trump calls Canada-EU associate membership plan ‘laughable’ and threatens 'very serious tariffs'

Protests erupt over migrant housing plan in Piddington 

Shahzad Bhatti Network declared terrorist organisation under UAPA: Govt order

US, China dominate global economy: Where does India rank among the world's biggest economies?

Europe wants a common playbook for security threats, seeks security beyond NATO 

Bigg Boss 20: Mahhi Vij reveals she lost Yuva role to Kareena Kapoor; 'didn’t work out in my favour'

All Indian goods to get duty-free access to New Zealand

Hockey: Pakistan urges AHF to move Asian Champions Trophy out of India over security concerns

Lionel Messi for 2026 Ballon d’Or over Mbappe and Yamal, says Diego Simeone

Alex Saab, ally of Venezuela's Maduro, pleads guilty in US corruption case

Veteran actor Anant Nag honoured with Indian cinema’s highest award

800 million years old - Scientists discover 'fingerprints' of supercontinent Gondwana in ancient rocks

AUS vs SA: Steve Smith still gets 'little flashbacks' from sandpaper gate

Pakistan naval vessel returns to harbour with 'severe damage' after collision with Indian warship in Arabian Sea

Fed raises rates for first time in 3 years, Kevin Warsh defies Trump as inflation mounts

Katrina Kaif’s postpartum weight is not the problem; your gaze is

Daayra movie review: Kareena Kapoor, Prithviraj Sukumaran shine in Meghna Gulzar’s cop-versus-cop crime thriller

Saudi Vs Houthis: Yemeni military rebels clash with Houthis 

US trade tariff: 100% tariff targets Russian buyers amid trade tensions 

Pakistan: Imran Khan's sons Kasim & Sulaiman claim their father is 'tortured' in jail

New OTT releases this week (September 14-20, 2026): Lust Stories 3, Waiting Hai, Irumudi- 5 new titles coming on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Strapped to flight seat with duct tape: Passenger claims no memory of mid-air outburst

Trump's Iran war faces fresh House rebuke; 7 Republicans join Democrats in push to end conflict ahead of midterms

Trump gets new power to hit India, China with up to 100% tariffs as US Senate clears Russia sanctions bill

US Treasury rallies global financial institutions for Op Economic Outcast to isolate Iran

Saudi vs Houthis: Riyadh claims to have shot Houthi drone targeting Mecca

Suriya and Jyothika say ‘I do’ again after 20 years! See their dreamy wedding pics

Abhishek Sharma rises to No. 2 in T20Is; ENG’s Robinson 3rd after record Pakistan Tests

Extreme warming in Indian Ocean added 695 billion tons of ice to Antarctica ice sheet

BRICS success stuns White House, Trump targets India with 100% tariff | Gravitas

Meghan Markle's phone number leaked from children's WhatsApp group, couple switches Archie and Lilibet's school

The Early Spring season 2 is happening, but fans have one request - 'don't change the actors'

A drone approaching Islam's holiest city has brought an old war dangerously close to one of Saudi Arabia's most sensitive red lines.Saudi Arabia says its air defences intercepted and destroyed a Houthi drone south of Mecca before it entered the city's prohibited airspace. Riyadh described the security of the Two Holy Mosques and pilgrims as a “red line.”The Houthis deny targeting Mecca.That dispute matters. But behind it lies a much larger question: after more than a decade of military pressure, why are Yemen's Houthis still capable of putting Saudi Arabia on alert?Since Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen's civil war in 2015, the Houthis have faced military action involving a remarkable collection of regional and global powers.Yet their military capabilities have expanded.The Associated Press reports that their arsenal now includes ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, anti-ship missiles and naval drones. A 2024 UN experts' report estimated Houthi manpower had increased from around 30,000 in 2015 to as many as 350,000 by 2024. Iran denies arming the Houthis, while UN experts and intercepted weapons shipments have documented extensive military links.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | Saudi Arabia VS Houthi conflict reaches the doorstep of the holy city Air raid alerts sound in Mecca, birthplace of Prophet Muhammad; Houthis deny attack on the holy city<a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> and <a href="https://x.com/ShivanChanana?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ShivanChanana</a> have more <a href="https://t.co/KBkf2UKs1l">pic.twitter.com/KBkf2UKs1l</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2100255999462666536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The consequences now extend far beyond Yemen.The Houthis have advanced toward the Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow maritime gateway connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Saudi oil infrastructure has also come under attack, including disruption to the kingdom's strategically important East-West Pipeline.Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman travelled to Egypt as Riyadh sought regional support. During talks with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, both leaders stressed the importance of securing navigation through the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb.But perhaps the most revealing development is diplomatic.U.S. officials reportedly met Houthi representatives in Oman over the weekend, according to Reuters reporting cited by multiple outlets.That creates an extraordinary picture.Saudi Arabia is talking about deterrence. The Houthis are demonstrating military reach. Washington is exploring diplomacy. And global commerce remains exposed to whatever happens around the Red Sea.Saudi Arabia's warning over Mecca therefore carries significance far beyond one intercepted drone.Because declaring a red line is the easy part.The harder question is what happens when an adversary decides to test it.

The Houthis have advanced toward the Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow maritime gateway connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Saudi oil infrastructure has also come under attack, including disruption to the kingdom's strategically important East-West Pipeline.

A drone approaching Islam's holiest city has brought an old war dangerously close to one of Saudi Arabia's most sensitive red lines. Saudi Arabia says its air defences intercepted and destroyed a Houthi drone south of Mecca before it entered the city's prohibited airspace. Riyadh described the security of the Two Holy Mosques and pilgrims as a “red line.” The Houthis deny targeting Mecca. That dispute matters. But behind it lies a much larger question: after more than a decade of military pressure, why are Yemen's Houthis still capable of putting Saudi Arabia on alert? Since Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen's civil war in 2015, the Houthis have faced military action involving a remarkable collection of regional and global powers. Yet their military capabilities have expanded. The Associated Press reports that their arsenal now includes ballistic and cruise missiles, drones, anti-ship missiles and naval drones. A 2024 UN experts' report estimated Houthi manpower had increased from around 30,000 in 2015 to as many as 350,000 by 2024. Iran denies arming the Houthis, while UN experts and intercepted weapons shipments have documented extensive military links.

The Houthis have advanced toward the Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow maritime gateway connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Saudi oil infrastructure has also come under attack, including disruption to the kingdom's strategically important East-West Pipeline.

The Verdict | Mecca, a 'red line' and the Houthis who refuse to go away

The internet has found a new topic to discuss and dissect: Katrina Kaif’s postpartum weight gain. Being a woman in India is already a daily battle—add the relentless glare of fame, and the pressure becomes downright suffocating. Kaif, a well-known face in Bollywood who has carved her path with sheer hard work over the last two decades in cinema, has often found herself in the middle of controversies, most of which have had nothing to do with her work. Be it the men she has dated, her intimate marriage to actor Vicky Kaushal, speculations around her impending motherhood, or the latest scrutiny over her weight gain, people have been relentless in passing judgment about her and her personal life.&nbsp;Kaif made a public appearance after the birth of her son on Monday evening at a Ganpati celebration in Mumbai. This was her first public outing in 10 months, ever since she and her husband welcomed the birth of their son, Vihaan. Dressed in a moss green anarkali and a multicoloured embellished dupatta, Katrina glowed in her new role as a mother. She posed with her husband for the paparazzi before heading inside for the event.<h2>‘She is finished’</h2>&nbsp;While Katrina’s appearance was met with excitement by her ardent fans, who were seeing her at an event after ages, a section of social media took no time to share images of her and ruthlessly criticise her appearance.“Why do women neglect their self-care post-pregnancy?” stated a user on X while observing her weight change postpartum.&nbsp;“She is finished,” wrote another.&nbsp;The comments, however infuriating, were immediately shot down by women and men alike who defended the actress and pointed out that women go through a sea change—both mentally and physically—after embracing motherhood.&nbsp;However, the criticism highlights a deeply problematic pattern in society, where it is acceptable to relentlessly police a woman’s body in every phase of existence. Society acts as an agency deciding what the ideal body type is and how a woman should look, irrespective of her age or the juncture she is at in her life.&nbsp;

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdRonv5ztDd/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdRonv5ztDd/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div><div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"><div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div></div><div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div></div></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div></div></a><p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdRonv5ztDd/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">A post shared by Viral Bhayani (@viralbhayani)</a></div></blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

<h2>&nbsp;</h2><h2>The Myth of the 'Unchanging Woman'</h2>&nbsp;For years, actresses have had to adhere to a certain body type and look to appease society. Public figures in particular are viewed through a lens where they are seen outside the laws of biology, ageing, and life transitions. A woman’s body is often treated as public property that must maintain an eternal 22-year-old baseline. For many, Katrina’s video on Monday came as a complete shock. How could the most desirable woman in the country look like their wives or mothers? How could the ultimate dream girl look so "girl next door"? Where did Sheila’s Jawaani go?<h2>The Postpartum Paradox</h2>Katrina Kaif married Vicky Kaushal in 2021. Since then, the couple has had to face continuous questions around their plans for parenthood. On multiple occasions, the media declared Katrina ‘pregnant,’ only to be shut down by the star herself as she made stunning red-carpet appearances.&nbsp;One would have thought that the speculations would finally be buried once and for all when the couple announced their pregnancy in September 2025 and welcomed their son in November.&nbsp;<blockquote>Now that the baby is here, what could the next target of scrutiny be? Of course, the woman’s weight.</blockquote>Bringing a human life into the world is lauded in theory, but its physiological reality—weight shifts, facial fullness, recovery time—is treated as a personal failing or "neglect." The narrative shifts from celebrating life to penalising visible change. From nagging, prying relatives to online trolls, everyone was obsessed with when she would get pregnant, and after the baby’s arrival, it was time to comment on her looks. There is never a break.&nbsp;

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/Da9mOz0lzMy/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Da9mOz0lzMy/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div><div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"><div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div></div><div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div></div></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div></div></a><p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Da9mOz0lzMy/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">A post shared by Katrina Kaif (@katrinakaif)</a></div></blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

&nbsp;<h2>Moving the Goalposts: The Endless Checklist</h2>&nbsp;For scores of women, the goalposts keep moving with time. First, get that degree, then find a job. Once a woman is independent and enjoying her newfound freedom and career success, the goalposts shift again. Now it is time to get married because the biological clock is ticking. Then, if she finds the right partner and settles into matrimony, society deems her incomplete until she becomes a mother. Postpartum, she is forced into an immediate, punitive "bounce-back" culture that erases the gruelling reality of recovery. Women constantly face an inescapable set of demands at every milestone.<h2>You Can Never Please the World</h2>If a woman opts for cosmetic tweaks or makeup changes, she is shamed for "not ageing naturally." If she displays natural soft facial features, ageing, or postpartum warmth, she is accused of "losing her charm" or "letting herself go."&nbsp;Funnily enough, these harsh expectations rarely apply to men. Male actors are routinely allowed to age, gain weight, grey, or look tired without losing their status as cultural icons or leading men.&nbsp;&nbsp;<blockquote>No one scrutinises a man wearing a hairpiece to cover a bald patch, but if botox or lip filler is spotted on a woman, all hell breaks loose. For men, physical changes are framed as "maturity," "ruggedness," or "wisdom." Women are simply called fake and subsequently replaced.</blockquote>What is even more alarming is the authoritative tone used by trolls to criticise the post-baby body of the actress, as if Kaif owes them an aesthetic debt.<h2>Have You Looked at Vicky?</h2>A night out at a cultural event with family becomes a battleground where a woman must run the gauntlet of high-definition cameras, slow-motion zooms, and malicious comment threads. Most people are concentrating on Katrina Kaif, but no one seems to notice Vicky Kaushal next to her, who looks quite scruffy with a full beard and long hair. He, being a man, owes no one an explanation, nor will there ever be an expectation for him to look a certain way.&nbsp;The backlash against Katrina Kaif isn't about makeup, lighting, or postpartum weight. It is about society’s refusal to allow women the dignity of transformation—and, most importantly, the right to simply live. It exposes a culture that celebrates the idea of motherhood but punishes the actual, living proof of it on a woman's body.&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.)

Society’s harsh reaction to Katrina Kaif’s postpartum appearance exposes double standards and a body-policing culture that celebrates motherhood in theory but punishes its physical reality.

The internet has found a new topic to discuss and dissect: Katrina Kaif’s postpartum weight gain. Being a woman in India is already a daily battle—add the relentless glare of fame, and the pressure becomes downright suffocating. Kaif, a well-known face in Bollywood who has carved her path with sheer hard work over the last two decades in cinema, has often found herself in the middle of controversies, most of which have had nothing to do with her work. Be it the men she has dated, her intimate marriage to actor Vicky Kaushal, speculations around her impending motherhood, or the latest scrutiny over her weight gain, people have been relentless in passing judgment about her and her personal life. Kaif made a public appearance after the birth of her son on Monday evening at a Ganpati celebration in Mumbai. This was her first public outing in 10 months, ever since she and her husband welcomed the birth of their son, Vihaan. Dressed in a moss green anarkali and a multicoloured embellished dupatta, Katrina glowed in her new role as a mother. She posed with her husband for the paparazzi before heading inside for the event. ‘She is finished’ While Katrina’s appearance was met with excitement by her ardent fans, who were seeing her at an event after ages, a section of social media took no time to share images of her and ruthlessly criticise her appearance. “Why do women neglect their self-care post-pregnancy?” stated a user on X while observing her weight change postpartum. “She is finished,” wrote another. The comments, however infuriating, were immediately shot down by women and men alike who defended the actress and pointed out that women go through a sea change—both mentally and physically—after embracing motherhood. However, the criticism highlights a deeply problematic pattern in society, where it is acceptable to relentlessly police a woman’s body in every phase of existence. Society acts as an agency deciding what the ideal body type is and how a woman should look, irrespective of her age or the juncture she is at in her life.

Society’s harsh reaction to Katrina Kaif’s postpartum appearance exposes double standards and a body-policing culture that celebrates motherhood in theory but punishes its physical reality.

Somewhere off India's western coast, oil workers ending a long shift on a steel platform will soon see a helicopter built in their own country arriving to take them home. That moment captures what Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will mark on 18 September 2026, when it delivers three home-grown aircraft at its Aircraft Division in Vimanapura, Bengaluru. The ceremony runs from 5 to 6 pm, with entry through Gate 20 of the HAL Airport premises. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Civil Aviation Minister K. Rammohan Naidu will attend.&nbsp;That helicopter is the Dhruv NG, the next-generation civilian version of HAL's Advanced Light Helicopter. Mr Naidu flagged off its first flight in Bengaluru on 30 December 2025. Now it moves from display to duty. Pawan Hans has ordered ten for more than ₹1,800 crore. Four arrive now, and the rest follow this financial year. The first is likely to ferry ONGC crews to and from offshore rigs.&nbsp;The 5.5-tonne Dhruv NG runs on two Indian-made Shakti engines, so if one fails, the other keeps it flying. Its digital cockpit carries civil approval, its seats absorb the shock of a crash, and its fuel tanks seal small leaks on their own. It cruises at about 285 kmph, covers some 630 km with fuel in reserve, stays aloft for about three hours 40 minutes, and climbs to about 6,000 metres, enough for many Himalayan and plateau routes. The cabin can take four to six VIP seats, up to 14 passengers, or four stretchers with medical crew, which makes it a flying ambulance. Built largely from Indian material, it supports HAL's plan to grow civil work from a small share to nearly a quarter of turnover within ten years.&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/brics-summit-2026-was-played-down-dismissed-or-nearly-blacked-out-by-western-media-that-didn-t-work-1789450655670">BRICS Summit 2026 was played down, dismissed or nearly blacked out by Western media. That didn't work</a>&nbsp;Leading this shift is Ravi Kota, HAL's 22nd Chairman and Managing Director since 1 May 2026, after D.K. Sunil retired. Defence circles still call him the "LCA man." He is a mechanical engineer from Malnad College of Engineering and an alumnus of IIM Ahmedabad and Toulouse. He headed the Tejas division, helped bring the fleet into service, and worked on contracts for 180 Tejas jets and 156 Prachand light combat helicopters. He wants a globally competitive HAL driven by innovation, Artificial Intelligence, operational excellence and its people.&nbsp;That fighter background shows in the second delivery, the LCA FOC trainer. It is a two-seat Tejas Mk-1 built to Final Operational Clearance, cleared for real combat flying. The trainee sits in front and the instructor behind, under a lengthened canopy, so young pilots practise combat flying in a jet that handles just like the single-seat fighter. These twin-seaters complete the first 40-aircraft Tejas order. They came last because the single-seat fighters were built first. They arrive as the Indian Air Force expands its Tejas family with 83 Mk-1A jets and then 97 more, many of them two-seaters. A third line at Nashik is raising yearly output.&nbsp;HAL is also speeding up Tejas output on the factory floor, working with Bengaluru-based ADD Engineering Components on robotic drilling for the fighter's wings. A robot places each of the thousands of fastener holes in a wing the same way every time, cutting rework and freeing skilled technicians for tasks that need human judgement.&nbsp;The third aircraft is where every fighter pilot's journey begins. For years, Indian cadets learned first take-offs, landings, instrument flying and recovery from sudden rolls on the Swiss-built Pilatus PC-7 Mk II. The Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 (HTT-40) now takes over. The first three, two from Bengaluru and one from Nashik, belong to a March 2023 order for 70 aircraft worth about ₹6,838 crore.&nbsp;The HTT-40 seats two, one behind the other, and is fully aerobatic. Its air-conditioned glass cockpit replaces old dials with digital screens, like a modern car dashboard. Its Martin-Baker "zero-zero" ejection seats can save both occupants even when the aircraft is standing still on the ground. A Honeywell TPE331-12B turboprop, a turbine engine that spins a propeller, gives it a top speed near 450 kmph, a range of about 1,000 km and a ceiling of about 6,000 metres.&nbsp;The road tested everyone's patience. Engine shortages pushed deliveries past the original 2025–26 target until Honeywell supplies began in 2026. HAL's two lines can now build about 20 trainers a year between them. Indian content, close to 56 per cent today, is set to cross 60 per cent. A nation that cannot train its own pilots cannot grow its own air force.&nbsp;Late engines and long waits are part of this story, but so is persistence. On 18 September, India hands over machines that will train its pilots, guard its skies and carry its people across sea and mountain. &nbsp;

The 5.5-tonne Dhruv NG runs on two Indian-made Shakti engines, so if one fails, the other keeps it flying. Its digital cockpit carries civil approval, its seats absorb the shock of a crash, and its fuel tanks seal small leaks on their own.

Somewhere off India's western coast, oil workers ending a long shift on a steel platform will soon see a helicopter built in their own country arriving to take them home. That moment captures what Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will mark on 18 September 2026, when it delivers three home-grown aircraft at its Aircraft Division in Vimanapura, Bengaluru. The ceremony runs from 5 to 6 pm, with entry through Gate 20 of the HAL Airport premises. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Civil Aviation Minister K. Rammohan Naidu will attend. That helicopter is the Dhruv NG, the next-generation civilian version of HAL's Advanced Light Helicopter. Mr Naidu flagged off its first flight in Bengaluru on 30 December 2025. Now it moves from display to duty. Pawan Hans has ordered ten for more than ₹1,800 crore. Four arrive now, and the rest follow this financial year. The first is likely to ferry ONGC crews to and from offshore rigs. The 5.5-tonne Dhruv NG runs on two Indian-made Shakti engines, so if one fails, the other keeps it flying. Its digital cockpit carries civil approval, its seats absorb the shock of a crash, and its fuel tanks seal small leaks on their own. It cruises at about 285 kmph, covers some 630 km with fuel in reserve, stays aloft for about three hours 40 minutes, and climbs to about 6,000 metres, enough for many Himalayan and plateau routes. The cabin can take four to six VIP seats, up to 14 passengers, or four stretchers with medical crew, which makes it a flying ambulance. Built largely from Indian material, it supports HAL's plan to grow civil work from a small share to nearly a quarter of turnover within ten years. ALSO READ: BRICS Summit 2026 was played down, dismissed or nearly blacked out by Western media. That didn't work Leading this shift is Ravi Kota, HAL's 22nd Chairman and Managing Director since 1 May 2026, after D.K. Sunil retired. Defence circles still call him the "LCA man." He is a mechanical engineer from Malnad College of Engineering and an alumnus of IIM Ahmedabad and Toulouse. He headed the Tejas division, helped bring the fleet into service, and worked on contracts for 180 Tejas jets and 156 Prachand light combat helicopters. He wants a globally competitive HAL driven by innovation, Artificial Intelligence, operational excellence and its people. That fighter background shows in the second delivery, the LCA FOC trainer. It is a two-seat Tejas Mk-1 built to Final Operational Clearance, cleared for real combat flying. The trainee sits in front and the instructor behind, under a lengthened canopy, so young pilots practise combat flying in a jet that handles just like the single-seat fighter. These twin-seaters complete the first 40-aircraft Tejas order. They came last because the single-seat fighters were built first. They arrive as the Indian Air Force expands its Tejas family with 83 Mk-1A jets and then 97 more, many of them two-seaters. A third line at Nashik is raising yearly output. HAL is also speeding up Tejas output on the factory floor, working with Bengaluru-based ADD Engineering Components on robotic drilling for the fighter's wings. A robot places each of the thousands of fastener holes in a wing the same way every time, cutting rework and freeing skilled technicians for tasks that need human judgement. The third aircraft is where every fighter pilot's journey begins. For years, Indian cadets learned first take-offs, landings, instrument flying and recovery from sudden rolls on the Swiss-built Pilatus PC-7 Mk II. The Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 (HTT-40) now takes over. The first three, two from Bengaluru and one from Nashik, belong to a March 2023 order for 70 aircraft worth about ₹6,838 crore. The HTT-40 seats two, one behind the other, and is fully aerobatic. Its air-conditioned glass cockpit replaces old dials with digital screens, like a modern car dashboard. Its Martin-Baker "zero-zero" ejection seats can save both occupants even when the aircraft is standing still on the ground. A Honeywell TPE331-12B turboprop, a turbine engine that spins a propeller, gives it a top speed near 450 kmph, a range of about 1,000 km and a ceiling of about 6,000 metres. The road tested everyone's patience. Engine shortages pushed deliveries past the original 2025–26 target until Honeywell supplies began in 2026. HAL's two lines can now build about 20 trainers a year between them. Indian content, close to 56 per cent today, is set to cross 60 per cent. A nation that cannot train its own pilots cannot grow its own air force. Late engines and long waits are part of this story, but so is persistence. On 18 September, India hands over machines that will train its pilots, guard its skies and carry its people across sea and mountain.

The 5.5-tonne Dhruv NG runs on two Indian-made Shakti engines, so if one fails, the other keeps it flying. Its digital cockpit carries civil approval, its seats absorb the shock of a crash, and its fuel tanks seal small leaks on their own.

Salt air to sound waves: HAL’s homegrown trio takes wing

For much of the West-led foreign media, India is still the land of snake charmers. A chaotic nation that can't organise anything big, definitely not a global summit. From dismissive coverage, an overt focus on US President Donald Trump's so-called ‘looming shadow’, India-China rivalry to a near-blackout, foreign media tried running down the BRICS Summit 2026 held in New Delhi this past weekend. The only problem? Nobody cared what the Western media had to say.<h2>BRICS summit’s own agenda was hardly mentioned in much of the Western media coverage</h2>The focus of several global media groups was on issues that were not at the top of the official BRICS agenda: the Ukraine-Russia war, the Iran conflict, and so on. BRICS, meanwhile, was busy forging consensus on some of the thorniest issues the world was facing. Because they weren't waiting for diktats from the West.BRICS leaders had work to do, as they were representing around 40 per cent of global GDP and half the world’s population. And at the end, the summit unanimously adopted the nearly 140-point, 45-page New Delhi Declaration, by consensus. As chair and host of BRICS 2026, India had the challenge of holding together an expanded and politically diverse grouping. And it did so, without turning BRICS into an explicitly anti-Western bloc.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-brics-joint-declaration-adopted-amid-west-asia-1789273195098/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-brics-joint-declaration-adopted-amid-west-asia-1789273195098/embed</a><h2>From Trump to Russia-Ukraine: Foreign media used Western geopolitical lenses</h2>The BBC headline said, “Trump shadow looms large over BRICS as Modi hosts Putin and Xi”. So somehow, BRICS was all about how to deal with Trump. The New York Times focused on India and China competing for influence in the Global South. It didn't anticipate that dialogue can help iron out differences.Bloomberg gave Prime Minister Narendra Modi credit for forging consensus “in the shadow” of the worsening Iran war. It acknowledged that what happened in Delhi was a diplomatic coup, but immediately returned to the argument that the Xi-Modi thaw “concealed deeper divisions”. For context, despite all the anti-China stance and rhetoric of the US, Trump will be meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping in a few days from now.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/brics-in-pictures-leaders-diplomacy-and-viral-moments-from-delhi-summit-1789316925917">BRICS in pictures: Leaders, diplomacy and viral moments from Delhi summit</a><h2>Was BRICS the forum to solve wars? Some Western media seem to think so</h2>The Financial Times, The Independent and others highlighted internal tensions within BRICS, such as differences between Iran and Gulf members. They talked up the Ukraine-Russia war, as if the BRICS Summit was called to resolve these conflicts. They openly questioned how much the summit could actually deliver. If they read the Declaration, they will know.Ironically, Ukraine – whose president gets prominent airtime at practically all West-led summits – barely figured in the New Delhi Declaration or the talks preceding it.On West Asia, the language was respectful, measured, diplomatic and all-encompassing, with BRICS calling for restraint. None of the belligerents – Iran, the US or Israel – were explicitly named. But to the Western media, these omissions were evidence of weakness. They didn't see that while the major powers could not get the text or spirit right on a truce in West Asia or Ukraine, India's greatest achievement was the consensus itself.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/did-brics-summit-2026-prove-that-an-11-member-bloc-with-india-and-china-in-it-can-still-agree-on-key-issues-1789292891454">Did BRICS Summit 2026 prove that an 11-member bloc with India and China in it can still agree on key issues?</a><h2>China-India rivalry: The recurring Western media angle</h2>Most of the outlets highlighted competition, and not cooperation, between China and India. The coverage nitpicked on the ‘limitations’ of the thaw in relations. Brushed under the carpet was the fact that Xi was visiting a nation with which China had border clashes in Doklam and the Galwan Valley only a few years ago. Or that China-India trade continued to grow despite the tensions.Also ignored was that, despite this ‘rivalry’, the summit had a single voice on terrorism, Global South representation, UN and IMF reform, local-currency payments, digital infrastructure and artificial intelligence. These were aspects that demonstrated that cooperation was possible despite differences.<h2>You bring the photos, I'll dismiss that summit</h2>Visuals are everything, and what angle a media outlet turns its lens towards speaks a lot about the thinking process of its newsroom. The photos that appeared alongside articles in much of the Western media coverage tell their own story: giant BRICS or Modi billboards paired with bicycles, mopeds, auto-rickshaws and street workers.That's reductionism. Western media needed confirmation that India is still poor. Their photo cropping did that job.<h2>Ignoring tells a story: BRICS received less prominence than its scale</h2>In many cases, Western publications relegated the coverage to wire reports or analytical pieces. On print and TV, BRICS was not a top prime-time or front-page story.India was aware of the burden of expectations in a fragmented world. “Will they succeed or fail?”, was the story Western media was salivating over. In the run-up to the summit, India deliberately avoided excessive banners, speeches and publicity.The foreign media tried to portray BRICS as a divided, ineffective or anti-Western project. India was not trying to create a NATO-style alliance. India wanted to prove that countries with competing interests could still reach consensus.At the end of the day, an increasingly diverse bloc agreed to agree. That was the point of the summit.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;

Western media coverage of BRICS Summit 2026 focused on Trump, Ukraine, Iran and India-China rivalry. India instead delivered consensus, exposing the gap between the summit's agenda and foreign media coverage.

For much of the West-led foreign media, India is still the land of snake charmers. A chaotic nation that can't organise anything big, definitely not a global summit. From dismissive coverage, an overt focus on US President Donald Trump's so-called ‘looming shadow’, India-China rivalry to a near-blackout, foreign media tried running down the BRICS Summit 2026 held in New Delhi this past weekend. The only problem? Nobody cared what the Western media had to say. BRICS summit’s own agenda was hardly mentioned in much of the Western media coverage The focus of several global media groups was on issues that were not at the top of the official BRICS agenda: the Ukraine-Russia war, the Iran conflict, and so on. BRICS, meanwhile, was busy forging consensus on some of the thorniest issues the world was facing. Because they weren't waiting for diktats from the West. BRICS leaders had work to do, as they were representing around 40 per cent of global GDP and half the world’s population. And at the end, the summit unanimously adopted the nearly 140-point, 45-page New Delhi Declaration, by consensus. As chair and host of BRICS 2026, India had the challenge of holding together an expanded and politically diverse grouping. And it did so, without turning BRICS into an explicitly anti-Western bloc. https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-brics-joint-declaration-adopted-amid-west-asia-1789273195098/embed From Trump to Russia-Ukraine: Foreign media used Western geopolitical lenses The BBC headline said, “Trump shadow looms large over BRICS as Modi hosts Putin and Xi”. So somehow, BRICS was all about how to deal with Trump. The New York Times focused on India and China competing for influence in the Global South. It didn't anticipate that dialogue can help iron out differences. Bloomberg gave Prime Minister Narendra Modi credit for forging consensus “in the shadow” of the worsening Iran war. It acknowledged that what happened in Delhi was a diplomatic coup, but immediately returned to the argument that the Xi-Modi thaw “concealed deeper divisions”. For context, despite all the anti-China stance and rhetoric of the US, Trump will be meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping in a few days from now. Also read: BRICS in pictures: Leaders, diplomacy and viral moments from Delhi summit Was BRICS the forum to solve wars? Some Western media seem to think so The Financial Times, The Independent and others highlighted internal tensions within BRICS, such as differences between Iran and Gulf members. They talked up the Ukraine-Russia war, as if the BRICS Summit was called to resolve these conflicts. They openly questioned how much the summit could actually deliver. If they read the Declaration, they will know. Ironically, Ukraine – whose president gets prominent airtime at practically all West-led summits – barely figured in the New Delhi Declaration or the talks preceding it. On West Asia, the language was respectful, measured, diplomatic and all-encompassing, with BRICS calling for restraint. None of the belligerents – Iran, the US or Israel – were explicitly named. But to the Western media, these omissions were evidence of weakness. They didn't see that while the major powers could not get the text or spirit right on a truce in West Asia or Ukraine, India's greatest achievement was the consensus itself. Also read: Did BRICS Summit 2026 prove that an 11-member bloc with India and China in it can still agree on key issues? China-India rivalry: The recurring Western media angle Most of the outlets highlighted competition, and not cooperation, between China and India. The coverage nitpicked on the ‘limitations’ of the thaw in relations. Brushed under the carpet was the fact that Xi was visiting a nation with which China had border clashes in Doklam and the Galwan Valley only a few years ago. Or that China-India trade continued to grow despite the tensions. Also ignored was that, despite this ‘rivalry’, the summit had a single voice on terrorism, Global South representation, UN and IMF reform, local-currency payments, digital infrastructure and artificial intelligence. These were aspects that demonstrated that cooperation was possible despite differences. You bring the photos, I'll dismiss that summit Visuals are everything, and what angle a media outlet turns its lens towards speaks a lot about the thinking process of its newsroom. The photos that appeared alongside articles in much of the Western media coverage tell their own story: giant BRICS or Modi billboards paired with bicycles, mopeds, auto-rickshaws and street workers. That's reductionism. Western media needed confirmation that India is still poor. Their photo cropping did that job. Ignoring tells a story: BRICS received less prominence than its scale In many cases, Western publications relegated the coverage to wire reports or analytical pieces. On print and TV, BRICS was not a top prime-time or front-page story. India was aware of the burden of expectations in a fragmented world. “Will they succeed or fail?”, was the story Western media was salivating over. In the run-up to the summit, India deliberately avoided excessive banners, speeches and publicity. The foreign media tried to portray BRICS as a divided, ineffective or anti-Western project. India was not trying to create a NATO-style alliance. India wanted to prove that countries with competing interests could still reach consensus. At the end of the day, an increasingly diverse bloc agreed to agree. That was the point of the summit. Disclaimer: The writer's views do not represent those of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer."

Western media coverage of BRICS Summit 2026 focused on Trump, Ukraine, Iran and India-China rivalry. India instead delivered consensus, exposing the gap between the summit's agenda and foreign media coverage.

BRICS Summit 2026 was played down, dismissed or nearly blacked out by Western media. That didn't work

Africa has heard the compliments before.The continent of the future. The world's youngest continent. A mineral powerhouse. The next great consumer market. An indispensable voice of the Global South.All true.But recognition without influence is merely applause.The New Delhi Declaration adopted at the BRICS Summit makes a powerful case for a more representative global order and greater participation by developing economies, particularly those from Africa, Asia and Latin America.That is welcome.But Africa should ask an uncomfortable question: where is its power in this emerging order?Africa has 54 countries and more than 1.5 billion people, yet only South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia are full members of BRICS. Nigeria and Uganda are partner countries.That is progress. It is not proportional power.And simply stuffing BRICS with dozens more members is not necessarily the solution either.Expansion without coordination risks creating another enormous international talking shop — impressive family photographs, lengthy declarations and very little ability to act.Africa therefore needs something more important than seats: a strategy.This is where the African Union should become central.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/WIONAtBRICS?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WIONAtBRICS</a> | 54 African countries. Only THREE are full BRICS members. Africa doesn&#39;t need applause for its &quot;potential.&quot; It needs power proportional to it. India deserves credit for opening the door. But Africa must decide how it walks through it.<a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> brings more on… <a href="https://t.co/xmwS1LAkgK">pic.twitter.com/xmwS1LAkgK</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2099168609893576871?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Instead of African countries approaching emerging blocs primarily through individual national interests, the continent needs greater coordination around what it wants from them: infrastructure financing, industrialisation, technology transfer, energy security, agricultural transformation, value addition and reform of global financial institutions.Africa possesses many of the resources the emerging world wants. It should negotiate accordingly.India deserves recognition here.New Delhi has repeatedly pushed greater representation of the Global South, backed the African Union's elevation within the G20 and used its 2026 BRICS chairship to again place developing economies prominently on the agenda.That matters.India and Africa also have something important in common: neither wants the international system permanently dictated by institutions reflecting yesterday's balance of power.But partnership cannot mean replacing dependence on one centre of global power with dependence on another.Africa should neither become an appendage of the West nor a bargaining chip for the East.It should become a pole of power itself.That means BRICS should not simply ask how many more African countries it can accommodate.Africa should ask what membership actually delivers.More African flags around the BRICS table will mean little if African economies continue exporting raw minerals only to import the finished products; if infrastructure gaps persist; if Africans remain underrepresented where global financial and security decisions are made; and if the continent's enormous population translates into market size but not negotiating strength.The New Delhi Declaration talks about giving the Global South a greater voice.Good.Now Africa must use it.Because the continent does not need another invitation to somebody else's table.It needs the leverage to help decide what is served.

New Delhi has repeatedly pushed greater representation of the Global South, backed the African Union's elevation within the G20 and used its 2026 BRICS chairship to again place developing economies prominently on the agenda.

Africa has heard the compliments before. The continent of the future. The world's youngest continent. A mineral powerhouse. The next great consumer market. An indispensable voice of the Global South. All true. But recognition without influence is merely applause. The New Delhi Declaration adopted at the BRICS Summit makes a powerful case for a more representative global order and greater participation by developing economies, particularly those from Africa, Asia and Latin America. That is welcome. But Africa should ask an uncomfortable question: where is its power in this emerging order? Africa has 54 countries and more than 1.5 billion people, yet only South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia are full members of BRICS. Nigeria and Uganda are partner countries. That is progress. It is not proportional power. And simply stuffing BRICS with dozens more members is not necessarily the solution either. Expansion without coordination risks creating another enormous international talking shop — impressive family photographs, lengthy declarations and very little ability to act. Africa therefore needs something more important than seats: a strategy. This is where the African Union should become central.

New Delhi has repeatedly pushed greater representation of the Global South, backed the African Union's elevation within the G20 and used its 2026 BRICS chairship to again place developing economies prominently on the agenda.

The Verdict | Africa is too big to remain a guest at the BRICS table

As the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi under India’s chairship concludes on Sunday (September 13), its greatest success would be the unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration. The detailed 45-page, 140-point document demonstrated that the expanded 11-member grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, the UAE and Saudi Arabia can still forge consensus despite their individual differences.<h2>Consensus language on West Asia conflict</h2>Consensus demanded intensive late-night negotiations lasting until 4 am. But consensus was achieved. What was thought to be insurmountable was achieved. Iran and the UAE had to be on board with the language on the West Asia conflict. In the backdrop was the failure to produce a joint statement on the same issue during the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting earlier in the year. As chair, India facilitated the carefully worded compromise. That included expressing serious concern over escalation, deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In what looked like a counterpoint to the US expression ‘maximum pressure’, the Delhi Declaration called for “maximum restraint.” It sought the protection of civilians, respect for sovereignty and a return to dialogue. There was no blame game. And the declaration was passed with no objections, as announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brics-summit-2026-pm-modi-praises-india-s-chairmanship-sends-critical-minerals-and-supply-chain-message-on-day-2-china-xi-jinping-present-1789277773320">BRICS Summit 2026: PM Modi's 'critical minerals' and 'supply chain' message on Day 2 in front of China's Xi</a><h2>No ambiguity on terrorism: Pahalgam attack condemned</h2>A sensitive topic for India, on which it did not always get the backing of China, terrorism was a closely-watched issue. The wording was important. The declaration explicitly condemned, in the strongest terms, the April 2025 Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir that left 26 people dead.It used zero-tolerance language on terrorism in all forms, cross-border movement of terrorists, financing and safe havens, and, most importantly, the ‘rejection of double standards’. Clearly, China concurred with the inclusion of such language.<h2>Support for India’s UNSC aspirations</h2>Mentioned among calls for comprehensive UN reform, including reform of the Security Council to make it more democratic, representative, effective and reflective of developing countries and the Global South, was support for India’s aspirations.China and Russia, the two permanent members of the UN Security Council from BRICS, reiterated their support for the aspirations of India and Brazil to play a greater role in the UN, including at the UNSC.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-new-delhi-declaration-adopted-with-full-consensus-a-diplomatic-win-for-india-1789283129951/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-new-delhi-declaration-adopted-with-full-consensus-a-diplomatic-win-for-india-1789283129951/embed</a><h2>Push against the West from tariffs to climate, but in subtle language</h2>It was not lost on anyone which countries the BRICS declaration was referring to when it pushed back against certain trade and climate measures. Trump tariffs and energy trade curbs have, in the past couple of years, affected several BRICS nations, particularly China, India, Russia and Brazil.The summit took a clear stance against unilateral tariffs and trade restrictions. This, as well as climate change measures such as the EU-led carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs), were described as potentially unilateral, punitive, discriminatory or protectionist and inconsistent with international law.The declaration called unilateral coercive measures and sanctions contrary to international law.It called for a better position for the Global South in key financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund &nbsp;and World Bank, as well as greater representation in global trade institutions such as the World Trade Organization.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/brics-at-20-the-rule-takers-want-to-become-rule-shapers-1789237550996">BRICS at 20: The rule-takers want to become rule-shapers</a><h2>United on economic and financial cooperation</h2>The declaration made it clear that the BRICS Payment Task Force is going to continue working towards efficient, fast and low-cost cross-border payments among member countries. Without mentioning dedollarisation or a BRICS currency, it advocated local-currency trade settlements and investments.There was also the establishment of the BRICS Task Force on Growth and Development, a proposed BRICS repository for digital public infrastructure with pilot projects, and a BRICS-New Development Bank Knowledge Portal.<h2>The China-India optics that went well</h2>The China-India dynamic was being keenly watched, given that President Xi Jinping was visiting the nation after a long gap. The group gave its support to China’s 2027 chairship.&nbsp;The group achieved consensus on a wide range of issues, including global governance, multilateralism, multipolarity, sustainable growth and people-to-people ties.The spirit was one of mutual respect. The prior deadlocks were resolved.&nbsp;BRICS Summit Declartion might be largely declaratory and initiative-based. But it is far better than the paralysis seen in several other regional and multilateral organisations.The Declaration was adopted on the first day of the summit itself. But its outcomes remain subject to subsequent implementation. That can happen only when the grouping remains consensus- and respect-based.

The New Delhi Declaration was marked a BRICS consensus on a range of issues, from West Asia, terrorism, India’s UNSC aspirations, trade restrictions, and Global South representation in global organisations. 


As the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi under India’s chairship concludes on Sunday (September 13), its greatest success would be the unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration. The detailed 45-page, 140-point document demonstrated that the expanded 11-member grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, the UAE and Saudi Arabia can still forge consensus despite their individual differences. Consensus language on West Asia conflict Consensus demanded intensive late-night negotiations lasting until 4 am. But consensus was achieved. What was thought to be insurmountable was achieved. Iran and the UAE had to be on board with the language on the West Asia conflict. In the backdrop was the failure to produce a joint statement on the same issue during the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting earlier in the year. As chair, India facilitated the carefully worded compromise. That included expressing serious concern over escalation, deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure and peaceful nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In what looked like a counterpoint to the US expression ‘maximum pressure’, the Delhi Declaration called for “maximum restraint.” It sought the protection of civilians, respect for sovereignty and a return to dialogue. There was no blame game. And the declaration was passed with no objections, as announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Also read: BRICS Summit 2026: PM Modi's 'critical minerals' and 'supply chain' message on Day 2 in front of China's Xi No ambiguity on terrorism: Pahalgam attack condemned A sensitive topic for India, on which it did not always get the backing of China, terrorism was a closely-watched issue. The wording was important. The declaration explicitly condemned, in the strongest terms, the April 2025 Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir that left 26 people dead. It used zero-tolerance language on terrorism in all forms, cross-border movement of terrorists, financing and safe havens, and, most importantly, the ‘rejection of double standards’. Clearly, China concurred with the inclusion of such language. Support for India’s UNSC aspirations Mentioned among calls for comprehensive UN reform, including reform of the Security Council to make it more democratic, representative, effective and reflective of developing countries and the Global South, was support for India’s aspirations. China and Russia, the two permanent members of the UN Security Council from BRICS, reiterated their support for the aspirations of India and Brazil to play a greater role in the UN, including at the UNSC. https://www.wionews.com/videos/brics-summit-2026-new-delhi-declaration-adopted-with-full-consensus-a-diplomatic-win-for-india-1789283129951/embed Push against the West from tariffs to climate, but in subtle language It was not lost on anyone which countries the BRICS declaration was referring to when it pushed back against certain trade and climate measures. Trump tariffs and energy trade curbs have, in the past couple of years, affected several BRICS nations, particularly China, India, Russia and Brazil. The summit took a clear stance against unilateral tariffs and trade restrictions. This, as well as climate change measures such as the EU-led carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs), were described as potentially unilateral, punitive, discriminatory or protectionist and inconsistent with international law. The declaration called unilateral coercive measures and sanctions contrary to international law. It called for a better position for the Global South in key financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, as well as greater representation in global trade institutions such as the World Trade Organization. Also read: BRICS at 20: The rule-takers want to become rule-shapers United on economic and financial cooperation The declaration made it clear that the BRICS Payment Task Force is going to continue working towards efficient, fast and low-cost cross-border payments among member countries. Without mentioning dedollarisation or a BRICS currency, it advocated local-currency trade settlements and investments. There was also the establishment of the BRICS Task Force on Growth and Development, a proposed BRICS repository for digital public infrastructure with pilot projects, and a BRICS-New Development Bank Knowledge Portal. The China-India optics that went well The China-India dynamic was being keenly watched, given that President Xi Jinping was visiting the nation after a long gap. The group gave its support to China’s 2027 chairship. The group achieved consensus on a wide range of issues, including global governance, multilateralism, multipolarity, sustainable growth and people-to-people ties. The spirit was one of mutual respect. The prior deadlocks were resolved. BRICS Summit Declartion might be largely declaratory and initiative-based. But it is far better than the paralysis seen in several other regional and multilateral organisations. The Declaration was adopted on the first day of the summit itself. But its outcomes remain subject to subsequent implementation. That can happen only when the grouping remains consensus- and respect-based.

The New Delhi Declaration marked a BRICS consensus on a range of issues, from West Asia, terrorism, India’s UNSC aspirations, trade restrictions, and Global South representation in global organisations.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Did BRICS Summit 2026 prove that an 11-member bloc with India and China in it can still agree on key issues?

Twenty years after the first BRIC foreign ministers met, the grouping has reached a moment that could define its next two decades. The message emerging from New Delhi is no longer simply that the Global South deserves to be heard. It is that developing and emerging powers want a greater role in deciding how the international system itself operates.Prime Minister Narendra Modi captured that ambition at the BRICS Summit by arguing that the Global South must move from being “rule-takers” to “rule-shapers.” It is a powerful formulation because it strikes at the fundamental complaint underlying BRICS: much of today's international architecture was designed around a distribution of power that no longer reflects today's world.The United Nations Security Council remains dominated by its five permanent members. Global financial institutions continue to face demands for greater developing-world representation. Meanwhile, new rules governing artificial intelligence, cyberspace, biotechnology, critical technologies and even outer space are being developed. BRICS wants the Global South involved in writing those rules rather than inheriting them.<h2>Consensus amid contradiction</h2>The unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration is therefore significant. BRICS is hardly a collection of natural allies. India and China have their own strategic competition. Russia and China often envisage BRICS as a stronger geopolitical counterweight to Western power, while India and Brazil have traditionally resisted turning the grouping into an explicitly anti-Western alliance.Then there are Iran and the United Arab Emirates, whose competing geopolitical interests made consensus particularly difficult amid escalating conflict in the Middle East. Yet New Delhi produced agreement.The declaration expressed deep concern over escalating Middle Eastern tensions, urged maximum restraint and reaffirmed peaceful settlement of international disputes through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy. BRICS members also raised concerns over unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures that distort international trade.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-verdict-brics-at-20-can-the-expanded-bloc-rewrite-the-rules-of-global-power-1789231807715/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-verdict-brics-at-20-can-the-expanded-bloc-rewrite-the-rules-of-global-power-1789231807715/embed</a>That does not suddenly transform BRICS into a unified geopolitical alliance. But the ability to put fundamentally different governments behind common language matters.<h2>A rival to the United Nations?</h2>Comparisons with the United Nations require caution. BRICS is not a universal organisation, does not possess the UN's treaty architecture and cannot replicate the Security Council or the UN's enormous network of international agencies. Nor does it necessarily need to. Its potential lies elsewhere.In an increasingly fragmented international system, BRICS could evolve into another centre of multilateral coordination — particularly for countries that believe their influence has not kept pace with their economic and demographic weight.Its members already account for more than 40 per cent of humanity and roughly a quarter of global economic output. The New Development Bank has meanwhile approved nearly $43 billion worth of projects, demonstrating that BRICS has already produced institutions beyond summit diplomacy. The bigger question is whether political declarations can now translate into sustained action.<h2>The test of adulthood</h2>At twenty, BRICS has reached what India describes as a “coming of age” moment. And adulthood brings responsibilities. It is easier to demand reform than to agree on what the replacement should look like. It is easier to criticise unequal global institutions than to reconcile the competing interests of ten very different BRICS members.That will determine whether BRICS becomes an enduring pillar of twenty-first-century multilateralism or remains primarily an annual platform for declarations. The significance of New Delhi therefore lies less in whether BRICS can overthrow the existing international order. India's proposition is more subtle — and perhaps more consequential.The world does not necessarily need another group of countries dictating the rules. It needs more countries participating in writing them. For decades, much of the Global South has lived within an international architecture largely designed elsewhere. At twenty, BRICS is signalling that it no longer intends merely to occupy a seat inside that architecture. It wants a hand in redesigning it.

Celebrating twenty years, BRICS aims to transform the Global South from rule-takers into rule-shapers. Reaching consensus in New Delhi, members advocate for multilateral global architecture reform, trade fairness, and inclusive rulemaking.

Twenty years after the first BRIC foreign ministers met, the grouping has reached a moment that could define its next two decades. The message emerging from New Delhi is no longer simply that the Global South deserves to be heard. It is that developing and emerging powers want a greater role in deciding how the international system itself operates. Prime Minister Narendra Modi captured that ambition at the BRICS Summit by arguing that the Global South must move from being “rule-takers” to “rule-shapers.” It is a powerful formulation because it strikes at the fundamental complaint underlying BRICS: much of today's international architecture was designed around a distribution of power that no longer reflects today's world. The United Nations Security Council remains dominated by its five permanent members. Global financial institutions continue to face demands for greater developing-world representation. Meanwhile, new rules governing artificial intelligence, cyberspace, biotechnology, critical technologies and even outer space are being developed. BRICS wants the Global South involved in writing those rules rather than inheriting them. Consensus amid contradiction The unanimous adoption of the New Delhi Declaration is therefore significant. BRICS is hardly a collection of natural allies. India and China have their own strategic competition. Russia and China often envisage BRICS as a stronger geopolitical counterweight to Western power, while India and Brazil have traditionally resisted turning the grouping into an explicitly anti-Western alliance. Then there are Iran and the United Arab Emirates, whose competing geopolitical interests made consensus particularly difficult amid escalating conflict in the Middle East. Yet New Delhi produced agreement. The declaration expressed deep concern over escalating Middle Eastern tensions, urged maximum restraint and reaffirmed peaceful settlement of international disputes through dialogue, consultation and diplomacy. BRICS members also raised concerns over unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures that distort international trade. https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-verdict-brics-at-20-can-the-expanded-bloc-rewrite-the-rules-of-global-power-1789231807715/embed That does not suddenly transform BRICS into a unified geopolitical alliance. But the ability to put fundamentally different governments behind common language matters. A rival to the United Nations? Comparisons with the United Nations require caution. BRICS is not a universal organisation, does not possess the UN's treaty architecture and cannot replicate the Security Council or the UN's enormous network of international agencies. Nor does it necessarily need to. Its potential lies elsewhere. In an increasingly fragmented international system, BRICS could evolve into another centre of multilateral coordination — particularly for countries that believe their influence has not kept pace with their economic and demographic weight. Its members already account for more than 40 per cent of humanity and roughly a quarter of global economic output. The New Development Bank has meanwhile approved nearly $43 billion worth of projects, demonstrating that BRICS has already produced institutions beyond summit diplomacy. The bigger question is whether political declarations can now translate into sustained action. The test of adulthood At twenty, BRICS has reached what India describes as a “coming of age” moment. And adulthood brings responsibilities. It is easier to demand reform than to agree on what the replacement should look like. It is easier to criticise unequal global institutions than to reconcile the competing interests of ten very different BRICS members. That will determine whether BRICS becomes an enduring pillar of twenty-first-century multilateralism or remains primarily an annual platform for declarations. The significance of New Delhi therefore lies less in whether BRICS can overthrow the existing international order. India's proposition is more subtle — and perhaps more consequential. The world does not necessarily need another group of countries dictating the rules. It needs more countries participating in writing them. For decades, much of the Global South has lived within an international architecture largely designed elsewhere. At twenty, BRICS is signalling that it no longer intends merely to occupy a seat inside that architecture. It wants a hand in redesigning it.

Celebrating twenty years, BRICS aims to transform the Global South from rule-takers into rule-shapers. Reaching consensus in New Delhi, members advocate for multilateral global architecture reform, trade fairness, and inclusive rulemaking.

BRICS at 20: The rule-takers want to become rule-shapers

Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, America once again pauses to read the names, lower the flags and remember nearly 3,000 people murdered on a morning that transformed the United States and much of the world.But a quarter-century later, remembrance alone may no longer be enough.The more difficult question is whether America learned from what followed.September 11 produced an extraordinary moment of national unity. It also unleashed a global War on Terror that would span presidencies, continents and generations.George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government that sheltered it. But his administration then invaded Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that were never found.Barack Obama eventually oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, but his administration dramatically expanded America's use of drone warfare.Joe Biden ended America's longest war by withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2021, but the chaotic final evacuation from Kabul left another painful image in the history of the conflict.Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran.That contradiction becomes even sharper when compared with American public opinion.A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds 48 per cent of Americans believe the Afghanistan war was not worth its toll and 51 per cent say the same about Iraq. Just 25 per cent believe the current Iran conflict has been worth it.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | 25 years after 9/11, America remembers. But after Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran — and a rising fear of extremism from within — has America actually learned? THE VERDICT with <a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/September11?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#September11</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/911Anniversary?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#911Anniversary</a> <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/TheVerdict?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheVerdict</a> <a href="https://t.co/YLzzYu9mfH">pic.twitter.com/YLzzYu9mfH</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2098452221021352377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<h2>The threat came home</h2>Perhaps the greatest transformation, however, is in what Americans now fear.September 11 focused American attention overwhelmingly on terrorism originating overseas.Today, 61 per cent of Americans say ideology-driven attacks by domestic extremists pose the greater threat, compared with 34 per cent who point to extremists abroad. When asked more broadly about threats to ordinary Americans, mass shootings ranked even higher.America spent decades hunting terrorism thousands of kilometres from its shores. Twenty-five years later, its citizens increasingly fear violence emerging from within their own country.That is an extraordinary reversal.<h2>The people 9/11 never stopped killing</h2>Then there is another legacy — one measured not in geopolitics but in hospital wards.Thousands of first responders, recovery workers, survivors and residents have suffered illnesses associated with exposure to the toxic aftermath of the World Trade Center collapse. This year's commemoration even added, for the first time, a moment of silence for people who later died from 9/11-related illnesses.And just days before the anniversary, Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration released the first 170,000 pages of previously withheld city records concerning air quality and the government's response after the attacks. The release followed years of litigation and campaigning by 9/11 advocates. More documents are expected over the next year.It creates a striking political juxtaposition.Former mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose public image became inseparable from his leadership after September 11, has been among Mamdani's fiercest critics. Yet Mamdani's administration is now opening records concerning what City Hall knew about toxic conditions after Ground Zero and when it knew it.For survivors and families, accountability cannot end with memorial ceremonies."Never forget" must also mean never forgetting those who survived the morning but have spent decades living with its consequences.<h2>America's unfinished lesson</h2>There is no denying that America changed after September 11.Airport security was transformed. Intelligence agencies were reorganised. Al-Qaeda's leadership was devastated. Osama bin Laden was killed.But America also paid heavily for some of the choices made in the shadow of those burning towers: long wars, expanded surveillance, enormous expenditure, civilian casualties abroad and deep political arguments at home.A quarter-century later, America is considerably more politically divided than the country that briefly united on September 12, 2001. The Financial Times notes how starkly today's polarisation contrasts with the extraordinary national solidarity immediately following the attacks.That may be the uncomfortable lesson of this anniversary.Grief without reflection can become policy.Fear without restraint can become war.And remembrance without accountability can become ceremony.America has kept its promise to never forget September 11.Twenty-five years later, the harder question is whether it has finally learned from everything that came after.&nbsp;

Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran.

Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, America once again pauses to read the names, lower the flags and remember nearly 3,000 people murdered on a morning that transformed the United States and much of the world. But a quarter-century later, remembrance alone may no longer be enough. The more difficult question is whether America learned from what followed. September 11 produced an extraordinary moment of national unity. It also unleashed a global War on Terror that would span presidencies, continents and generations. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government that sheltered it. But his administration then invaded Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that were never found. Barack Obama eventually oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, but his administration dramatically expanded America's use of drone warfare. Joe Biden ended America's longest war by withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2021, but the chaotic final evacuation from Kabul left another painful image in the history of the conflict. Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran. That contradiction becomes even sharper when compared with American public opinion. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll finds 48 per cent of Americans believe the Afghanistan war was not worth its toll and 51 per cent say the same about Iraq. Just 25 per cent believe the current Iran conflict has been worth it.

Donald Trump built part of his political identity around rejecting America's "endless wars". Yet 25 years after 9/11, the United States once again finds itself fighting a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict — this time against Iran.

The Verdict | 25 years after 9/11: America remembers — but has it learned?

Donald Trump wants Americans to believe several things at once.The Iran war — or “military conflict,” as he has also called it — will end immediately after the November midterms. Iran cannot hold out much longer. Republicans must retain Congress. And if they do, every American adult could receive a $5,000 “Trump dividend.”There is only one problem.The arithmetic, the battlefield and even some of Trump's own advisers appear to be telling a different story.A war with two deadlinesTrump says Iran will not be able to sustain its resistance beyond the midterm elections.Yet the Wall Street Journal reports that senior advisers including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have privately discussed with Trump the possibility that Tehran could withstand American pressure through the remainder of his presidency — potentially beyond January 2029.That is not a minor difference.It is the difference between weeks and years.It also exposes the strange ambiguity surrounding America's confrontation with Iran. Trump himself has played down the terminology, describing it as a “military conflict” and “small potatoes” for the United States.But terminology cannot alter consequences.Americans are dead. Military assets are deployed. Oil markets have been disrupted. Fuel prices have become a political liability. And Washington is threatening further strikes against Iran.Call it a war or call it a military conflict. Americans ultimately experience its consequences through lives, prices and public money.Welcome to the Trump showThen came Dallas.Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election.Trump made clear who the central character was.“I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” he told supporters.The convention became so centred on the president that Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters informally called it “Trumpapalooza.”But the spectacle also exposed the risk of building an entire congressional election around one man.Several Republicans facing difficult races stayed away. Trump described the arena as packed, although reporters observed largely empty sections in the upper levels. Online viewership was modest.The show was enormous.Whether the enthusiasm matched it is another question.$5,000 for a Republican victoryThen came Trump's biggest promise.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://x.com/hashtag/RaceToPower?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RaceToPower</a> | A war that ends after an election. A $5,000 cheque if Republicans win. A bill that could hit $1.35 TRILLION. Trump says: pretend he&#39;s on the ballot. But who pays for the promises? Tonight&#39;s <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/TheVerdict?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TheVerdict</a> with <a href="https://x.com/eriknjoka?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@eriknjoka</a> <a href="https://t.co/JZTgjHxqHB">pic.twitter.com/JZTgjHxqHB</a>&mdash; WION (@WIONews) <a href="https://x.com/WIONews/status/2098081923126141031?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

If Republicans retain the House and Senate, Trump says he will issue a $5,000 dividend to every American adult.It is an extraordinary proposition.With roughly 270 million American adults, distributing $5,000 to each would cost approximately $1.35 trillion.And that follows Trump's earlier proposal for a $2,000 tariff dividend — another cash promise that never materialised.Critics immediately asked the obvious question: is promising voters money if your party wins effectively buying political support?Legally, the answer is more complicated than the accusation. The proposed payment is not directly conditioned on an individual casting a Republican vote, and any actual distribution would require congressional approval.Politically, however, the optics are extraordinary.Vote Republican, Trump says, and there could be $5,000 waiting on the other side.But where does $1.35 trillion come from?That is the question the spectacle could not answer.The United States is already running enormous annual deficits and carrying a colossal national debt.American households remain concerned about affordability. The Iran conflict has put additional pressure on energy prices. Tariffs have created their own costs.Trump's answer to economic anxiety is now another enormous cheque.But governments cannot create $1.35 trillion without consequences.Either the money must come from additional revenue, spending cuts, borrowing — or some combination of all three.A dividend without a credible funding mechanism is not an economic programme.It is a promise.The Democrat at the Republican conventionThere was another extraordinary moment in Dallas.Democratic Senator John Fetterman appeared by video to introduce Republican Senator Dave McCormick, describing him as a friend and promising cooperation with Trump to protect Pennsylvania's steel industry.For Democrats, the optics were uncomfortable.But suggestions that Fetterman had somehow been “bought” go beyond the available evidence. He subsequently reaffirmed that he remains a Democrat.What his appearance demonstrated instead was something more politically interesting: the ideological fractures inside America's parties are becoming increasingly difficult to conceal.And then there is VenezuelaBehind the spectacle and the cheques sits another extraordinary economic gamble.Washington has taken a 35% position, structured through warrants, in a Venezuelan oil venture as the Trump administration attempts to turn access to Venezuela's enormous petroleum reserves into an American strategic asset.Trump has promoted the Venezuelan arrangement as a route toward greater energy security and lower fuel prices.The attraction is obvious.A prolonged confrontation with Iran threatens energy flows through the Gulf. Venezuela possesses the world's largest proven oil reserves. Washington therefore has powerful incentives to diversify where its energy security comes from.But this too raises questions.The Venezuelan arrangement has already attracted scrutiny over its structure, legality and the extraordinary involvement of the Pentagon in a commercial oil venture.America is therefore fighting — or conducting a “military conflict” — against one major oil power while simultaneously deepening its economic leverage over another.That may prove strategic foresight.It may also demonstrate just how complicated and expensive America's new geopolitical order is becoming.Reality versus spectacleThis was ultimately the contradiction running through Dallas.Trump spoke about American greatness while voters worry about affordability.He promised $5,000 cheques while the government is already deeply in deficit.He predicted an imminent end to the Iran conflict while his own advisers reportedly contemplate a struggle lasting years.He asked Americans to pretend that his name is on the ballot.Perhaps that was the most revealing statement of the convention.Because November increasingly appears to be about Donald Trump — his war, his economy, his promises and his political survival.But Americans cannot pay grocery bills with political theatre.They cannot fill their tanks with applause.And before Washington writes a $1.35 trillion cheque, voters are entitled to ask the simplest question of all:Who is going to pay for it?

Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election. Trump made clear who the central character was.

Donald Trump wants Americans to believe several things at once. The Iran war — or “military conflict,” as he has also called it — will end immediately after the November midterms. Iran cannot hold out much longer. Republicans must retain Congress. And if they do, every American adult could receive a $5,000 “Trump dividend.” There is only one problem. The arithmetic, the battlefield and even some of Trump's own advisers appear to be telling a different story. A war with two deadlines Trump says Iran will not be able to sustain its resistance beyond the midterm elections. Yet the Wall Street Journal reports that senior advisers including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have privately discussed with Trump the possibility that Tehran could withstand American pressure through the remainder of his presidency — potentially beyond January 2029. That is not a minor difference. It is the difference between weeks and years. It also exposes the strange ambiguity surrounding America's confrontation with Iran. Trump himself has played down the terminology, describing it as a “military conflict” and “small potatoes” for the United States. But terminology cannot alter consequences. Americans are dead. Military assets are deployed. Oil markets have been disrupted. Fuel prices have become a political liability. And Washington is threatening further strikes against Iran. Call it a war or call it a military conflict. Americans ultimately experience its consequences through lives, prices and public money. Welcome to the Trump show Then came Dallas. Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election. Trump made clear who the central character was. “I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” he told supporters. The convention became so centred on the president that Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters informally called it “Trumpapalooza.” But the spectacle also exposed the risk of building an entire congressional election around one man. Several Republicans facing difficult races stayed away. Trump described the arena as packed, although reporters observed largely empty sections in the upper levels. Online viewership was modest. The show was enormous. Whether the enthusiasm matched it is another question. $5,000 for a Republican victory Then came Trump's biggest promise.

Republicans staged their first-ever midterm convention, an unusual spectacle designed to energise a party facing a difficult November election. Trump made clear who the central character was.

The Trump Show: A $5,000 promise, a war without an end and a trillion-dollar question | The Verdict

Alice Weidel embodies one of the strangest contradictions in European politics.She leads a party fiercely opposed to mass immigration, yet her partner is Sri Lanka-born. She is in a same-sex relationship while leading a political movement that has championed the traditional heterosexual family. She raises children with her partner while her party has fought liberalisation of family policy. And the woman selling German nationalism has spent significant parts of her private life in Switzerland.Then there is economics. The former investment banker carries distinctly market-oriented instincts while commanding a populist movement drawing heavily from workers who feel abandoned by Germany's political and economic establishment.Welcome to the paradox of Germany's Alternative für Deutschland.Except the AfD is no longer merely an alternative.It is becoming a dominant political force.In Saxony-Anhalt, voters handed the AfD an extraordinary 43.8 per cent of the vote. Chancellor Friedrich Merz's CDU managed just 17.2 per cent. The AfD secured 39 of the state parliament's 83 seats — short of governing alone, but comfortably the largest party.The political shockwaves have reached Berlin.Merz described himself as deeply shocked and acknowledged a devastating defeat. Former chancellor Angela Merkel has also reacted with dismay. Meanwhile, thousands have taken to German streets protesting the AfD's advance.But protests cannot erase ballots.And that presents Europe's liberal establishment with an uncomfortable democratic dilemma.If an election is free and fair, what happens when voters choose the political movement the establishment has spent years warning them against?AfD's opponents have legitimate concerns. Germany's history makes scrutiny of extremist rhetoric especially important. Its Saxony-Anhalt branch has been classified as right-wing extremist by the state's domestic intelligence authorities.But condemning a political movement is not the same thing as understanding why people vote for it.Immigration. Economic insecurity. National identity. Cultural anxiety. Anger at established politicians. Frustration with institutions voters believe no longer listen to them.These forces are not confined to Germany.Across Europe, nationalist and right-wing populist movements have moved from the political fringes towards government, parliament and increasingly the mainstream.Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump's movement speaks much of the same political language: borders, sovereignty, cultural conservatism, national pride and rebellion against an establishment accused of abandoning ordinary citizens.Yet there is a crucial difference.

America's populist Right captured one of the country's two dominant political parties. Europe's insurgent Right operates through multiple parties and political systems, often confronting coalition barriers designed to keep it away from executive power.And inevitably, Germany's history hangs over this debate.Comparisons with the interwar years must be handled carefully. Europe in 2026 is not Europe in 1933. Its constitutions, institutions and political conditions are fundamentally different, and today's right-wing movements cannot simply be labelled replicas of twentieth-century fascism.But history offers warnings rather than photocopies.Economic anxiety, resentment towards political elites, arguments over national identity, hostility towards outsiders and the conviction that existing institutions no longer represent ordinary citizens all existed in Europe's darkest political periods.That does not mean history is repeating itself.It means politicians would be foolish not to listen when history rhymes.The lesson from Saxony-Anhalt therefore extends far beyond the AfD.Europe's establishment can build firewalls. It can organise protests. It can condemn extremists and challenge rhetoric that threatens minorities or democratic institutions.But none of those things answers the most important question:Why are so many voters moving Right in the first place?Until Europe's political centre answers that question convincingly, the insurgency will continue.The Right is no longer knocking on Europe's door.Voters are increasingly handing it the keys.

AfD's opponents have legitimate concerns. Germany's history makes scrutiny of extremist rhetoric especially important. Its Saxony-Anhalt branch has been classified as right-wing extremist by the state's domestic intelligence authorities.

Alice Weidel embodies one of the strangest contradictions in European politics. She leads a party fiercely opposed to mass immigration, yet her partner is Sri Lanka-born. She is in a same-sex relationship while leading a political movement that has championed the traditional heterosexual family. She raises children with her partner while her party has fought liberalisation of family policy. And the woman selling German nationalism has spent significant parts of her private life in Switzerland. Then there is economics. The former investment banker carries distinctly market-oriented instincts while commanding a populist movement drawing heavily from workers who feel abandoned by Germany's political and economic establishment. Welcome to the paradox of Germany's Alternative für Deutschland. Except the AfD is no longer merely an alternative. It is becoming a dominant political force. In Saxony-Anhalt, voters handed the AfD an extraordinary 43.8 per cent of the vote. Chancellor Friedrich Merz's CDU managed just 17.2 per cent. The AfD secured 39 of the state parliament's 83 seats — short of governing alone, but comfortably the largest party. The political shockwaves have reached Berlin. Merz described himself as deeply shocked and acknowledged a devastating defeat. Former chancellor Angela Merkel has also reacted with dismay. Meanwhile, thousands have taken to German streets protesting the AfD's advance. But protests cannot erase ballots. And that presents Europe's liberal establishment with an uncomfortable democratic dilemma. If an election is free and fair, what happens when voters choose the political movement the establishment has spent years warning them against? AfD's opponents have legitimate concerns. Germany's history makes scrutiny of extremist rhetoric especially important. Its Saxony-Anhalt branch has been classified as right-wing extremist by the state's domestic intelligence authorities. But condemning a political movement is not the same thing as understanding why people vote for it. Immigration. Economic insecurity. National identity. Cultural anxiety. Anger at established politicians. Frustration with institutions voters believe no longer listen to them. These forces are not confined to Germany. Across Europe, nationalist and right-wing populist movements have moved from the political fringes towards government, parliament and increasingly the mainstream. Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump's movement speaks much of the same political language: borders, sovereignty, cultural conservatism, national pride and rebellion against an establishment accused of abandoning ordinary citizens. Yet there is a crucial difference.

AfD's opponents have legitimate concerns. Germany's history makes scrutiny of extremist rhetoric especially important. Its Saxony-Anhalt branch has been classified as right-wing extremist by the state's domestic intelligence authorities.

Europe turns right: The revolution the establishment cannot ignore | The Verdict

India is hosting the 18th BRICS Summit on 12 and 13 September. For many years, the West...America and Europe...have seen the grouping as a threat.&nbsp;So, is it really a threat?&nbsp;Well, BRICS is not trying to conquer the world. However, it is definitely challenging the idea that the West owns the world.&nbsp;For decades, the global order was largely written, financed and enforced by Western powers. Institutions like the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund remained heavily tilted toward the realities of 1945, World War II, and not the realities of 2026.&nbsp;BRICS is an attempt to tell the world that times have changed, and inclusivity is the need of the hour.&nbsp;What is in it for India?&nbsp;India has never been anti-West, it has been non-West. And the difference lies in the name.&nbsp;India's objective is strategic autonomy...the freedom to work with America, Russia, Europe, Japan, the Gulf, Africa and China simultaneously, without compromising on any relationship. And that is precisely why BRICS matters.&nbsp;BRICS gives India the leverage to demand reform of institutions that no longer adequately represent the developing world....for instance, the UNSC. It gives the global south strong bargaining power. It can help create alternatives in finance, trade and technology. and it sends a very simple message: the age of one power writing the rules for everyone else is ending.&nbsp;Remember, BRICS is not NATO. It's not a military alliance. So, it's not a politically aligned group, but has diverse membership, reflecting wide-ranging political systems, economic agendas, and strategic priorities. A genuinely multipolar world that will serve everyone.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, not anti-American. Not pro-Chinese. not anti-Western. BRICS makes the international order truly international.&nbsp;So when you watch the BRICS Summit unfold in New Delhi this weekend, remember that the only agenda that India has in BRICS is to be pro-India.

For decades, the global order was largely written, financed and enforced by Western powers. Institutions like the UN, World Bank and International Monetary Fund remained heavily tilted. BRICS is an attempt to tell the world that times have changed, and inclusivity is the need of the hour.

India is hosting the 18th BRICS Summit on 12 and 13 September. For many years, the West...America and Europe...have seen the grouping as a threat. So, is it really a threat? Well, BRICS is not trying to conquer the world. However, it is definitely challenging the idea that the West owns the world. For decades, the global order was largely written, financed and enforced by Western powers. Institutions like the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund remained heavily tilted toward the realities of 1945, World War II, and not the realities of 2026. BRICS is an attempt to tell the world that times have changed, and inclusivity is the need of the hour. What is in it for India? India has never been anti-West, it has been non-West. And the difference lies in the name. India's objective is strategic autonomy...the freedom to work with America, Russia, Europe, Japan, the Gulf, Africa and China simultaneously, without compromising on any relationship. And that is precisely why BRICS matters. BRICS gives India the leverage to demand reform of institutions that no longer adequately represent the developing world....for instance, the UNSC. It gives the global south strong bargaining power. It can help create alternatives in finance, trade and technology. and it sends a very simple message: the age of one power writing the rules for everyone else is ending. Remember, BRICS is not NATO. It's not a military alliance. So, it's not a politically aligned group, but has diverse membership, reflecting wide-ranging political systems, economic agendas, and strategic priorities. A genuinely multipolar world that will serve everyone. So, not anti-American. Not pro-Chinese. not anti-Western. BRICS makes the international order truly international. So when you watch the BRICS Summit unfold in New Delhi this weekend, remember that the only agenda that India has in BRICS is to be pro-India.

For decades, the global order was largely written, financed and enforced by Western powers. Institutions like the UN, World Bank and International Monetary Fund remained heavily tilted. BRICS is an attempt to tell the world that times have changed, and inclusivity is the need of the hour.

BRICS is not anti-West, it’s just challenging the West’s monopoly on power | The Verdict

Stop calling the Satya Niketan building collapse an 'accident.' Call it human greed. Shame on every corrupt official, politician and owner whose corruption and negligence have led to students losing their lives. This tragedy was waiting to happen, and let me warn you - it can happen at many other places in Delhi.&nbsp;For those of you who have grown up in Delhi, or studied in South Campus colleges, you would know how cramped Satya Niketan has always been.&nbsp;For more than 15 years, Satya Niketan has been a chaotic mix of illegal expansion, hanging wires, and narrow lanes.&nbsp;I have three questions today.&nbsp;My first question tonight is to the MCD: how did you let house owners construct illegally?&nbsp;In most cases, there is no on-paper record of approvals. How are building after building allowed to expand, wall-to-wall, without any adherence to the law?&nbsp;What, and up to which rank, is corruption happening?&nbsp;My second question is to every political party that has governed Delhi so far: why did you not stop illegal violations in Satya Niketan, which were happening right under your nose?&nbsp;When you ruled Delhi, what were you doing?&nbsp;This has not happened suddenly. It has been allowed to happen. So if you are questioning, question yourselves too. Successive governments, for decades, have promised action against illegal construction. Notices are issued. Yet unauthorised construction continues across the city.&nbsp;And my third and final question is to the owners of these houses: when will your greed for money end?For some extra rent, you put students' lives in danger and break rule after rule.&nbsp;Unfortunately, in Delhi, enforcement often begins after the body bags come out, as they are now.Could this have been prevented? Yes, entirely.&nbsp;What's the solution now? Clean the local civic agencies of corrupt officials irrespective of rank, tighten the noose around local netas, audit every structure in Delhi and follow the rules laid out.&nbsp;The Satya Niketan tragedy is a heart-wrenching example of failed governance, corruption and negligence. We are sitting on a ticking time bomb, and preventive action needs to be taken from this very second. &nbsp;

Satya Niketan collapse called 'human greed', not an accident. The author blames decades of illegal construction, MCD corruption and political inaction; questions house owners' greed and demands accountability, audits and enforcement before more lives are lost.

Stop calling the Satya Niketan building collapse an 'accident.' Call it human greed. Shame on every corrupt official, politician and owner whose corruption and negligence have led to students losing their lives. This tragedy was waiting to happen, and let me warn you - it can happen at many other places in Delhi. For those of you who have grown up in Delhi, or studied in South Campus colleges, you would know how cramped Satya Niketan has always been. For more than 15 years, Satya Niketan has been a chaotic mix of illegal expansion, hanging wires, and narrow lanes. I have three questions today. My first question tonight is to the MCD: how did you let house owners construct illegally? In most cases, there is no on-paper record of approvals. How are building after building allowed to expand, wall-to-wall, without any adherence to the law? What, and up to which rank, is corruption happening? My second question is to every political party that has governed Delhi so far: why did you not stop illegal violations in Satya Niketan, which were happening right under your nose? When you ruled Delhi, what were you doing? This has not happened suddenly. It has been allowed to happen. So if you are questioning, question yourselves too. Successive governments, for decades, have promised action against illegal construction. Notices are issued. Yet unauthorised construction continues across the city. And my third and final question is to the owners of these houses: when will your greed for money end? For some extra rent, you put students' lives in danger and break rule after rule. Unfortunately, in Delhi, enforcement often begins after the body bags come out, as they are now. Could this have been prevented? Yes, entirely. What's the solution now? Clean the local civic agencies of corrupt officials irrespective of rank, tighten the noose around local netas, audit every structure in Delhi and follow the rules laid out. The Satya Niketan tragedy is a heart-wrenching example of failed governance, corruption and negligence. We are sitting on a ticking time bomb, and preventive action needs to be taken from this very second.

Satya Niketan collapse called 'human greed', not an accident. The author blames decades of illegal construction, MCD corruption and political inaction; questions house owners' greed and demands accountability, audits and enforcement before more lives are lost.

The Verdict | Satya Niketan building collapse wasn’t an accident. It was a failure of governance

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

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

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

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

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

Pakistan wants the world to see it as a peacemaker in the US-Iran war. Well, you cannot present yourself as a peacemaker while continuing to kill civilians in Afghanistan. Even though Asim Munir and Shehbaz Sharif have portrayed themselves as the peacemakers to US President Donald trump, their own backyard has skeletons of civilians, including children and women, buried. The right to defend yourself does not give any government a free pass to put civilian lives at risk.&nbsp;Pakistan's credibility has always been questionable. If Islamabad is calling for restraint and dialogue in the Iran conflict, then those same principles must apply to Afghanistan. Peace in Iran, but military pressure on Afghanistan: Munir's actions continue to contradict his own position. If Pakistan genuinely wants to play the role of mediator in West Asia, it should first demonstrate that it can apply the same standards to its own neighbourhood.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/i-wouldn-t-call-it-a-war-says-jd-vance-on-ongoing-conflict-with-iran-1788467837247">‘I wouldn’t call it a war,’ says JD Vance on ongoing conflict with Iran</a>&nbsp;Pakistan does not have to choose between defending its people and respecting Afghan civilians. A responsible state is expected to do both. You see, the real test of diplomacy is not what you say when the world's cameras are watching. It is what you do when dealing with your own neighbours. Credibility is earned through consistent action, not dramatic and diplomatic speeches.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/short-videos/pakistan-s-internal-war-ttp-attacks-expose-growing-security-crisis-1788500084641/embed">https://www.wionews.com/short-videos/pakistan-s-internal-war-ttp-attacks-expose-growing-security-crisis-1788500084641/embed</a>&nbsp;You cannot demand restraint from others while using force against your innocents. If Pakistan wants to be taken seriously as a regional peacemaker, it must first show that peace is a principle, not a position it adopts only when it suits its interests.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

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

Pakistan wants the world to see it as a peacemaker in the US-Iran war. Well, you cannot present yourself as a peacemaker while continuing to kill civilians in Afghanistan. Even though Asim Munir and Shehbaz Sharif have portrayed themselves as the peacemakers to US President Donald trump, their own backyard has skeletons of civilians, including children and women, buried. The right to defend yourself does not give any government a free pass to put civilian lives at risk. Pakistan's credibility has always been questionable. If Islamabad is calling for restraint and dialogue in the Iran conflict, then those same principles must apply to Afghanistan. Peace in Iran, but military pressure on Afghanistan: Munir's actions continue to contradict his own position. If Pakistan genuinely wants to play the role of mediator in West Asia, it should first demonstrate that it can apply the same standards to its own neighbourhood. Also Read: ‘I wouldn’t call it a war,’ says JD Vance on ongoing conflict with Iran Pakistan does not have to choose between defending its people and respecting Afghan civilians. A responsible state is expected to do both. You see, the real test of diplomacy is not what you say when the world's cameras are watching. It is what you do when dealing with your own neighbours. Credibility is earned through consistent action, not dramatic and diplomatic speeches. https://www.wionews.com/short-videos/pakistan-s-internal-war-ttp-attacks-expose-growing-security-crisis-1788500084641/embed You cannot demand restraint from others while using force against your innocents. If Pakistan wants to be taken seriously as a regional peacemaker, it must first show that peace is a principle, not a position it adopts only when it suits its interests. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Verdict | Putin is isolated — but not alone

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

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

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

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

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

Chief Minister Vijay's TVK-led coalition government in Tamil Nadu is just entering its fourth month at the helm of the state's affairs. Well within what is regarded as the six-month honeymoon period of a new Government, cracks are already appearing between the TVK and its major ally Congress. Despite the warm personal rapport and bonhomie seen between Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Chief Minister Vijay during the latter’s swearing-in ceremony, TVK Ministers and MLAs have been relentlessly projecting CM Vijay as a possible Prime Ministerial candidate for the 2029 Lok Sabha polls. If the recent remarks of Congress MLA and Tamil Nadu Tourism Minister Rajesh Kumar are any indication, it is clear that the Congress is extremely unhappy over attempts by a section of the TVK to project Vijay as a possible PM candidate. That too, while being in alliance with the Congress which has been pitching for India's Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi as the Prime Ministerial face.&nbsp;&nbsp;Speaking at a Congress party event in his native district Kanyakumari, Tourism Minister and Congress MLA Rajesh Kumar recently made Congress' stance amply clear. "In the 2029 Lok Sabha polls, our leader Rahul Gandhi will be elected as the Prime Minister... If TVK does not accept this, the two Congress Ministers in Tamil Nadu will not continue in these roles. Congress party means everything to us. Without Congress party, I am nothing... the Congress movement is everything. If Congress party wants us to resign tomorrow, we will resign the next moment. Every party can have their own stance and policies. For every one of us in the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi is our face."&nbsp;&nbsp;Minister Rajesh Kumar's comments and its timing would give the impression that the differences between TVK and Congress are primarily over who would be the Prime Ministerial face. However, there is more to it than meets the eye. Though the TVK-led coalition has been in power for less than four months, a lot of differences and tensions have been simmering under the surface, far beneath the public glare. It would be fair to assume that the comments by Minister Rajesh Kumar carried the weight of all those unheard and unaddressed concerns that the Congress has been having with the TVK.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>A coalition that does not have a convenor and grievance redressal mechanism&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;While the TVK Government celebrated its 100 days in power and is now stepping into its fourth month, there has been minimal progress regarding the structure of the overall TVK-led alliance, which comprises the Congress (five MLAs), VCK (two MLAs), IIUML (two MLAs) and the outside support of the Left parties (four MLAs). In all these months, Chief Minister Vijay chaired only a single meeting involving allied parties.&nbsp;&nbsp;Even now, a convenor is yet to be appointed to address the differing opinions that are emerging among coalition partners. At a more basic level, this alliance remains without a formal name. It is being known only as the TVK-led coalition.&nbsp;&nbsp;So far, there have been no discussions regarding a common minimum programme to reflect the electoral promises of the coalition partners. As a result, the alliance may appear directionless. This situation has led to feelings of dissatisfaction among the Congress party members, and party cadre have started to express their grievances with this new government.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Congress was given 2 Ministers and 1 MP. Is that it?&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;For the support provided by the five MLAs, TVK granted two Ministerial berths and a Rajya Sabha MP seat to the Congress. However, questions remain within the Congress on whether the party has gotten its due share in several other politically appointed roles within Tamil Nadu.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Tamil Nadu Government has completed the appointments of government pleaders and public prosecutors, chairpersons for various boards across government departments, with opportunities predominantly being extended to members of Vijay's TVK, while those from allied parties are being kept at bay.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is noteworthy that there has been a lack of adequate negotiations or consultations between the TVK and its coalition partners in this regard. Many senior and junior workers of the Congress who had been awaiting fair opportunities within the legal system have expressed significant disappointment regarding the outcomes of this process. The growing discontent among the Congress party members is becoming increasingly apparent.&nbsp;&nbsp;Several inquiries regarding the fairness of recent decisions are being directed towards the senior leadership of the Tamil Nadu Congress. When a potential candidate for a significant position approached the Congress ministers or the state leadership, they were unable to provide satisfactory responses.&nbsp;&nbsp;Furthermore, Parliamentarian Praveen Charavarthy, who was once considered an adroit negotiator with the TVK, now appears to lack a voice in these discussions. There is currently a lack of clarity regarding the reasons for the delay in appointing a convenor for the alliance and the rationale behind the approach of the TVK in filling government positions with only their own people.&nbsp;&nbsp;Is it to be perceived that the TVK leadership has conveyed to the Congress High Command in Delhi, as well as to the leadership of the other coalition parties, that their due share in power has already been allocated?&nbsp;&nbsp;How to seal the cracks? The way ahead for the TVK-led coalition...&nbsp;&nbsp;Chief Minister Joseph Vijay's electoral victory represents a significant milestone in the political landscape of Tamil Nadu. This achievement is noteworthy as it has contributed to liberating the Congress Party and other political entities from the popular perception among Dravidian parties that coalition governments are ill-suited for the state.&nbsp;&nbsp;Meanwhile, it is essential to recognize the potential risks associated with presenting the TVK as the preeminent force within the coalition, while characterizing allies (Congress, VCK, IUML) as mere numerical supporters. This imbalance in representation could jeopardize the integrity of the significant alliance-related commitments outlined by Chief Minister Vijay during his election campaigns.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is crucial to confront and address these issues and differences promptly. Tackling these issues will facilitate a more equitable recognition of all parties as valuable contributors to the coalition's objectives, particularly in anticipation of the forthcoming local body elections and the 2029 parliamentary elections.&nbsp;&nbsp;Therefore, the adoption of the longstanding Kerala model of coalition governance, along with the establishment of a structured alliance framework, is essential and should be prioritized. It is necessary to establish a new name for the alliance, appoint conveners at the state, district, and block levels, facilitate an equitable allocation of power, and advance discussions and consultations among all coalition partners in preparation for the local body elections.&nbsp;&nbsp;These actions are critical for promoting unity in the face of challenges posed by the Dravidian parties, within the state assembly and in the broader context. This strategy is not merely a choice; it is a vital commitment for coalition parties, particularly the Congress party in Tamil Nadu, to embrace the aspirations of their supporters and to celebrate the shared enthusiasm inspired by the leadership of the TVK.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

Chief Minister Vijay's TVK-led coalition government in Tamil Nadu is just entering its fourth month at the helm of the state's affairs. Well within what is regarded as the six-month honeymoon period of a new Government, cracks are already appearing between the TVK and its major ally Congress. Despite the warm personal rapport and bonhomie seen between Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Chief Minister Vijay during the latter’s swearing-in ceremony, TVK Ministers and MLAs have been relentlessly projecting CM Vijay as a possible Prime Ministerial candidate for the 2029 Lok Sabha polls. If the recent remarks of Congress MLA and Tamil Nadu Tourism Minister Rajesh Kumar are any indication, it is clear that the Congress is extremely unhappy over attempts by a section of the TVK to project Vijay as a possible PM candidate. That too, while being in alliance with the Congress which has been pitching for India's Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi as the Prime Ministerial face. Speaking at a Congress party event in his native district Kanyakumari, Tourism Minister and Congress MLA Rajesh Kumar recently made Congress' stance amply clear. "In the 2029 Lok Sabha polls, our leader Rahul Gandhi will be elected as the Prime Minister... If TVK does not accept this, the two Congress Ministers in Tamil Nadu will not continue in these roles. Congress party means everything to us. Without Congress party, I am nothing... the Congress movement is everything. If Congress party wants us to resign tomorrow, we will resign the next moment. Every party can have their own stance and policies. For every one of us in the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi is our face." Minister Rajesh Kumar's comments and its timing would give the impression that the differences between TVK and Congress are primarily over who would be the Prime Ministerial face. However, there is more to it than meets the eye. Though the TVK-led coalition has been in power for less than four months, a lot of differences and tensions have been simmering under the surface, far beneath the public glare. It would be fair to assume that the comments by Minister Rajesh Kumar carried the weight of all those unheard and unaddressed concerns that the Congress has been having with the TVK. A coalition that does not have a convenor and grievance redressal mechanism While the TVK Government celebrated its 100 days in power and is now stepping into its fourth month, there has been minimal progress regarding the structure of the overall TVK-led alliance, which comprises the Congress (five MLAs), VCK (two MLAs), IIUML (two MLAs) and the outside support of the Left parties (four MLAs). In all these months, Chief Minister Vijay chaired only a single meeting involving allied parties. Even now, a convenor is yet to be appointed to address the differing opinions that are emerging among coalition partners. At a more basic level, this alliance remains without a formal name. It is being known only as the TVK-led coalition. So far, there have been no discussions regarding a common minimum programme to reflect the electoral promises of the coalition partners. As a result, the alliance may appear directionless. This situation has led to feelings of dissatisfaction among the Congress party members, and party cadre have started to express their grievances with this new government. Congress was given 2 Ministers and 1 MP. Is that it? For the support provided by the five MLAs, TVK granted two Ministerial berths and a Rajya Sabha MP seat to the Congress. However, questions remain within the Congress on whether the party has gotten its due share in several other politically appointed roles within Tamil Nadu. The Tamil Nadu Government has completed the appointments of government pleaders and public prosecutors, chairpersons for various boards across government departments, with opportunities predominantly being extended to members of Vijay's TVK, while those from allied parties are being kept at bay. It is noteworthy that there has been a lack of adequate negotiations or consultations between the TVK and its coalition partners in this regard. Many senior and junior workers of the Congress who had been awaiting fair opportunities within the legal system have expressed significant disappointment regarding the outcomes of this process. The growing discontent among the Congress party members is becoming increasingly apparent. Several inquiries regarding the fairness of recent decisions are being directed towards the senior leadership of the Tamil Nadu Congress. When a potential candidate for a significant position approached the Congress ministers or the state leadership, they were unable to provide satisfactory responses. Furthermore, Parliamentarian Praveen Charavarthy, who was once considered an adroit negotiator with the TVK, now appears to lack a voice in these discussions. There is currently a lack of clarity regarding the reasons for the delay in appointing a convenor for the alliance and the rationale behind the approach of the TVK in filling government positions with only their own people. Is it to be perceived that the TVK leadership has conveyed to the Congress High Command in Delhi, as well as to the leadership of the other coalition parties, that their due share in power has already been allocated? How to seal the cracks? The way ahead for the TVK-led coalition... Chief Minister Joseph Vijay's electoral victory represents a significant milestone in the political landscape of Tamil Nadu. This achievement is noteworthy as it has contributed to liberating the Congress Party and other political entities from the popular perception among Dravidian parties that coalition governments are ill-suited for the state. Meanwhile, it is essential to recognize the potential risks associated with presenting the TVK as the preeminent force within the coalition, while characterizing allies (Congress, VCK, IUML) as mere numerical supporters. This imbalance in representation could jeopardize the integrity of the significant alliance-related commitments outlined by Chief Minister Vijay during his election campaigns. It is crucial to confront and address these issues and differences promptly. Tackling these issues will facilitate a more equitable recognition of all parties as valuable contributors to the coalition's objectives, particularly in anticipation of the forthcoming local body elections and the 2029 parliamentary elections. Therefore, the adoption of the longstanding Kerala model of coalition governance, along with the establishment of a structured alliance framework, is essential and should be prioritized. It is necessary to establish a new name for the alliance, appoint conveners at the state, district, and block levels, facilitate an equitable allocation of power, and advance discussions and consultations among all coalition partners in preparation for the local body elections. These actions are critical for promoting unity in the face of challenges posed by the Dravidian parties, within the state assembly and in the broader context. This strategy is not merely a choice; it is a vital commitment for coalition parties, particularly the Congress party in Tamil Nadu, to embrace the aspirations of their supporters and to celebrate the shared enthusiasm inspired by the leadership of the TVK. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

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

The SCO Summit underway in Bishkek offers the world a unique opportunity to take advantage of India. It is wrong to say that India has no stance in conflicts. India definitely chose a side in the wars that broke out. And that position was its own strategic interests. In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, India chose peace. India does not have to become Russia’s supporter against the West. It also does not have to become America’s and Europe's supporter against Vladimir Putin.&nbsp;You see, India has always been non-west, not anti-west. And there's a difference between the two. On the other hand, India has civilizational and trade ties with Iran, but it also has a very strong relationship with Israel. Anyone who forces India to choose one side fails to understand the benefits of being in India's position. Why pressure India to choose sides when you can use it to get warring sides to the table?&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-members-converge-in-bishkek-amid-raging-wars-pm-modi-gives-message-of-peace-1788196798563/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-members-converge-in-bishkek-amid-raging-wars-pm-modi-gives-message-of-peace-1788196798563/embed</a>&nbsp;Why should India throw away one relationship for the other when it can sit with Russia, US, China, Iran and central Asian countries, and talk about issues that matter? The ability to talk to everyone is a skill that not many have. And in international politics, a country that can still talk to everyone can sometimes achieve what countries trapped inside rival camps cannot. India must use this position at the ongoing SCO Summit. It should push for practical cooperation on counter-terrorism, regional security, energy, trade and connectivity, rather than allowing the organisation to become another platform for countries to attack the West.&nbsp;Similarly, for the SCO, calling Pakistan out on spreading terrorism would reflect the group's commitment to action, instead of lip service. Let's be clear about one thing: no camp does not mean weakness. India can choose peace and still condemn terrorism. India can refuse to join a military camp and still defend its borders. India does not need permission to have an independent foreign policy. India is not sitting on the fence. It is standing its own ground. And for that, it should not be apologetic.&nbsp;&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

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

The SCO Summit underway in Bishkek offers the world a unique opportunity to take advantage of India. It is wrong to say that India has no stance in conflicts. India definitely chose a side in the wars that broke out. And that position was its own strategic interests. In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, India chose peace. India does not have to become Russia’s supporter against the West. It also does not have to become America’s and Europe's supporter against Vladimir Putin. You see, India has always been non-west, not anti-west. And there's a difference between the two. On the other hand, India has civilizational and trade ties with Iran, but it also has a very strong relationship with Israel. Anyone who forces India to choose one side fails to understand the benefits of being in India's position. Why pressure India to choose sides when you can use it to get warring sides to the table? https://www.wionews.com/videos/sco-members-converge-in-bishkek-amid-raging-wars-pm-modi-gives-message-of-peace-1788196798563/embed Why should India throw away one relationship for the other when it can sit with Russia, US, China, Iran and central Asian countries, and talk about issues that matter? The ability to talk to everyone is a skill that not many have. And in international politics, a country that can still talk to everyone can sometimes achieve what countries trapped inside rival camps cannot. India must use this position at the ongoing SCO Summit. It should push for practical cooperation on counter-terrorism, regional security, energy, trade and connectivity, rather than allowing the organisation to become another platform for countries to attack the West. Similarly, for the SCO, calling Pakistan out on spreading terrorism would reflect the group's commitment to action, instead of lip service. Let's be clear about one thing: no camp does not mean weakness. India can choose peace and still condemn terrorism. India can refuse to join a military camp and still defend its borders. India does not need permission to have an independent foreign policy. India is not sitting on the fence. It is standing its own ground. And for that, it should not be apologetic. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raging deadly conflict in Sahel: The challenge of juntas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes, pandering works. It can energize a base. It can dominate the news cycle. It can turn frustration into political loyalty. But eventually, voters ask a more brutal question: What did all that noise actually deliver? And perhaps the clearest warning sign is coming from Corporate America. Companies that once cozied up to Trump are now cultivating relationships with Democrats ahead of the midterms, preparing for the possibility of a Democratic-controlled House, and the investigations and subpoenas that could follow.&nbsp;That is not necessarily ideological conversion. It is political insurance. And when corporate America starts hedging its bets, it suggests even Trump's most powerful allies understand that political power can change very quickly. So, Mr President, the question is no longer whether you can command attention. You clearly can.&nbsp;The question is whether attention is enough. Because America does not need a president who is constantly marketing himself. It needs a president who can make life better for the people being marketed to. The midterms may provide the answer. The brand is Trump. But the bill is America's.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

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

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

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

The Verdict: When the president becomes the brand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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