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

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

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

India names 27 sites in Arunachal Pradesh

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

How many soldiers operate one S-400 battery?

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

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

Rockstar to unveil GTA 6 extended look ahead of November launch

Russia forms Ukrainian Volunteer Spetsnaz Brigade to fight Ukraine

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

Technology transfer deal boosts India's defence manufacturing ambitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RSS says Gen Z protests reflect genuine distress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As geopolitical tensions sharpen and debates over United States actions toward Iran intensify, deeper questions are emerging about the durability of the post-war international order. Much of the current discourse remains focused on immediate actions and perceived violations of norms. What is often missing, however, is a broader historical perspective—an understanding of how this order was constructed, and the conditions under which it emerged.The international system that is frequently invoked today did not arise organically. It was designed—deliberately and systematically—in the aftermath of catastrophic global conflict. To understand its current trajectory, it is necessary to revisit how it was conceived and the circumstances that enabled its creation.Even before the Second World War, efforts had been made to construct a more stable global system. Woodrow Wilson’s proposal for a League of Nations following World War I was ultimately rejected by the United States Senate, widely dismissed at the time as idealistic. Yet it established an enduring intellectual premise: that international order could be consciously constructed, rather than left solely to shifting balances of power.That premise re-emerged under far more favourable conditions during and after the Second World War. The Dumbarton Oaks Conference laid the foundations for the United Nations system, while the Bretton Woods Conference established the architecture for global finance. Together, these frameworks shaped not only security and economic relations, but over time trade, development, and governance norms across the international system.The United States played a central role in this process. It provided strategic leadership, political momentum, and the institutional imagination required to translate post-war devastation into a functioning order. At the same time, it engaged selectively—remaining outside certain frameworks such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, even as it shaped many others.This system was born out of trauma. The devastation of two world wars brought unprecedented levels of violence and destruction, transforming both the ethics and limits of conflict. A fragile consensus—“never again”—began to take shape. Concepts such as restraint, legitimacy, and moral authority entered the strategic lexicon, tempering the older doctrine of “might is right.” Yet ultimate authority remained concentrated in the hands of a small group of powerful states.Today, that order is visibly under strain.The rise of China, the re-emergence of India, and the renewed assertiveness of Russia, together with the growing influence of regional and middle powers, are reshaping the global balance. At the same time, technological disruption—from artificial intelligence to cyber capabilities—and renewed competition over energy and resources are transforming the foundations of power itself.In this context, debates within the United States have taken on increasing urgency. Some American strategists argue that Washington has been “sleeping at the switch”—that it has failed to assert its dominance decisively and risks strategic drift. Seen through this lens, developments involving Iran become more than regional issues. They become platforms for signalling—not only to Tehran, but to Beijing and other actors in a changing global system.Recent actions underscore a clear reality: the United States still possesses the most advanced and capable military power in history, with unmatched global reach. It is worth noting, however, what has not been used. The restraint shown—particularly the avoidance of escalation into nuclear thresholds or other extreme forms of warfare—may prove as significant as the actions themselves.Yet if current trends continue—where power increasingly substitutes for principle—this will not remain a uniquely American dilemma. Other major and regional powers, including China, India, and an assertive Russia, as well as influential middle powers, may soon face similar strategic choices. As capabilities expand, so too does the temptation—or perceived necessity—to act outside established norms. What begins as exception risks becoming precedent.This is the paradox of great power transition. Once “might” becomes the primary currency of legitimacy, it generates systemic pressure on all major actors to behave in ways that reinforce that logic. In such an environment, restraint is no longer rewarded; it is penalised.At that point, the question is no longer whether the system is under strain, but whether it is capable of renewal.Incremental adjustments and crisis management may stabilise the present, but they do not shape the future. Without a broader framework, they risk becoming a form of strategic drift—managing disorder rather than designing order.There is precedent for such design. The Dumbarton Oaks process itself was not a summit of heads of state, but a structured diplomatic effort conducted by senior officials operating with political authorisation. It was shaped by strong leadership, but also by negotiation, sequencing, and compromise among competing interests.A contemporary equivalent would necessarily be more complex. It would have to reflect a more diffuse distribution of power and a lower level of trust among major actors. It would require an approach that is consultative rather than directive, incremental rather than declaratory, and focused on convergence rather than dominance.Any such effort would need to include the United States, China, India, and Russia as central actors, alongside other major, legacy, and regional powers. India’s role would not be that of a hegemonic architect, but of a credible convenor capable of bridging divides across competing systems and interests.Symbolism would matter. A venue such as Nalanda—once a global centre of learning that drew scholars from across Asia and beyond—offers more than historical resonance. It represents a tradition of intellectual exchange that transcended political boundaries, a space where knowledge, dialogue, and pluralism flourished across cultures and civilisations. In a contemporary context marked by fragmentation and strategic mistrust, such symbolism carries practical value. Nalanda, in this sense, is not merely a place—it is a metaphor for a more open, dialogic, and civilisationally grounded approach to organising international cooperation.In the absence of such an initiative, managed competition will give way to unmanaged rivalry, where stability becomes episodic and crisis becomes the default condition.&nbsp;A durable global architecture will depend on the active participation of the United States, China, India, and Russia—alongside other major, legacy, and regional powers—around which a stable international order must be constructed.The post-war system was not inevitable; it was envisioned, negotiated, and built. As it comes under increasing strain, the central question is whether the international community still possesses the imagination—and discipline—to do so again, before drift hardens into irreversible disorder.&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.

Even before the Second World War, efforts had been made to construct a more stable global system. Woodrow Wilson’s proposal for a League of Nations following World War I was ultimately rejected by the United States Senate, widely dismissed at the time as idealistic.

As geopolitical tensions sharpen and debates over United States actions toward Iran intensify, deeper questions are emerging about the durability of the post-war international order. Much of the current discourse remains focused on immediate actions and perceived violations of norms. What is often missing, however, is a broader historical perspective—an understanding of how this order was constructed, and the conditions under which it emerged. The international system that is frequently invoked today did not arise organically. It was designed—deliberately and systematically—in the aftermath of catastrophic global conflict. To understand its current trajectory, it is necessary to revisit how it was conceived and the circumstances that enabled its creation. Even before the Second World War, efforts had been made to construct a more stable global system. Woodrow Wilson’s proposal for a League of Nations following World War I was ultimately rejected by the United States Senate, widely dismissed at the time as idealistic. Yet it established an enduring intellectual premise: that international order could be consciously constructed, rather than left solely to shifting balances of power. That premise re-emerged under far more favourable conditions during and after the Second World War. The Dumbarton Oaks Conference laid the foundations for the United Nations system, while the Bretton Woods Conference established the architecture for global finance. Together, these frameworks shaped not only security and economic relations, but over time trade, development, and governance norms across the international system. The United States played a central role in this process. It provided strategic leadership, political momentum, and the institutional imagination required to translate post-war devastation into a functioning order. At the same time, it engaged selectively—remaining outside certain frameworks such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, even as it shaped many others. This system was born out of trauma. The devastation of two world wars brought unprecedented levels of violence and destruction, transforming both the ethics and limits of conflict. A fragile consensus—“never again”—began to take shape. Concepts such as restraint, legitimacy, and moral authority entered the strategic lexicon, tempering the older doctrine of “might is right.” Yet ultimate authority remained concentrated in the hands of a small group of powerful states. Today, that order is visibly under strain. The rise of China, the re-emergence of India, and the renewed assertiveness of Russia, together with the growing influence of regional and middle powers, are reshaping the global balance. At the same time, technological disruption—from artificial intelligence to cyber capabilities—and renewed competition over energy and resources are transforming the foundations of power itself. In this context, debates within the United States have taken on increasing urgency. Some American strategists argue that Washington has been “sleeping at the switch”—that it has failed to assert its dominance decisively and risks strategic drift. Seen through this lens, developments involving Iran become more than regional issues. They become platforms for signalling—not only to Tehran, but to Beijing and other actors in a changing global system. Recent actions underscore a clear reality: the United States still possesses the most advanced and capable military power in history, with unmatched global reach. It is worth noting, however, what has not been used. The restraint shown—particularly the avoidance of escalation into nuclear thresholds or other extreme forms of warfare—may prove as significant as the actions themselves. Yet if current trends continue—where power increasingly substitutes for principle—this will not remain a uniquely American dilemma. Other major and regional powers, including China, India, and an assertive Russia, as well as influential middle powers, may soon face similar strategic choices. As capabilities expand, so too does the temptation—or perceived necessity—to act outside established norms. What begins as exception risks becoming precedent. This is the paradox of great power transition. Once “might” becomes the primary currency of legitimacy, it generates systemic pressure on all major actors to behave in ways that reinforce that logic. In such an environment, restraint is no longer rewarded; it is penalised. At that point, the question is no longer whether the system is under strain, but whether it is capable of renewal. Incremental adjustments and crisis management may stabilise the present, but they do not shape the future. Without a broader framework, they risk becoming a form of strategic drift—managing disorder rather than designing order. There is precedent for such design. The Dumbarton Oaks process itself was not a summit of heads of state, but a structured diplomatic effort conducted by senior officials operating with political authorisation. It was shaped by strong leadership, but also by negotiation, sequencing, and compromise among competing interests. A contemporary equivalent would necessarily be more complex. It would have to reflect a more diffuse distribution of power and a lower level of trust among major actors. It would require an approach that is consultative rather than directive, incremental rather than declaratory, and focused on convergence rather than dominance. Any such effort would need to include the United States, China, India, and Russia as central actors, alongside other major, legacy, and regional powers. India’s role would not be that of a hegemonic architect, but of a credible convenor capable of bridging divides across competing systems and interests. Symbolism would matter. A venue such as Nalanda—once a global centre of learning that drew scholars from across Asia and beyond—offers more than historical resonance. It represents a tradition of intellectual exchange that transcended political boundaries, a space where knowledge, dialogue, and pluralism flourished across cultures and civilisations. In a contemporary context marked by fragmentation and strategic mistrust, such symbolism carries practical value. Nalanda, in this sense, is not merely a place—it is a metaphor for a more open, dialogic, and civilisationally grounded approach to organising international cooperation. In the absence of such an initiative, managed competition will give way to unmanaged rivalry, where stability becomes episodic and crisis becomes the default condition. A durable global architecture will depend on the active participation of the United States, China, India, and Russia—alongside other major, legacy, and regional powers—around which a stable international order must be constructed. The post-war system was not inevitable; it was envisioned, negotiated, and built. As it comes under increasing strain, the central question is whether the international community still possesses the imagination—and discipline—to do so again, before drift hardens into irreversible disorder. 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.

Even before the Second World War, efforts had been made to construct a more stable global system. Woodrow Wilson’s proposal for a League of Nations following World War I was ultimately rejected by the United States Senate, widely dismissed at the time as idealistic.

From Dumbarton Oaks to Nalanda: The Emerging Strain on the Post-War Order

Just nine days after President Donald Trump announced in a pre-dawn social media post that America had attacked Iran, the president said: “We have already won in many ways.”Two days later, at a campaign rally in Kentucky: “We won in the first hour.” By the end of March, there were several additional declarations of victory, including “We won. The war is over.”Fifty days after the February 28 war announcement, the only place where the war is actually over, and peace is near, is in the alternative universe inhabited by Trump.On April 18, four days before a fragile two-week ceasefire was to end, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz just a day after having declared it open to traffic. Iranian state media declared the U.S. had failed to hold up its end of the bargain by blockading Iranian ports.How the present stalemate will be resolved is anyone’s guess, but it confirms that the American war of choice, dubbed Operation Epic Fury by Washington, would better be called Operation Epic Miscalculation.Trump’s repeated claims of victory are based on the fact that the American attack killed Iran’s Supreme Leader and the top tier of the Iranian government on the first day and damaged or destroyed dozens of missile factories and industrial; installations.It left intact the institutions of a dictatorial state and failed to crush its most powerful military establishment, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Its units responded to the American attack by using its sizeable arsenal of missiles to attack Gulf countries hosting U.S. military bases.A series of confused, contradictory and often extreme statements since the beginning of the war have stirred a growing and unusually public debate over the mental acuity of Trump. He turns 80 in June and began his second term in office as the oldest person ever to move into the White House.You might be forgiven for thinking that the war with Iran and its global implications – the Straits of Hormuz carries twenty per cent of the world’s oil – would keep the president too busy to pick rhetorical fights with high-profile critics.Such as Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born pope, is the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide. The pope enraged his fellow Americans by condemning the war on Iran and branding as “unacceptable” Trump’s actions and rhetoric, specifically a threat to destroy Iran’s civilisation.In a social media post, Trump responded by calling the pope “weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy.”This had a foreign policy follow-up: A noisy row with Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, a right-wing conservative long considered the European leader closest to Trump. She described Trump’s attack on the pope as “unacceptable” and he shot back by accusing her of being indifferent to the threat of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.This dispute did not go down well with many of the 53 million Roman Catholics in the United States, and neither did an AI-generated social media image he posted showing himself as a Christ-like figure. The image prompted so many complaints that it was taken down from his Truth Social platform.Trump explained that the picture showed him not as Christ but as a doctor tending to a sick patient.This and a long string of confusing and contradictory statements on the war have left many Americans with what New York Times writer Peter Baker described as “the impression of a deranged autocrat mad with power.”Presidential historians say that the mental stability of a president has never been discussed as publicly, not even that of Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, who declined visibly after a disastrous debate performance with Trump.How widely debated Trump’s mental acuity is was thrown into sharp focus by a reporter’s question during a televised press conference. “What is your response to critics who say that it is your mental health that should perhaps be examined as this war continues?”The question, from Danny Kemp, a reporter for Agence France-Presse, followed a Trump social media posting which said: “Open the f****ng Strait (of Hormuz), you crazy b*****ds, or you’ll be living in hell.”While other presidents have used profanities when talking about adversaries, they did so in private to aides, not in public at a nationally televised press briefing.Democrats have long advocated removing Trump from power for disability to serve through the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution. But these are hollow words: such a move requires the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to inform Congress in writing that the President cannot serve.Remarkably, questions about Trump’s mental state are being asked by retired generals, diplomats and late-night comedians. Perhaps the most notable are charges from several prominent figures and former allies on the political right.Such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who was long one of the president’s closest allies but recently broke with him. In a CNN interview on the war Trump started, she said the president’s apocalyptic threats were “not tough rhetoric but insanity.”

Democrats have long advocated removing Trump from power for disability to serve through the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution. But these are hollow words: such a move requires the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to inform Congress in writing that the President cannot serve.

Just nine days after President Donald Trump announced in a pre-dawn social media post that America had attacked Iran, the president said: “We have already won in many ways.” Two days later, at a campaign rally in Kentucky: “We won in the first hour.” By the end of March, there were several additional declarations of victory, including “We won. The war is over.” Fifty days after the February 28 war announcement, the only place where the war is actually over, and peace is near, is in the alternative universe inhabited by Trump. On April 18, four days before a fragile two-week ceasefire was to end, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz just a day after having declared it open to traffic. Iranian state media declared the U.S. had failed to hold up its end of the bargain by blockading Iranian ports. How the present stalemate will be resolved is anyone’s guess, but it confirms that the American war of choice, dubbed Operation Epic Fury by Washington, would better be called Operation Epic Miscalculation. Trump’s repeated claims of victory are based on the fact that the American attack killed Iran’s Supreme Leader and the top tier of the Iranian government on the first day and damaged or destroyed dozens of missile factories and industrial; installations. It left intact the institutions of a dictatorial state and failed to crush its most powerful military establishment, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Its units responded to the American attack by using its sizeable arsenal of missiles to attack Gulf countries hosting U.S. military bases. A series of confused, contradictory and often extreme statements since the beginning of the war have stirred a growing and unusually public debate over the mental acuity of Trump. He turns 80 in June and began his second term in office as the oldest person ever to move into the White House. You might be forgiven for thinking that the war with Iran and its global implications – the Straits of Hormuz carries twenty per cent of the world’s oil – would keep the president too busy to pick rhetorical fights with high-profile critics. Such as Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born pope, is the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide. The pope enraged his fellow Americans by condemning the war on Iran and branding as “unacceptable” Trump’s actions and rhetoric, specifically a threat to destroy Iran’s civilisation. In a social media post, Trump responded by calling the pope “weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy.” This had a foreign policy follow-up: A noisy row with Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, a right-wing conservative long considered the European leader closest to Trump. She described Trump’s attack on the pope as “unacceptable” and he shot back by accusing her of being indifferent to the threat of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. This dispute did not go down well with many of the 53 million Roman Catholics in the United States, and neither did an AI-generated social media image he posted showing himself as a Christ-like figure. The image prompted so many complaints that it was taken down from his Truth Social platform. Trump explained that the picture showed him not as Christ but as a doctor tending to a sick patient. This and a long string of confusing and contradictory statements on the war have left many Americans with what New York Times writer Peter Baker described as “the impression of a deranged autocrat mad with power.” Presidential historians say that the mental stability of a president has never been discussed as publicly, not even that of Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, who declined visibly after a disastrous debate performance with Trump. How widely debated Trump’s mental acuity is was thrown into sharp focus by a reporter’s question during a televised press conference. “What is your response to critics who say that it is your mental health that should perhaps be examined as this war continues?” The question, from Danny Kemp, a reporter for Agence France-Presse, followed a Trump social media posting which said: “Open the f****ng Strait (of Hormuz), you crazy b*****ds, or you’ll be living in hell.” While other presidents have used profanities when talking about adversaries, they did so in private to aides, not in public at a nationally televised press briefing. Democrats have long advocated removing Trump from power for disability to serve through the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution. But these are hollow words: such a move requires the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to inform Congress in writing that the President cannot serve. Remarkably, questions about Trump’s mental state are being asked by retired generals, diplomats and late-night comedians. Perhaps the most notable are charges from several prominent figures and former allies on the political right. Such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who was long one of the president’s closest allies but recently broke with him. In a CNN interview on the war Trump started, she said the president’s apocalyptic threats were “not tough rhetoric but insanity.”

Democrats have long advocated removing Trump from power for disability to serve through the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution. But these are hollow words: such a move requires the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to inform Congress in writing that the President cannot serve.

Trump 2.0: At home and abroad, doubts over the president’s sanity

Imagine a narrow strip of sea, just 33 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. Every single day, nearly one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows through this small passage called the Strait of Hormuz. Right now, this stretch of water has turned into one of the most tense and closely watched places on the planet.&nbsp;Allow me to explain the current situation in clear and simple terms for a broader understanding.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-navy-to-impede-entry-exit-to-iran-s-ports-1776062659925/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-navy-to-impede-entry-exit-to-iran-s-ports-1776062659925/embed</a>&nbsp;<h2>Why America Started the Blockade</h2>&nbsp;Peace talks between the United States and Iran took place in Islamabad, Pakistan. Both sides sat and discussed for a long 21 hours. But the talks ended without any agreement. Iran did not agree to stop its nuclear enrichment work, which many fear could lead to making nuclear weapons. US Vice President JD Vance also joined the discussions, but Iran refused to accept the terms offered.Seeing no progress, US President Donald Trump gave the order for a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. It began on April 13, 2026, at 7:30 PM Indian time. The US Central Command, or CENTCOM, is carrying out this order.&nbsp;<h2>What Does a Blockade Really Mean Here?</h2>&nbsp;A blockade means the US Navy will stop and inspect certain ships. But it is not a total shutdown of the entire strait. Ships carrying oil or goods to or from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and other friendly Gulf countries can still pass freely. Only ships heading to or coming from Iranian ports will be stopped and checked.&nbsp;The main aim is simple — to cut off Iran's money from oil exports and push Tehran to return to serious talks. President Trump also pointed out that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps had been demanding up to 2 million dollars from ships just to pass safely. He called this kind of demand unacceptable extortion and said it cannot continue.<h2>&nbsp;</h2><h2>The Hidden Danger: Sea Mines</h2>&nbsp;Things are more serious because Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has placed many sea mines in the waters. A sea mine is like an underwater bomb. It stays hidden below the surface. When a ship passes over it, the mine explodes with huge force, damaging or sinking the vessel and putting lives at risk.&nbsp;Because of these mines and the tension, around 800 ships have been stuck in the area for weeks, unable to move safely. This has made normal shipping very risky for everyone. Iran even released a video giving a "last warning" to a US warship and issued maps for ships to avoid the mined areas.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/no-deal-in-islamabad-how-21-hours-of-diplomacy-could-not-outlast-decades-of-distrust-1775976406380">No deal in Islamabad: How 21 hours of diplomacy could not outlast decades of distrust</a><h2>&nbsp;</h2><h2>How America Plans to Clear the Mines Safely</h2><h2>&nbsp;</h2>The US has sent two strong guided-missile destroyers — USS Frank E. Peterson Jr and USS Michael Murphy — to the region. These ships recently transited the Strait of Hormuz as part of the mission. They are not just for fighting; they are helping in a smart mine-clearing plan.&nbsp;Instead of risking sailors’ lives in dangerous waters, the Navy is using robotic underwater vehicles called Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs). These look like torpedo-shaped drones. They move on their own under water and use special sonar — basically sound waves that act like underwater radar — to find hidden mines on the seabed.&nbsp;From the sky, military helicopters such as the MH-60S use an advanced laser system known as the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS). This laser can spot mines floating near the surface or just below it, even from high up.&nbsp;Once a mine is located, a remote-controlled system called the Airborne Mine Neutralisation System (AMNS) sends a small robot to the spot. The robot then safely explodes the mine without any human being close by. This keeps our sailors safe.&nbsp;These destroyers also carry the powerful Aegis Combat System and advanced missiles that can destroy threats coming from air or sea. This gives full protection to the entire clearing operation.US Admiral Brad Cooper has said that a new safe route for ships is being prepared. This safe path will soon be shared with shipping companies around the world so trade can continue smoothly.&nbsp;<h2>What This Means for All of Us — Especially India</h2>&nbsp;The Strait of Hormuz is the lifeline for a huge part of global oil and gas. Any problem here affects prices everywhere. Already, because of the tension, oil prices have jumped past 100 dollars per barrel and crossed 103 dollars — an increase of more than 8 percent in a short time. Some experts even worry it could go up to 150 dollars if the situation worsens.&nbsp;For India, which buys a large amount of its oil from the Gulf, this means higher costs at the pump for petrol, diesel and even cooking gas. Families will feel the pinch in daily expenses like travel, transport and kitchen needs.&nbsp;Countries like the UK and Australia have said they will not join the US in this blockade. China, which buys a lot of Iranian oil, is watching carefully. Experts worry that if the situation worsens, China could get more directly involved, which might make things even more dangerous for the whole world.Pakistan continues to play a role as mediator, hoping to bring both sides back to the table.Right now, every ship moving — or waiting — in that narrow strait carries big consequences for all nations. The coming days will be important as the world hopes for calm, safe passage and lower prices again.

A blockade means the US Navy will stop and inspect certain ships. But it is not a total shutdown of the entire strait. Ships carrying oil or goods to or from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and other friendly Gulf countries can still pass freely. 

Imagine a narrow strip of sea, just 33 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. Every single day, nearly one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows through this small passage called the Strait of Hormuz. Right now, this stretch of water has turned into one of the most tense and closely watched places on the planet. Allow me to explain the current situation in clear and simple terms for a broader understanding. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-navy-to-impede-entry-exit-to-iran-s-ports-1776062659925/embed Why America Started the Blockade Peace talks between the United States and Iran took place in Islamabad, Pakistan. Both sides sat and discussed for a long 21 hours. But the talks ended without any agreement. Iran did not agree to stop its nuclear enrichment work, which many fear could lead to making nuclear weapons. US Vice President JD Vance also joined the discussions, but Iran refused to accept the terms offered. Seeing no progress, US President Donald Trump gave the order for a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. It began on April 13, 2026, at 7:30 PM Indian time. The US Central Command, or CENTCOM, is carrying out this order. What Does a Blockade Really Mean Here? A blockade means the US Navy will stop and inspect certain ships. But it is not a total shutdown of the entire strait. Ships carrying oil or goods to or from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and other friendly Gulf countries can still pass freely. Only ships heading to or coming from Iranian ports will be stopped and checked. The main aim is simple — to cut off Iran's money from oil exports and push Tehran to return to serious talks. President Trump also pointed out that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps had been demanding up to 2 million dollars from ships just to pass safely. He called this kind of demand unacceptable extortion and said it cannot continue. The Hidden Danger: Sea Mines Things are more serious because Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has placed many sea mines in the waters. A sea mine is like an underwater bomb. It stays hidden below the surface. When a ship passes over it, the mine explodes with huge force, damaging or sinking the vessel and putting lives at risk. Because of these mines and the tension, around 800 ships have been stuck in the area for weeks, unable to move safely. This has made normal shipping very risky for everyone. Iran even released a video giving a "last warning" to a US warship and issued maps for ships to avoid the mined areas. Also read: No deal in Islamabad: How 21 hours of diplomacy could not outlast decades of distrust How America Plans to Clear the Mines Safely The US has sent two strong guided-missile destroyers — USS Frank E. Peterson Jr and USS Michael Murphy — to the region. These ships recently transited the Strait of Hormuz as part of the mission. They are not just for fighting; they are helping in a smart mine-clearing plan. Instead of risking sailors’ lives in dangerous waters, the Navy is using robotic underwater vehicles called Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs). These look like torpedo-shaped drones. They move on their own under water and use special sonar — basically sound waves that act like underwater radar — to find hidden mines on the seabed. From the sky, military helicopters such as the MH-60S use an advanced laser system known as the Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS). This laser can spot mines floating near the surface or just below it, even from high up. Once a mine is located, a remote-controlled system called the Airborne Mine Neutralisation System (AMNS) sends a small robot to the spot. The robot then safely explodes the mine without any human being close by. This keeps our sailors safe. These destroyers also carry the powerful Aegis Combat System and advanced missiles that can destroy threats coming from air or sea. This gives full protection to the entire clearing operation. US Admiral Brad Cooper has said that a new safe route for ships is being prepared. This safe path will soon be shared with shipping companies around the world so trade can continue smoothly. What This Means for All of Us — Especially India The Strait of Hormuz is the lifeline for a huge part of global oil and gas. Any problem here affects prices everywhere. Already, because of the tension, oil prices have jumped past 100 dollars per barrel and crossed 103 dollars — an increase of more than 8 percent in a short time. Some experts even worry it could go up to 150 dollars if the situation worsens. For India, which buys a large amount of its oil from the Gulf, this means higher costs at the pump for petrol, diesel and even cooking gas. Families will feel the pinch in daily expenses like travel, transport and kitchen needs. Countries like the UK and Australia have said they will not join the US in this blockade. China, which buys a lot of Iranian oil, is watching carefully. Experts worry that if the situation worsens, China could get more directly involved, which might make things even more dangerous for the whole world. Pakistan continues to play a role as mediator, hoping to bring both sides back to the table. Right now, every ship moving — or waiting — in that narrow strait carries big consequences for all nations. The coming days will be important as the world hopes for calm, safe passage and lower prices again.

A blockade means the US Navy will stop and inspect certain ships. But it is not a total shutdown of the entire strait. Ships carrying oil or goods to or from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and other friendly Gulf countries can still pass freely.&nbsp;

Strait of Hormuz on Edge: Inside America’s high-stakes naval blockade

The Ministry of Defence’s decision to designate 2025 as the Year of Reforms is not a bureaucratic exercise in rebranding. It is a considered response to a security environment that has grown more demanding, not less. Anchored in Defence Forces Vision 2047, the initiative pursues greater jointness and integration among the three services and works toward the establishment of Integrated Theatre Commands (ITCs). These are not reforms undertaken in the abstract; they are shaped by the reality of over 5,000 kilometres of disputed land borders shared with two nuclear-armed neighbours, and a coastline whose strategic significance continues to grow. Criticism framing these efforts as risking ‘continentalisation’, weakening interoperability, or unleashing unmanageable institutional disruption does not hold up against the geographic facts, the doctrinal record, or the progress already made on the ground.&nbsp;<h2>On the question of continentalisation</h2>&nbsp;The concern about ‘continentalisation’ would carry more weight if India’s strategic circumstances bore any resemblance to those of its critics’ preferred comparisons. China’s reductions in ground forces took place in a setting where direct land threats were considerably fewer. India does not have that luxury. The LAC and the LoC remain live, contested frontiers—not theoretical concerns—and any reform framework that ignores this would be strategically irresponsible.&nbsp;India’s approach does not choose between land and maritime power; it deliberately sustains both. Land forces continue to anchor continental deterrence and provide strategic depth, while air and naval assets are developed for power projection and sea denial. The structure of the three proposed ITCs reflects precisely this balance. The Northern Theatre Command, headquartered in Lucknow, will manage the China frontier stretching from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh. The Western Theatre Command, based in Jaipur, will focus on the Pakistan front. The Maritime Theatre Command at Thiruvananthapuram will be dedicated exclusively to naval imperatives. Each will be led by a unified four-star commander drawing together all three services. Carrier battle groups, island defence, and anti-access and area-denial operations are not afterthoughts in this framework—they have a dedicated command structure of their own.&nbsp;<h2>On force structure and interoperability</h2>&nbsp;According to Global Firepower 2026 rankings, India maintains approximately 1.43 million active military personnel, with the Army accounting for the largest share. This is not the result of institutional inertia or bias toward land power; it reflects operational reality. The reforms do not challenge this—they build upon it. Additional Army formations are being restructured into Integrated Battle Groups, with Air Force close air support, Navy coastal assets, and joint logistics woven into their fabric rather than bolted on as an afterthought.&nbsp;The June 2025 decision to empower the CDS to issue binding Joint Instructions and Joint Orders across all three services was a meaningful step, not a ceremonial one. It has already begun to cut through the resource allocation silos that have long complicated joint planning.&nbsp;On interoperability, the criticism is frankly dated. Invoking the 1991 Gulf War as a reference point for evaluating India’s joint capabilities today reflects an unfamiliarity with two decades of quiet but substantive progress in C4ISR—Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. The Department of Military Affairs has driven the standardisation of common protocols across services: the expansion of Integrated Material Management Online Systems, the building of tri-service data links, shared encryption standards, and the codification of joint doctrines. Exercises such as TROPEX and Gagan Shakti are not symbolic displays—they are annual tests of whether these systems actually work together. The CDS’s authority, extended in June 2025, to issue single-point operational directives means that sound practices from any one service can now be applied across all three in joint planning.&nbsp;<h2>On indigenisation and procurement</h2>&nbsp;The Atmanirbhar Bharat framework has moved defence indigenisation from aspiration to measurable output. Drones, missiles, radars, and major platforms are increasingly domestically sourced, and this has not come at the cost of operational quality. In the financial year 2025–26, Acceptance of Necessity was accorded for proposals valued at over ₹6.73 lakh crore, with a clear emphasis on joint systems. The tri-service Common Operating Picture—drawing together ISRO satellites, MQ-9B drones, and ground-based sensors—is close to becoming fully operational. The honest assessment is that no core capability has been traded away. What these reforms are building is a more coherent, more responsive force—one better suited to the hybrid and multi-domain scenarios that modern conflict increasingly demands.&nbsp;<h2>On institutional risk and sequencing</h2>&nbsp;The worry that running the Agnipath scheme, the IBG rollout, and theatre command formation simultaneously courts organisational chaos deserves a direct answer. The Swiss Cheese model of cumulative failure that critics invoke is a legitimate framework—but it describes unmanaged change, not what is actually happening here. India’s reform process is governed by iterative wargaming, phased field trials, and sequencing under direct CDS oversight. These are not reforms being pushed through in haste.&nbsp;The Agnipath scheme, launched in 2022, had inducted over 1.75 lakh Agniveers by the end of 2025. Each inductee undergoes six months of foundational training before moving to unit-specific skill development. The first cohort completes its four-year engagement in 2026. Retention, currently set at 25% and subject to review by the Army Commanders' Conference, is performance-based, selecting those who demonstrate the qualities the force needs for the long term. The demographic effect is deliberate and significant: the average age of the soldier is expected to fall from around 32 to 26 years, bringing with it a generation of personnel comfortable with drones, AI systems, and networked warfare. The fiscal benefit—reduced pension liability freeing funds for capital investment—is a consequential gain, not a minor footnote.&nbsp;The Rudra Brigade, approved on 26 July 2025, gives concrete form to what IBGs mean in practice. Under a single commander, it brings together infantry, mechanised forces, armour, artillery, special forces—including the newly raised Bhairav light commando battalions—alongside drone units and logistics. It is designed for rapid, multi-axis operations across varied terrain, drawing on Cold Start principles and the operational lessons of recent standoffs. At a target strength of 3,000 to 5,000 personnel, these formations offer a meaningfully different kind of agility from the large divisional structures they are designed to supplement.&nbsp;<h2>On theatre command timelines</h2>&nbsp;Theatre commands have achieved near-unanimous consensus among the services—a degree of institutional alignment that should not be taken for granted. Operational rollout is on track for May 2026, timed to coincide with the extended tenure of the CDS, who will oversee the transition. The logic of sequencing—jointness first, structural integration second—is sound. It keeps operational command distinct from the administrative Raise-Train-Sustain functions, ensuring that the command structure being built is oriented toward warfighting from the outset.&nbsp;What is taking shape is a force that is leaner without being hollowed out, more technologically capable without having sacrificed proven strengths, and genuinely joint in a way that earlier structures never fully achieved. The spectrum of threats India faces — from high-altitude border confrontations to maritime competition to operations in cyberspace — demands exactly this kind of force. Continued investment in indigenisation, joint training, and careful resource stewardship will carry this forward. The armed forces' commitment to mission readiness is not a slogan at the end of a policy document. It is the standard against which every one of these reforms will ultimately be judged.&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 approach does not choose between land and maritime power; it deliberately sustains both. Land forces continue to anchor continental deterrence and provide strategic depth, while air and naval assets are developed for power projection and sea denial.

The Ministry of Defence’s decision to designate 2025 as the Year of Reforms is not a bureaucratic exercise in rebranding. It is a considered response to a security environment that has grown more demanding, not less. Anchored in Defence Forces Vision 2047, the initiative pursues greater jointness and integration among the three services and works toward the establishment of Integrated Theatre Commands (ITCs). These are not reforms undertaken in the abstract; they are shaped by the reality of over 5,000 kilometres of disputed land borders shared with two nuclear-armed neighbours, and a coastline whose strategic significance continues to grow. Criticism framing these efforts as risking ‘continentalisation’, weakening interoperability, or unleashing unmanageable institutional disruption does not hold up against the geographic facts, the doctrinal record, or the progress already made on the ground. On the question of continentalisation The concern about ‘continentalisation’ would carry more weight if India’s strategic circumstances bore any resemblance to those of its critics’ preferred comparisons. China’s reductions in ground forces took place in a setting where direct land threats were considerably fewer. India does not have that luxury. The LAC and the LoC remain live, contested frontiers—not theoretical concerns—and any reform framework that ignores this would be strategically irresponsible. India’s approach does not choose between land and maritime power; it deliberately sustains both. Land forces continue to anchor continental deterrence and provide strategic depth, while air and naval assets are developed for power projection and sea denial. The structure of the three proposed ITCs reflects precisely this balance. The Northern Theatre Command, headquartered in Lucknow, will manage the China frontier stretching from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh. The Western Theatre Command, based in Jaipur, will focus on the Pakistan front. The Maritime Theatre Command at Thiruvananthapuram will be dedicated exclusively to naval imperatives. Each will be led by a unified four-star commander drawing together all three services. Carrier battle groups, island defence, and anti-access and area-denial operations are not afterthoughts in this framework—they have a dedicated command structure of their own. On force structure and interoperability According to Global Firepower 2026 rankings, India maintains approximately 1.43 million active military personnel, with the Army accounting for the largest share. This is not the result of institutional inertia or bias toward land power; it reflects operational reality. The reforms do not challenge this—they build upon it. Additional Army formations are being restructured into Integrated Battle Groups, with Air Force close air support, Navy coastal assets, and joint logistics woven into their fabric rather than bolted on as an afterthought. The June 2025 decision to empower the CDS to issue binding Joint Instructions and Joint Orders across all three services was a meaningful step, not a ceremonial one. It has already begun to cut through the resource allocation silos that have long complicated joint planning. On interoperability, the criticism is frankly dated. Invoking the 1991 Gulf War as a reference point for evaluating India’s joint capabilities today reflects an unfamiliarity with two decades of quiet but substantive progress in C4ISR—Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. The Department of Military Affairs has driven the standardisation of common protocols across services: the expansion of Integrated Material Management Online Systems, the building of tri-service data links, shared encryption standards, and the codification of joint doctrines. Exercises such as TROPEX and Gagan Shakti are not symbolic displays—they are annual tests of whether these systems actually work together. The CDS’s authority, extended in June 2025, to issue single-point operational directives means that sound practices from any one service can now be applied across all three in joint planning. On indigenisation and procurement The Atmanirbhar Bharat framework has moved defence indigenisation from aspiration to measurable output. Drones, missiles, radars, and major platforms are increasingly domestically sourced, and this has not come at the cost of operational quality. In the financial year 2025–26, Acceptance of Necessity was accorded for proposals valued at over ₹6.73 lakh crore, with a clear emphasis on joint systems. The tri-service Common Operating Picture—drawing together ISRO satellites, MQ-9B drones, and ground-based sensors—is close to becoming fully operational. The honest assessment is that no core capability has been traded away. What these reforms are building is a more coherent, more responsive force—one better suited to the hybrid and multi-domain scenarios that modern conflict increasingly demands. On institutional risk and sequencing The worry that running the Agnipath scheme, the IBG rollout, and theatre command formation simultaneously courts organisational chaos deserves a direct answer. The Swiss Cheese model of cumulative failure that critics invoke is a legitimate framework—but it describes unmanaged change, not what is actually happening here. India’s reform process is governed by iterative wargaming, phased field trials, and sequencing under direct CDS oversight. These are not reforms being pushed through in haste. The Agnipath scheme, launched in 2022, had inducted over 1.75 lakh Agniveers by the end of 2025. Each inductee undergoes six months of foundational training before moving to unit-specific skill development. The first cohort completes its four-year engagement in 2026. Retention, currently set at 25% and subject to review by the Army Commanders' Conference, is performance-based, selecting those who demonstrate the qualities the force needs for the long term. The demographic effect is deliberate and significant: the average age of the soldier is expected to fall from around 32 to 26 years, bringing with it a generation of personnel comfortable with drones, AI systems, and networked warfare. The fiscal benefit—reduced pension liability freeing funds for capital investment—is a consequential gain, not a minor footnote. The Rudra Brigade, approved on 26 July 2025, gives concrete form to what IBGs mean in practice. Under a single commander, it brings together infantry, mechanised forces, armour, artillery, special forces—including the newly raised Bhairav light commando battalions—alongside drone units and logistics. It is designed for rapid, multi-axis operations across varied terrain, drawing on Cold Start principles and the operational lessons of recent standoffs. At a target strength of 3,000 to 5,000 personnel, these formations offer a meaningfully different kind of agility from the large divisional structures they are designed to supplement. On theatre command timelines Theatre commands have achieved near-unanimous consensus among the services—a degree of institutional alignment that should not be taken for granted. Operational rollout is on track for May 2026, timed to coincide with the extended tenure of the CDS, who will oversee the transition. The logic of sequencing—jointness first, structural integration second—is sound. It keeps operational command distinct from the administrative Raise-Train-Sustain functions, ensuring that the command structure being built is oriented toward warfighting from the outset. What is taking shape is a force that is leaner without being hollowed out, more technologically capable without having sacrificed proven strengths, and genuinely joint in a way that earlier structures never fully achieved. The spectrum of threats India faces — from high-altitude border confrontations to maritime competition to operations in cyberspace — demands exactly this kind of force. Continued investment in indigenisation, joint training, and careful resource stewardship will carry this forward. The armed forces' commitment to mission readiness is not a slogan at the end of a policy document. It is the standard against which every one of these reforms will ultimately be judged. (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 approach does not choose between land and maritime power; it deliberately sustains both. Land forces continue to anchor continental deterrence and provide strategic depth, while air and naval assets are developed for power projection and sea denial.

Addressing misconceptions regarding India’s military reforms

Across South Asia today, a striking pattern has emerged. In Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, young people took to the streets—driven by frustration over economic stagnation, governance failures, and lack of opportunity. In each country, these movements have reshaped politics, bringing new governments into power.&nbsp;The dominant question is: why did these youth uprisings happen?&nbsp;But that may be the wrong question.&nbsp;The more uncomfortable—and more instructive—question is this: why is India not experiencing similar instability at scale? With a population exceeding 1.4 billion, immense diversity, and persistent inequality, India appears far more vulnerable. Yet, despite imperfections, it has sustained economic momentum, relative stability, and growing global influence.&nbsp;At the heart of India’s trajectory is leadership focused on growth and modernization—execution that matches rhetoric, policies that build investor confidence, and a bureaucracy largely aligned with the vision. Scale alone is insufficient; what matters is how it is leveraged.&nbsp;A large domestic market, a skilled workforce, and a competitive federal structure create a dynamic internal ecosystem. Indian states actively compete for investment and talent, fostering efficiency and innovation in ways smaller neighbors struggle to replicate. Importantly, India has coupled its size with outward-looking engagement, welcoming technology, capital, and partnerships rather than retreating inward.&nbsp;Democracy, despite its noise, acts as a safety valve. Citizens at multiple levels can express discontent, assert identity, and demand change—a pressure release that prevents destabilization. Equally important is India’s civilizational rootedness. National unity and self-confidence are anchored not in uniformity, but in the recognition of its long history, diverse traditions, and cultural heritage. Leaders have managed to stay grounded in culture while embracing modern governance, technology, and economic innovation—blending tradition with transformation. This balance reinforces social cohesion, nurtures a sense of belonging, and allows modernization without alienating communities.&nbsp;Technology amplifies impact. Digital public infrastructure, frontier sectors like AI, biotechnology, and EdTech, and investment in transparency-driven systems are transforming the country. Social programs aim to bridge gaps, though inequality remains a central challenge—a test for whether growth can be inclusive enough to sustain stability. National security and indigenous capabilities, paired with selective global sourcing, strengthen strategic confidence. Yet a paradox persists: even as India articulates a “Neighborhood First” policy, many neighbors hesitate to engage, while much of the world accelerates its engagement with India.&nbsp;The contrast is striking. Across parts of South Asia, youth energy manifests in protest. In India, it channels into education, entrepreneurship, and the evolving economy. Youth energy, when aligned with opportunity, builds economies; when constrained, it destabilizes them.&nbsp;India’s advantage is not a single factor—it is the alignment of political intent, administrative execution, and societal aspiration. South Asia’s lesson is clear: talent and potential abound, but systems must rise to meet youthful ambition. The question for South Asia is not whether its youth will rise—but whether its systems are ready to channel that energy toward growth, stability, and shared prosperity.

The more uncomfortable—and more instructive—question is this: why is India not experiencing similar instability at scale? With a population exceeding 1.4 billion, immense diversity, and persistent inequality, India appears far more vulnerable.

Across South Asia today, a striking pattern has emerged. In Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, young people took to the streets—driven by frustration over economic stagnation, governance failures, and lack of opportunity. In each country, these movements have reshaped politics, bringing new governments into power. The dominant question is: why did these youth uprisings happen? But that may be the wrong question. The more uncomfortable—and more instructive—question is this: why is India not experiencing similar instability at scale? With a population exceeding 1.4 billion, immense diversity, and persistent inequality, India appears far more vulnerable. Yet, despite imperfections, it has sustained economic momentum, relative stability, and growing global influence. At the heart of India’s trajectory is leadership focused on growth and modernization—execution that matches rhetoric, policies that build investor confidence, and a bureaucracy largely aligned with the vision. Scale alone is insufficient; what matters is how it is leveraged. A large domestic market, a skilled workforce, and a competitive federal structure create a dynamic internal ecosystem. Indian states actively compete for investment and talent, fostering efficiency and innovation in ways smaller neighbors struggle to replicate. Importantly, India has coupled its size with outward-looking engagement, welcoming technology, capital, and partnerships rather than retreating inward. Democracy, despite its noise, acts as a safety valve. Citizens at multiple levels can express discontent, assert identity, and demand change—a pressure release that prevents destabilization. Equally important is India’s civilizational rootedness. National unity and self-confidence are anchored not in uniformity, but in the recognition of its long history, diverse traditions, and cultural heritage. Leaders have managed to stay grounded in culture while embracing modern governance, technology, and economic innovation—blending tradition with transformation. This balance reinforces social cohesion, nurtures a sense of belonging, and allows modernization without alienating communities. Technology amplifies impact. Digital public infrastructure, frontier sectors like AI, biotechnology, and EdTech, and investment in transparency-driven systems are transforming the country. Social programs aim to bridge gaps, though inequality remains a central challenge—a test for whether growth can be inclusive enough to sustain stability. National security and indigenous capabilities, paired with selective global sourcing, strengthen strategic confidence. Yet a paradox persists: even as India articulates a “Neighborhood First” policy, many neighbors hesitate to engage, while much of the world accelerates its engagement with India. The contrast is striking. Across parts of South Asia, youth energy manifests in protest. In India, it channels into education, entrepreneurship, and the evolving economy. Youth energy, when aligned with opportunity, builds economies; when constrained, it destabilizes them. India’s advantage is not a single factor—it is the alignment of political intent, administrative execution, and societal aspiration. South Asia’s lesson is clear: talent and potential abound, but systems must rise to meet youthful ambition. The question for South Asia is not whether its youth will rise—but whether its systems are ready to channel that energy toward growth, stability, and shared prosperity.

The more uncomfortable—and more instructive—question is this: why is India not experiencing similar instability at scale? With a population exceeding 1.4 billion, immense diversity, and persistent inequality, India appears far more vulnerable.

Why India’s youth hustle while South Asia’s protest

There is a line, and all of us in the business know that it exists. We go towards danger, and our job is to not be the danger. Lately, however, that line seems to be disappear. Journalists are being killed, captured, and intimidated, not as bystanders, but as inconvenient truth-tellers. Let’s stop glossing over it. This is not just a war. This is a war against the truth. Stories have been written about how many journalists have died in airstrikes while simply doing what they were sent to do: report the truth. They wore press vests. They stood in front of cameras. They clearly identified themselves. They still died.&nbsp;Take the case of Fatima Ftouni, a journalist with Al-Mayadeen. On March 28, 2026, she was in a clearly marked media vehicle in the south of Lebanon, en route to a story she had to write. An Israeli strike hit the media vehicle she was in. She survived the first strike, reportedly stepping out and attempting to run away. A second strike followed. This strike killed her.&nbsp;She was not the only journalist killed in the strike. Her brother, Mohamad Ftouni, a freelance cameraman, also died in the strike. So did another journalist, Ali Shoeib, a veteran journalist. They were not hiding. They were not armed. They were just doing their job. Israel claimed to have targeted one of them, alleging that they had ties to militants, but failed to account for the others who died in the same strike.&nbsp;These are not grey areas. These are documented cases of journalists being hit while doing their jobs. These are not statistics. These are names. Faces. Stories that will now never be told. And then came the now-viral moment, where a CNN journalist was reportedly detained by Israeli forces in Lebanon while filming. Not firing a weapon. Not provoking violence. Just filming.&nbsp;But more than that, I feel something else: a sense of betrayal. Because journalism is founded on a precarious pledge: that in the midst of even the most brutal conflicts, there will be someone left to tell the tale. We are urged to be objective: to report without emotion. But objectivity is not an excuse to remain silent in the face of injustice.&nbsp;For when we target journalists, objectivity becomes complicity. When a journalist dies, it’s not just a life that’s been lost; it’s a story that’s been killed too. Accountability weakened. And when we arrest someone for reporting on a story, we send a rather chilling message: there are some truths we’d rather not reveal.&nbsp;That is not acceptable. We did not sign up to be silenced. We did not sign up to die for holding a camera. We signed up to bear witness. To go where the truth is uncomfortable. To ask questions power would rather avoid. To show people what is really happening, especially when someone wants it hidden. Yes, war reporting has always been a dangerous profession. But there is a difference between danger and targeting. One is risk. The other is suppression. And the more we accept this, the more we accept that the truth itself becomes a casualty.&nbsp;And today, it’s journalists in Lebanon. Tomorrow, it could be journalists anywhere in the world. Because once we accept that truth-telling journalists are dispensable, then no story is sacred and no society is informed. So, to answer the question, this is not just another headline. This is a warning. Because the day journalists become targets…is the day truth becomes optional. And that’s a more dangerous world than any war zone.&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.

Journalists killed in Lebanon highlight a growing war on truth, where reporting facts is becoming as dangerous as the conflict itself

There is a line, and all of us in the business know that it exists. We go towards danger, and our job is to not be the danger. Lately, however, that line seems to be disappear. Journalists are being killed, captured, and intimidated, not as bystanders, but as inconvenient truth-tellers. Let’s stop glossing over it. This is not just a war. This is a war against the truth. Stories have been written about how many journalists have died in airstrikes while simply doing what they were sent to do: report the truth. They wore press vests. They stood in front of cameras. They clearly identified themselves. They still died. Take the case of Fatima Ftouni, a journalist with Al-Mayadeen. On March 28, 2026, she was in a clearly marked media vehicle in the south of Lebanon, en route to a story she had to write. An Israeli strike hit the media vehicle she was in. She survived the first strike, reportedly stepping out and attempting to run away. A second strike followed. This strike killed her. She was not the only journalist killed in the strike. Her brother, Mohamad Ftouni, a freelance cameraman, also died in the strike. So did another journalist, Ali Shoeib, a veteran journalist. They were not hiding. They were not armed. They were just doing their job. Israel claimed to have targeted one of them, alleging that they had ties to militants, but failed to account for the others who died in the same strike. These are not grey areas. These are documented cases of journalists being hit while doing their jobs. These are not statistics. These are names. Faces. Stories that will now never be told. And then came the now-viral moment, where a CNN journalist was reportedly detained by Israeli forces in Lebanon while filming. Not firing a weapon. Not provoking violence. Just filming. But more than that, I feel something else: a sense of betrayal. Because journalism is founded on a precarious pledge: that in the midst of even the most brutal conflicts, there will be someone left to tell the tale. We are urged to be objective: to report without emotion. But objectivity is not an excuse to remain silent in the face of injustice. For when we target journalists, objectivity becomes complicity. When a journalist dies, it’s not just a life that’s been lost; it’s a story that’s been killed too. Accountability weakened. And when we arrest someone for reporting on a story, we send a rather chilling message: there are some truths we’d rather not reveal. That is not acceptable. We did not sign up to be silenced. We did not sign up to die for holding a camera. We signed up to bear witness. To go where the truth is uncomfortable. To ask questions power would rather avoid. To show people what is really happening, especially when someone wants it hidden. Yes, war reporting has always been a dangerous profession. But there is a difference between danger and targeting. One is risk. The other is suppression. And the more we accept this, the more we accept that the truth itself becomes a casualty. And today, it’s journalists in Lebanon. Tomorrow, it could be journalists anywhere in the world. Because once we accept that truth-telling journalists are dispensable, then no story is sacred and no society is informed. So, to answer the question, this is not just another headline. This is a warning. Because the day journalists become targets…is the day truth becomes optional. And that’s a more dangerous world than any war zone. 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.

Targeting journalists in war zones exposes a grim reality, truth is under attack, and those risking their lives to report are no longer protected

They were there to report. They never came back

After a month of unleashing its overwhelming air power on Iran, one thing is becoming clear: the United States cannot keep the Strait of Hormuz open with bombs and rockets. Iran holds the key to the vital waterway. Its closure ignited the worst global energy supply shock in history. By the end of the first month of the war, announced by President Donald Trump in a pre-dawn social media post on February 28, the US Central Command reported that its forces had struck more than 10,000 military targets inside Iran, including 92 percent of its naval vessels, key missile facilities and numerous weapons production factories.&nbsp;In terms of military tactics, Operation Epic Fury as the Pentagon termed it, has been a resounding success. But it has done nothing to allow free passage through the Straits to an estimated 2,000 oil tankers and bulk carriers stalled in the Persian Gulf for fear of being hit by Iranian missiles or mines. Faith Birol, the Executive Editor of the International Energy Agency, described the closure as “the worst global energy supply shock ever.” The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf to global markets and carries roughly a quarters of the world’s oil exports and a fifth of its liquefied natural gas.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-irgc-issues-ultimatum-to-us-universities-in-west-asia-after-attack-on-campuses-in-tehran-1774741664288">'By 12 noon...': Iran issues ultimatum to US universities in West Asia</a>&nbsp;In the first meeting of his cabinet since he announced his war, Trump had an explanation for the effectiveness of the blockage announced by Iran, whose mountains overlook the waterway. Told by a member of his team that the air campaign had a 99 percent success rate, he said that was not enough. “The problem with the straits is this,” Trump said. “Let’s say we do a great job. We say we got 99 percent. One percent is unacceptable, because one percent is a missile going into the hull of a ship that cost $1 billion. If we do a 99 percent decimation, that’s no good.”&nbsp;That reflects the thinking of military leaders who had warned him that air power alone has never forced a country into submission. Iran appears no exception although it is severely weakened by the killing of its Supreme Leader and the first two or three tiers of potential successors. But where the Strait of Hormuz is concerned, Iran enjoys a huge advantage in the asymmetrical war now unfolding. The mountainous terrain on either side of the narrow corridor provide numerous hiding places for men and missiles.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-welcome-to-hell-iran-s-daily-issues-warning-to-us-against-ground-invasion-1774728327794">‘Welcome to Hell’: Iran’s daily issues warning to US against ground invasion</a>&nbsp;Dislodging them from the air to get to the 100 percent Trump set out as a war aim is virtually impossible. That realization appears to have prompted the decision to dispatch 2,200 Marines who arrived in the region this weekend. They are due to be joined soon by another Marine Expeditionary Unit and a combat brigade from the Army’s elite 82 Airborne Division. Eventually, the combined force of “boots on the ground,” the standard U.S. phrase for uniformed soldiers, is predicted to rise up to 15,000. What their orders are is unclear. But what is clear is that their deployment was blessed by a commander-in-chief who won elections on the promise not to start wars and get entangled in the most complex area of the world.&nbsp;Trump’s approval ratings have plunged sharply since he announced the war, arguing it was necessary “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Neither Trump nor any of his aides have explained what “imminent” meant. Those Americans who were awake at 0230 last Saturday morning might be forgiven to fear that a swarm of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic weapons were hurtling towards Washington and otter major American cities.&nbsp;Omission and exaggeration are important tools in propaganda. One glaring omission in Trump’s pre-dawn video was the word “Israel.” In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a war declaration video at exactly the same time as Trump. It sad: “My brothers and sisters, citizens of Israel. A short while ago Israel and the United States embarked on a joint campaign, Operation Lion’s Roar. The aim of the operation is to out an end to the threat from the Ayatollah regime in Iran.”&nbsp;For most Americans, the joint nature of the war was not immediately clear But when it became obvious, it deepened the anger of voters who opted for Trump in the 2024 elections because of his promise not to start wars and get entangled in conflicts abroad. The most furious public response came from a close aide of Trump, Joe Kent, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. On March 17, he resigned from his post with a public letter that shocked many of the president’s most fervent supporters. “After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my positon,” the letter said. “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”&nbsp;Questioned by reporters about Israel’s influence on his decision, Trump insisted that it was his alone. But war on Iran was reported to have been the topic of a three-hour meeting between Trump and Netanyahu during an unexpected meeting to the White House on February 11.&nbsp;Since the bombs began falling, Trump has made a number of bizarre statements, including “we’ve won” and “the war is very complete, pretty much.” He has called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and set various deadlines he extended when the Iranians ignored them. Early this week, he gave Iran five days to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face the destruction of its power grid. The deadline was Friday, March 27. But a day before it expires, he extended the deadline for another 10 days.&nbsp;What’s next after that? While Trump has repeatedly insisted, the Iranians were “begging” for talks to end the conflict, Tehran denied they wanted to negotiate and showed no sign of easing the waterway’s blockage. You need a good deal of optimism to believe that talks hosted by Pakistan on Sunday with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt will yield progress in efforts to mediate the war. But you can’t rule it out either. Pressure on Trump’s domestic front might help in finding a solution. The war of choice the American president started is deeply unpopular at home. Trump’s approval rating has fallen to 36 percent, the lowest since he returned to the White House.

Despite heavy strikes under Operation Epic Fury, the United States Central Command has failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, as Iran’s asymmetric tactics stall global oil flows. Donald Trump now faces rising pressure amid troop deployments and falling approval.

After a month of unleashing its overwhelming air power on Iran, one thing is becoming clear: the United States cannot keep the Strait of Hormuz open with bombs and rockets. Iran holds the key to the vital waterway. Its closure ignited the worst global energy supply shock in history. By the end of the first month of the war, announced by President Donald Trump in a pre-dawn social media post on February 28, the US Central Command reported that its forces had struck more than 10,000 military targets inside Iran, including 92 percent of its naval vessels, key missile facilities and numerous weapons production factories. In terms of military tactics, Operation Epic Fury as the Pentagon termed it, has been a resounding success. But it has done nothing to allow free passage through the Straits to an estimated 2,000 oil tankers and bulk carriers stalled in the Persian Gulf for fear of being hit by Iranian missiles or mines. Faith Birol, the Executive Editor of the International Energy Agency, described the closure as “the worst global energy supply shock ever.” The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf to global markets and carries roughly a quarters of the world’s oil exports and a fifth of its liquefied natural gas. Also Read: 'By 12 noon...': Iran issues ultimatum to US universities in West Asia In the first meeting of his cabinet since he announced his war, Trump had an explanation for the effectiveness of the blockage announced by Iran, whose mountains overlook the waterway. Told by a member of his team that the air campaign had a 99 percent success rate, he said that was not enough. “The problem with the straits is this,” Trump said. “Let’s say we do a great job. We say we got 99 percent. One percent is unacceptable, because one percent is a missile going into the hull of a ship that cost $1 billion. If we do a 99 percent decimation, that’s no good.” That reflects the thinking of military leaders who had warned him that air power alone has never forced a country into submission. Iran appears no exception although it is severely weakened by the killing of its Supreme Leader and the first two or three tiers of potential successors. But where the Strait of Hormuz is concerned, Iran enjoys a huge advantage in the asymmetrical war now unfolding. The mountainous terrain on either side of the narrow corridor provide numerous hiding places for men and missiles. Also Read: ‘Welcome to Hell’: Iran’s daily issues warning to US against ground invasion Dislodging them from the air to get to the 100 percent Trump set out as a war aim is virtually impossible. That realization appears to have prompted the decision to dispatch 2,200 Marines who arrived in the region this weekend. They are due to be joined soon by another Marine Expeditionary Unit and a combat brigade from the Army’s elite 82 Airborne Division. Eventually, the combined force of “boots on the ground,” the standard U.S. phrase for uniformed soldiers, is predicted to rise up to 15,000. What their orders are is unclear. But what is clear is that their deployment was blessed by a commander-in-chief who won elections on the promise not to start wars and get entangled in the most complex area of the world. Trump’s approval ratings have plunged sharply since he announced the war, arguing it was necessary “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Neither Trump nor any of his aides have explained what “imminent” meant. Those Americans who were awake at 0230 last Saturday morning might be forgiven to fear that a swarm of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic weapons were hurtling towards Washington and otter major American cities. Omission and exaggeration are important tools in propaganda. One glaring omission in Trump’s pre-dawn video was the word “Israel.” In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a war declaration video at exactly the same time as Trump. It sad: “My brothers and sisters, citizens of Israel. A short while ago Israel and the United States embarked on a joint campaign, Operation Lion’s Roar. The aim of the operation is to out an end to the threat from the Ayatollah regime in Iran.” For most Americans, the joint nature of the war was not immediately clear But when it became obvious, it deepened the anger of voters who opted for Trump in the 2024 elections because of his promise not to start wars and get entangled in conflicts abroad. The most furious public response came from a close aide of Trump, Joe Kent, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. On March 17, he resigned from his post with a public letter that shocked many of the president’s most fervent supporters. “After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my positon,” the letter said. “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” Questioned by reporters about Israel’s influence on his decision, Trump insisted that it was his alone. But war on Iran was reported to have been the topic of a three-hour meeting between Trump and Netanyahu during an unexpected meeting to the White House on February 11. Since the bombs began falling, Trump has made a number of bizarre statements, including “we’ve won” and “the war is very complete, pretty much.” He has called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” and set various deadlines he extended when the Iranians ignored them. Early this week, he gave Iran five days to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face the destruction of its power grid. The deadline was Friday, March 27. But a day before it expires, he extended the deadline for another 10 days. What’s next after that? While Trump has repeatedly insisted, the Iranians were “begging” for talks to end the conflict, Tehran denied they wanted to negotiate and showed no sign of easing the waterway’s blockage. You need a good deal of optimism to believe that talks hosted by Pakistan on Sunday with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt will yield progress in efforts to mediate the war. But you can’t rule it out either. Pressure on Trump’s domestic front might help in finding a solution. The war of choice the American president started is deeply unpopular at home. Trump’s approval rating has fallen to 36 percent, the lowest since he returned to the White House.

Despite heavy strikes under Operation Epic Fury, the United States Central Command has failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, as Iran’s asymmetric tactics stall global oil flows. Donald Trump now faces rising pressure amid troop deployments and falling approval.

Straits of Hormuz highlights limits of America’s military power

The ongoing Middle East crisis triggered by the USA-Israel vs Iran conflict has severely disrupted the global economy and geopolitics. Rising energy prices, broken supply chains, and economic uncertainty are now affecting households and industries worldwide. In contrast, India is turning this challenge into an opportunity. With a strong economic base and a proven ability to bounce back from adversity, the country is accelerating its journey towards a sustainable and self-reliant energy sector.&nbsp;The recently concluded four-day Bharat Electricity Summit 2026 showcased India’s strong resolve and capability in handling energy challenges through renewable energy and clean technology. The clear message from the summit was that India’s energy transition is no longer just a national goal — it has become a powerful state-driven movement backed by innovation, policy reforms, and strong on-ground execution.&nbsp;At the summit, five key states — Bihar, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Delhi — presented ambitious and transformative roadmaps that strongly support Prime Minister Modi’s vision of Viksit Bharat. These states demonstrated how focused local strategies are helping achieve national targets of reliable power, clean energy adoption, and inclusive economic growth.&nbsp;Bihar: Powering growth with reliability, reformLeading the narrative was Bihar, which has made remarkable strides in strengthening its power infrastructure and ensuring reliable electricity access across urban and rural areas. Once considered a power-deficit state, Bihar today stands as a model of turnaround through focused investments in transmission, distribution, and smart technologies.&nbsp;At the summit, Bihar underlined its forward-looking approach toward grid modernization and energy storage systems, backed by structured investment pipelines. The state’s commitment to improving reliability and reducing losses has significantly enhanced consumer confidence and industrial growth.&nbsp;The power distribution sector in Bihar has achieved a significant national breakthrough, earning recognition from the Ministry of Power for its remarkable improvement in operational efficiency.&nbsp;Bihar’s Energy Minister, Bijendra Prasad, said the government is focused on strengthening service delivery, increasing transparency, and using technology to enhance the overall consumer experience across the state.&nbsp;Energy Secretary Manoj Kumar Singh, who is also Chairman and Managing Director of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, highlighted that the improved national rankings reflect a deep structural transformation in Bihar’s power distribution sector. The state’s Energy Secretary added, “We are building a resilient and future-ready grid, with investments in storage, smart metering, and digital monitoring systems to meet rising demand efficiently.”&nbsp;Bihar’s push toward smart meters and digitization has improved billing efficiency, reduced AT&amp;C losses, and empowered consumers—key elements in driving both economic and social development.&nbsp;Gujarat: Leading India’s renewable revolutionGujarat reaffirmed its position as a renewable energy powerhouse with an ambitious target of achieving 190 GW of renewable capacity by 2047. The state’s proactive policies, investor-friendly ecosystem, and strong industrial base have made it a leader in solar and wind energy deployment.&nbsp;Its integrated approach—combining renewable expansion with grid stability and storage solutions—sets a benchmark for other states. Gujarat’s progress reflects how clean energy can drive industrial competitiveness while supporting sustainability goals.&nbsp;Andhra Pradesh: Building a clean energy hubAndhra Pradesh presented one of the most ambitious visions at the Bharat Electricity Summit, aiming to develop an integrated clean energy hub with investments exceeding Rs 6 lakh crore. The state is focusing on large-scale renewable projects, green hydrogen, and port-led industrial ecosystems powered by clean energy. NTPC Limited is developing one of the world’s largest Green Hydrogen Hubs at Pudimadaka near Visakhapatnam.&nbsp;The massive project, worth Rs1.85 lakh crore, was launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in January 2025. Spread over 1,600 acres, the hub aims to produce 1,500 tons per day of green hydrogen and its derivatives — including green ammonia, methanol, and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) — by 2032.&nbsp;This approach not only positions Andhra Pradesh as a global energy hub but also creates significant employment opportunities, boosting regional economic development. The state’s emphasis on infrastructure and innovation highlights the critical role of energy in shaping future economies.&nbsp;Maharashtra: Scaling capacity for future demandMaharashtra, one of India’s largest power-consuming states, showcased its roadmap to meet a projected demand of 280 TWh by 2030. With rapid urbanization and industrialization, the state under the leadership of Devendra Fadnavis is investing heavily in capacity expansion, renewable integration, and grid modernization. Its strategy balances conventional and renewable sources while focusing on reliability and efficiency. Maharashtra’s stand underscores the importance of planning ahead to sustain economic growth without compromising on energy security.&nbsp;The state has now become a power surplus state and is well prepared to meet the growing demand from industries and data centres. Mahavitaran (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company) has emerged as one of Asia’s largest power distribution utilities, with its annual revenue crossing ₹1 lakh crore.&nbsp;Delhi: Urban energy transition at scaleDelhi’s model represents the future of urban energy systems. The national capital is transitioning toward a high-renewable, storage-integrated power system, supported by advanced distribution reforms and near-universal smart meter adoption. Delhi is demonstrating how cities can lead the clean energy transition while ensuring uninterrupted power supply. Its success also highlights the role of policy innovation and governance in driving change.&nbsp;The Delhi government, under Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, is strongly promoting clean energy with a Rs 3,942 crore allocation for the power sector in the 2026–27 budget. The focus is on restoring Delhi’s status as "Green Delhi" with the expansion of rooftop solar, electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, and waste-to-energy projects. Key initiatives include the PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana, incentives for rooftop solar installations, and the creation of a dedicated Delhi Energy Conservation Fund to help Delhi move towards greater energy self-reliance.&nbsp;Viksit Bharat through state leadershipThe collective efforts of these five states illustrate a powerful narrative—India’s journey toward a developed nation is being shaped at the state level. Reliable electricity supply, smart metering, renewable energy adoption, and robust infrastructure are not just technical achievements; they are enablers of economic growth, social equity, and improved quality of life. Insights from government sources, including policy perspectives focused with national priorities, indicate that such state-led initiatives are critical to achieving energy security and sustainability goals. The emphasis on digitalization, storage, and green energy reflects a holistic approach to sectoral transformation.&nbsp;As the Bharat Electricity Summit concluded, it left behind a strong sense of optimism and direction. The participation of Bihar, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Delhi showcased how diverse regions, with unique challenges and opportunities, are collectively contributing to India’s energy transition. Their leadership not only strengthens the power sector but also accelerates the broader vision of Viksit Bharat—a future where reliable, sustainable, and inclusive energy powers every home, industry, and aspiration. &nbsp;

At the summit, five key states — Bihar, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Delhi — presented ambitious and transformative roadmaps that strongly support Prime Minister Modi’s vision of Viksit Bharat.

The ongoing Middle East crisis triggered by the USA-Israel vs Iran conflict has severely disrupted the global economy and geopolitics. Rising energy prices, broken supply chains, and economic uncertainty are now affecting households and industries worldwide. In contrast, India is turning this challenge into an opportunity. With a strong economic base and a proven ability to bounce back from adversity, the country is accelerating its journey towards a sustainable and self-reliant energy sector. The recently concluded four-day Bharat Electricity Summit 2026 showcased India’s strong resolve and capability in handling energy challenges through renewable energy and clean technology. The clear message from the summit was that India’s energy transition is no longer just a national goal — it has become a powerful state-driven movement backed by innovation, policy reforms, and strong on-ground execution. At the summit, five key states — Bihar, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Delhi — presented ambitious and transformative roadmaps that strongly support Prime Minister Modi’s vision of Viksit Bharat. These states demonstrated how focused local strategies are helping achieve national targets of reliable power, clean energy adoption, and inclusive economic growth. Bihar: Powering growth with reliability, reform Leading the narrative was Bihar, which has made remarkable strides in strengthening its power infrastructure and ensuring reliable electricity access across urban and rural areas. Once considered a power-deficit state, Bihar today stands as a model of turnaround through focused investments in transmission, distribution, and smart technologies. At the summit, Bihar underlined its forward-looking approach toward grid modernization and energy storage systems, backed by structured investment pipelines. The state’s commitment to improving reliability and reducing losses has significantly enhanced consumer confidence and industrial growth. The power distribution sector in Bihar has achieved a significant national breakthrough, earning recognition from the Ministry of Power for its remarkable improvement in operational efficiency. Bihar’s Energy Minister, Bijendra Prasad, said the government is focused on strengthening service delivery, increasing transparency, and using technology to enhance the overall consumer experience across the state. Energy Secretary Manoj Kumar Singh, who is also Chairman and Managing Director of Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, highlighted that the improved national rankings reflect a deep structural transformation in Bihar’s power distribution sector. The state’s Energy Secretary added, “We are building a resilient and future-ready grid, with investments in storage, smart metering, and digital monitoring systems to meet rising demand efficiently.” Bihar’s push toward smart meters and digitization has improved billing efficiency, reduced AT&C losses, and empowered consumers—key elements in driving both economic and social development. Gujarat: Leading India’s renewable revolution Gujarat reaffirmed its position as a renewable energy powerhouse with an ambitious target of achieving 190 GW of renewable capacity by 2047. The state’s proactive policies, investor-friendly ecosystem, and strong industrial base have made it a leader in solar and wind energy deployment. Its integrated approach—combining renewable expansion with grid stability and storage solutions—sets a benchmark for other states. Gujarat’s progress reflects how clean energy can drive industrial competitiveness while supporting sustainability goals. Andhra Pradesh: Building a clean energy hub Andhra Pradesh presented one of the most ambitious visions at the Bharat Electricity Summit, aiming to develop an integrated clean energy hub with investments exceeding Rs 6 lakh crore. The state is focusing on large-scale renewable projects, green hydrogen, and port-led industrial ecosystems powered by clean energy. NTPC Limited is developing one of the world’s largest Green Hydrogen Hubs at Pudimadaka near Visakhapatnam. The massive project, worth Rs1.85 lakh crore, was launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in January 2025. Spread over 1,600 acres, the hub aims to produce 1,500 tons per day of green hydrogen and its derivatives — including green ammonia, methanol, and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) — by 2032. This approach not only positions Andhra Pradesh as a global energy hub but also creates significant employment opportunities, boosting regional economic development. The state’s emphasis on infrastructure and innovation highlights the critical role of energy in shaping future economies. Maharashtra: Scaling capacity for future demand Maharashtra, one of India’s largest power-consuming states, showcased its roadmap to meet a projected demand of 280 TWh by 2030. With rapid urbanization and industrialization, the state under the leadership of Devendra Fadnavis is investing heavily in capacity expansion, renewable integration, and grid modernization. Its strategy balances conventional and renewable sources while focusing on reliability and efficiency. Maharashtra’s stand underscores the importance of planning ahead to sustain economic growth without compromising on energy security. The state has now become a power surplus state and is well prepared to meet the growing demand from industries and data centres. Mahavitaran (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company) has emerged as one of Asia’s largest power distribution utilities, with its annual revenue crossing ₹1 lakh crore. Delhi: Urban energy transition at scale Delhi’s model represents the future of urban energy systems. The national capital is transitioning toward a high-renewable, storage-integrated power system, supported by advanced distribution reforms and near-universal smart meter adoption. Delhi is demonstrating how cities can lead the clean energy transition while ensuring uninterrupted power supply. Its success also highlights the role of policy innovation and governance in driving change. The Delhi government, under Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, is strongly promoting clean energy with a Rs 3,942 crore allocation for the power sector in the 2026–27 budget. The focus is on restoring Delhi’s status as "Green Delhi" with the expansion of rooftop solar, electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, and waste-to-energy projects. Key initiatives include the PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana, incentives for rooftop solar installations, and the creation of a dedicated Delhi Energy Conservation Fund to help Delhi move towards greater energy self-reliance. Viksit Bharat through state leadership The collective efforts of these five states illustrate a powerful narrative—India’s journey toward a developed nation is being shaped at the state level. Reliable electricity supply, smart metering, renewable energy adoption, and robust infrastructure are not just technical achievements; they are enablers of economic growth, social equity, and improved quality of life. Insights from government sources, including policy perspectives focused with national priorities, indicate that such state-led initiatives are critical to achieving energy security and sustainability goals. The emphasis on digitalization, storage, and green energy reflects a holistic approach to sectoral transformation. As the Bharat Electricity Summit concluded, it left behind a strong sense of optimism and direction. The participation of Bihar, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Delhi showcased how diverse regions, with unique challenges and opportunities, are collectively contributing to India’s energy transition. Their leadership not only strengthens the power sector but also accelerates the broader vision of Viksit Bharat—a future where reliable, sustainable, and inclusive energy powers every home, industry, and aspiration.

At the summit, five key states — Bihar, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Delhi — presented ambitious and transformative roadmaps that strongly support Prime Minister Modi’s vision of Viksit Bharat.

From Bihar’s turnaround to Gujarat’s 190 GW renewables---Can THESE 5 states decide India’s energy future?

As the world navigates rising inflation, supply chain disruptions, and intensifying geopolitical tensions, a new form of economic competition is emerging—less about outproducing rivals, and more about limiting their ability to compete at all.&nbsp;Sustained national prosperity rarely comes from caution. It is shaped—often messily—by risk-takers: innovators and entrepreneurs with vision, instinct, and commercial acumen, willing to make large bets under uncertainty. Their methods can be abrasive to experience in real time. But history suggests that no more reliable engine of national economic strength has yet been found than enterprise that is able to scale.&nbsp;When that capacity emerges elsewhere, states often respond not only by competing harder but also by tightening access—markets, capital, and rules of participation—in effect policing rival champions. “Policing” here can be overt—through tariffs and procurement bans—or more subtle, via financial constraints, licensing obstacles, standards barriers, and selectively applied rules. The label changes; the effect is similar: market denial.&nbsp;The United States is itself a product of the scale-building phase. America’s rise was driven not merely by ideals or institutions but by builders who mobilised capital at scale and created the industrial backbone of modern life—railroads, steel, oil, finance, and manufacturing. The classic “robber baron” era produced figures such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J. P. Morgan, Andrew Mellon, and Jay Gould: controversial, sometimes ruthless, but undeniably formative in the construction of American industrial power. Many also later turned to large-scale philanthropy—endowing universities, libraries, research, museums, and foundations that helped shape American civic and educational life.&nbsp;America also illustrates the familiar sequencing: societies often tolerate a period of excess while capabilities are being built, and then rein in abuse once costs become politically and socially unacceptable. The Progressive Era and Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busting posture reflected that logic—permit industrial formation to occur, then impose anti-monopoly discipline to curb predation and restore legitimacy. The point is not to romanticise excess, but to recognise that strong systems can both enable scale and later enforce limits.&nbsp;Across parts of the US political spectrum, there is a belief that the United States has lost its economic mojo. Complacency, cultural conflict, and regulatory and institutional drift are seen as taking hold just as other economies have grown faster and more ambitious. Rebuilding competitiveness is a legitimate objective. But there is a difference between renewing domestic strength and suppressing or containing foreign champions. Too often, the instinct is to treat other countries’ large firms not as competitors to out-produce and out-execute, but as threats to be suppressed or contained—through exclusion, punitive measures, or moralised criteria governments selectively apply.&nbsp;The rhetoric is no longer always cloaked in virtue; it is increasingly explicit about national interest. Either way, the practical outcome is often market denial.&nbsp;This is not uniquely American behaviour. The institutional mix differs across countries, but the pattern recurs: Japan rebuilt through corporate reorganisation and export drive; South Korea scaled through conglomerates aligned with national goals; China’s rise has depended heavily on firms and ecosystems able to take risks and scale rapidly. India, too, has never lacked entrepreneurs—from early industrial and trading pioneers to later builders of manufacturing, services, and national infrastructure. Many Indian entrepreneurs have also built major philanthropic institutions—supporting education, healthcare, scientific research, and cultural initiatives alongside enterprise and scale, in ways that few other countries have rivalled. Across systems, economic strength ultimately rests on human initiative and execution—plus the ability to scale.&nbsp;A contemporary variant is visible in the Gulf. Over the past two decades, state-linked enterprises have built globally significant positions in logistics, ports, energy, aviation, finance, and advanced services—combining strategic direction with commercial execution to create national capability in competitive sectors. It is a reminder that the route to scale often differs across systems, but the underlying logic of power-building through enterprise is persistent.&nbsp;Keynes remains useful here. He called the impulse that drives investment and innovation “animal spirits”—the spontaneous urge to act under uncertainty that no amount of planning can fully replace. When the United States is confident, it celebrates these spirits at home. When it feels anxious, it is tempted to police their emergence abroad.&nbsp;For India’s leadership, the implication is straightforward: treat market access and rule-setting as instruments of competition, not neutral features of the system. When access tightens, it may be justified as principle or national interest; either way, it should be read as strategy. India’s next phase of growth—exports, manufacturing depth, infrastructure scale, and technology upgrading—will depend on entrepreneurs with judgment under uncertainty and the ability to execute at scale. As champions emerge and scale—and as existing ones grow—they are treated not only as commercial actors, but as geopolitical ones.&nbsp;There is also a price to this cycle. Champion-building and winner-take-most dynamics concentrate wealth; gaps widen; those outside the growth story become resentful—fuel for political backlash. In a technological transition, that stress intensifies: productivity rises, but wage dispersion can widen and mid-skill work can be hollowed out. If this era is going to be competitive, it will also have to be governable. Governments and entrepreneurs alike will need to think beyond scale—to the institutions and policies that keep growth socially and politically sustainable.In a world where access itself is contested, success will depend not just on the ability to compete—but on the ability to endure.&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.)

Across parts of the US political spectrum, there is a belief that the United States has lost its economic mojo. Complacency, cultural conflict, and regulatory and institutional drift are seen as taking hold just as other economies have grown faster and more ambitious.

As the world navigates rising inflation, supply chain disruptions, and intensifying geopolitical tensions, a new form of economic competition is emerging—less about outproducing rivals, and more about limiting their ability to compete at all. Sustained national prosperity rarely comes from caution. It is shaped—often messily—by risk-takers: innovators and entrepreneurs with vision, instinct, and commercial acumen, willing to make large bets under uncertainty. Their methods can be abrasive to experience in real time. But history suggests that no more reliable engine of national economic strength has yet been found than enterprise that is able to scale. When that capacity emerges elsewhere, states often respond not only by competing harder but also by tightening access—markets, capital, and rules of participation—in effect policing rival champions. “Policing” here can be overt—through tariffs and procurement bans—or more subtle, via financial constraints, licensing obstacles, standards barriers, and selectively applied rules. The label changes; the effect is similar: market denial. The United States is itself a product of the scale-building phase. America’s rise was driven not merely by ideals or institutions but by builders who mobilised capital at scale and created the industrial backbone of modern life—railroads, steel, oil, finance, and manufacturing. The classic “robber baron” era produced figures such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J. P. Morgan, Andrew Mellon, and Jay Gould: controversial, sometimes ruthless, but undeniably formative in the construction of American industrial power. Many also later turned to large-scale philanthropy—endowing universities, libraries, research, museums, and foundations that helped shape American civic and educational life. America also illustrates the familiar sequencing: societies often tolerate a period of excess while capabilities are being built, and then rein in abuse once costs become politically and socially unacceptable. The Progressive Era and Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busting posture reflected that logic—permit industrial formation to occur, then impose anti-monopoly discipline to curb predation and restore legitimacy. The point is not to romanticise excess, but to recognise that strong systems can both enable scale and later enforce limits. Across parts of the US political spectrum, there is a belief that the United States has lost its economic mojo. Complacency, cultural conflict, and regulatory and institutional drift are seen as taking hold just as other economies have grown faster and more ambitious. Rebuilding competitiveness is a legitimate objective. But there is a difference between renewing domestic strength and suppressing or containing foreign champions. Too often, the instinct is to treat other countries’ large firms not as competitors to out-produce and out-execute, but as threats to be suppressed or contained—through exclusion, punitive measures, or moralised criteria governments selectively apply. The rhetoric is no longer always cloaked in virtue; it is increasingly explicit about national interest. Either way, the practical outcome is often market denial. This is not uniquely American behaviour. The institutional mix differs across countries, but the pattern recurs: Japan rebuilt through corporate reorganisation and export drive; South Korea scaled through conglomerates aligned with national goals; China’s rise has depended heavily on firms and ecosystems able to take risks and scale rapidly. India, too, has never lacked entrepreneurs—from early industrial and trading pioneers to later builders of manufacturing, services, and national infrastructure. Many Indian entrepreneurs have also built major philanthropic institutions—supporting education, healthcare, scientific research, and cultural initiatives alongside enterprise and scale, in ways that few other countries have rivalled. Across systems, economic strength ultimately rests on human initiative and execution—plus the ability to scale. A contemporary variant is visible in the Gulf. Over the past two decades, state-linked enterprises have built globally significant positions in logistics, ports, energy, aviation, finance, and advanced services—combining strategic direction with commercial execution to create national capability in competitive sectors. It is a reminder that the route to scale often differs across systems, but the underlying logic of power-building through enterprise is persistent. Keynes remains useful here. He called the impulse that drives investment and innovation “animal spirits”—the spontaneous urge to act under uncertainty that no amount of planning can fully replace. When the United States is confident, it celebrates these spirits at home. When it feels anxious, it is tempted to police their emergence abroad. For India’s leadership, the implication is straightforward: treat market access and rule-setting as instruments of competition, not neutral features of the system. When access tightens, it may be justified as principle or national interest; either way, it should be read as strategy. India’s next phase of growth—exports, manufacturing depth, infrastructure scale, and technology upgrading—will depend on entrepreneurs with judgment under uncertainty and the ability to execute at scale. As champions emerge and scale—and as existing ones grow—they are treated not only as commercial actors, but as geopolitical ones. There is also a price to this cycle. Champion-building and winner-take-most dynamics concentrate wealth; gaps widen; those outside the growth story become resentful—fuel for political backlash. In a technological transition, that stress intensifies: productivity rises, but wage dispersion can widen and mid-skill work can be hollowed out. If this era is going to be competitive, it will also have to be governable. Governments and entrepreneurs alike will need to think beyond scale—to the institutions and policies that keep growth socially and politically sustainable. In a world where access itself is contested, success will depend not just on the ability to compete—but on the ability to endure. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Across parts of the US political spectrum, there is a belief that the United States has lost its economic mojo. Complacency, cultural conflict, and regulatory and institutional drift are seen as taking hold just as other economies have grown faster and more ambitious.

Competing by exclusion: The return of economic containment

As the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran enters its fourth week, one country has quietly stepped into the spotlight—Pakistan. It has offered to host peace talks between Washington and Tehran, a move that has surprised many and raised hopes for some kind of breakthrough. With both sides weary from weeks of strikes, missiles, and rising global tension, Islamabad’s sudden offer has made the world stop and listen.&nbsp;Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif posted on X (formerly Twitter) on March 24, saying Pakistan was “ready and honored” to host “serious and final talks” for a full peace deal to end the war. Within minutes, US President Donald Trump reshared the post, calling it a “positive step.” Just a day earlier, Trump had announced a temporary five-day halt in American attacks on Iran’s energy sites. He also hinted that top officials from both sides had already exchanged messages through friendly countries.&nbsp;According to regional sources, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan have all been acting as informal middlemen, quietly passing messages between Iran and the US. But so far, only Pakistan seems to have the trust of both sides.&nbsp;<h2>Why Pakistan wants to mediate</h2>&nbsp;Pakistan’s decision to jump into one of the world’s most dangerous conflicts isn’t just random. It is driven by both practical needs and smart diplomacy.&nbsp;First, Pakistan understands that if this war continues, the entire region — including its own economy — will suffer. The Strait of Hormuz, which handles almost 20% of the world’s oil, is near total collapse due to attacks. If that continues, oil prices will shoot up worldwide, and Pakistan, already struggling with high inflation and energy costs, will pay the price.&nbsp;Second, Pakistan has a large Shia Muslim population, nearly 15% of its people, and any turmoil in Iran directly affects its social and political stability. Violence in Iran often creates emotional reactions inside Pakistan, including protests and pressure on its government to respond.&nbsp;Third, Pakistan also has a strategic defence deal with Saudi Arabia, signed in 2025. Much like NATO’s principle of “an attack on one is an attack on all,” this agreement links Pakistan’s security to Saudi Arabia’s stability. But it also puts Islamabad in a tight spot — it cannot appear neutral for too long, or it risks angering Riyadh, yet taking sides could ruin its relations with Iran. Hence, offering to mediate is Pakistan’s smartest possible move.&nbsp;<h2>Security tensions at home</h2>&nbsp;At the same time, Pakistan faces major issues on its border with Afghanistan. Just before the Iran war began, Pakistan had launched airstrikes inside Afghan territory against terrorist groups. Now, with the world’s attention fixed on Iran, Pakistan has more freedom to deal with these threats quietly, without attracting much outside criticism.&nbsp;However, if Iran becomes unstable, the problems could easily spread. The Pakistan-Iran border stretches over 900 kilometres and is poorly monitored. Terror groups could slip across easily, using the conflict as cover. That would hurt Pakistan’s economy, especially in Balochistan, where major trade and energy projects are based. It could also scare investors away and threaten plans to connect Pakistan to Central Asian markets.&nbsp;<h2>The road to talks</h2>&nbsp;Reports in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper and Turkey’s Anadolu Agency confirm that American officials may soon arrive in Islamabad for preparatory discussions. Iran has officially denied holding talks, but the tone of its denial suggested that some quiet exchanges are already happening.&nbsp;Analysts believe Pakistan’s advantage lies in its working relations with both camps. Islamabad has deep ties with the United States through trade, the military, and diplomacy. With Iran, Pakistan shares a long border and ongoing regional agreements. And even though Pakistan does not recognise Israel, it quietly communicates through friendly Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.&nbsp;As Zeeshan Shah, a geopolitical analyst based in Washington, told Al-Monitor, Pakistan’s growing role as a mediator is “not surprising.” He explained that Islamabad is one of the few countries near Iran that has not been attacked by Tehran in this war. Its balanced ties with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the US give it rare credibility as a go-between.&nbsp;Some analysts also note another layer — a new kind of financial diplomacy. Zach Witkoff, a business figure close to the Trump family, reportedly visited Islamabad in January to discuss using digital currency systems for international payments. This suggests that apart from politics, economic interests are now shaping how Pakistan engages the world during this crisis.&nbsp;<h2>Tehran’s tentative response</h2>&nbsp;For now, Iran insists that it is not holding any formal talks with the US. But the country’s statements are carefully worded. Tehran says it has received messages from “friendly mediators” but will stick to its conditions — mainly that the US and Israel must stop attacks, pay compensation for the damage, and respect Iran’s security.&nbsp;However, many within Iran’s power circles — especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — strongly oppose any negotiations. According to experts quoted in Al-Monitor, the IRGC fears that such talks could weaken its influence and create internal divisions within Iran’s power structure.&nbsp;<h2>Can Pakistan really pull this off?</h2>&nbsp;Realistically, Pakistan’s offer faces several challenges. The US is still sending more Marines and naval forces to the Gulf, and Iran continues missile attacks on Israeli and allied targets. The battlefield is still hot, making peace talks fragile at best.&nbsp;Still, diplomatic voices in Washington and Dubai describe Pakistan’s role as “a small but genuine hope.” Even a short-term truce could slow missile exchanges, reopen shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, and stabilise global oil prices. That alone would bring relief to millions across Asia, including India and Pakistan, where petrol and gas costs are climbing sharply.&nbsp;But as Theodore Karasik, a Middle East expert also quoted in Al-Monitor, pointed out, diplomacy will only work if both sides truly want it. If the talks turn into political theater—more about headlines than healing—then the war will likely resume in full force.&nbsp;For now, Islamabad has achieved what few expected: it has placed itself at the centre of world diplomacy, even if only for a moment. As the bombs fall and oil prices rise, the world watches to see whether this unexpected mediator from South Asia can turn a flicker of hope into something real — or whether Pakistan’s peace promise will disappear like smoke over the burning Strait of Hormuz.&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.)

Just before the Iran war began, Pakistan had launched airstrikes inside Afghan territory against terrorist groups. Now, with the world’s attention fixed on Iran, Pakistan has more freedom to deal with these threats quietly, without attracting much outside criticism.

As the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran enters its fourth week, one country has quietly stepped into the spotlight—Pakistan. It has offered to host peace talks between Washington and Tehran, a move that has surprised many and raised hopes for some kind of breakthrough. With both sides weary from weeks of strikes, missiles, and rising global tension, Islamabad’s sudden offer has made the world stop and listen. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif posted on X (formerly Twitter) on March 24, saying Pakistan was “ready and honored” to host “serious and final talks” for a full peace deal to end the war. Within minutes, US President Donald Trump reshared the post, calling it a “positive step.” Just a day earlier, Trump had announced a temporary five-day halt in American attacks on Iran’s energy sites. He also hinted that top officials from both sides had already exchanged messages through friendly countries. According to regional sources, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan have all been acting as informal middlemen, quietly passing messages between Iran and the US. But so far, only Pakistan seems to have the trust of both sides. Why Pakistan wants to mediate Pakistan’s decision to jump into one of the world’s most dangerous conflicts isn’t just random. It is driven by both practical needs and smart diplomacy. First, Pakistan understands that if this war continues, the entire region — including its own economy — will suffer. The Strait of Hormuz, which handles almost 20% of the world’s oil, is near total collapse due to attacks. If that continues, oil prices will shoot up worldwide, and Pakistan, already struggling with high inflation and energy costs, will pay the price. Second, Pakistan has a large Shia Muslim population, nearly 15% of its people, and any turmoil in Iran directly affects its social and political stability. Violence in Iran often creates emotional reactions inside Pakistan, including protests and pressure on its government to respond. Third, Pakistan also has a strategic defence deal with Saudi Arabia, signed in 2025. Much like NATO’s principle of “an attack on one is an attack on all,” this agreement links Pakistan’s security to Saudi Arabia’s stability. But it also puts Islamabad in a tight spot — it cannot appear neutral for too long, or it risks angering Riyadh, yet taking sides could ruin its relations with Iran. Hence, offering to mediate is Pakistan’s smartest possible move. Security tensions at home At the same time, Pakistan faces major issues on its border with Afghanistan. Just before the Iran war began, Pakistan had launched airstrikes inside Afghan territory against terrorist groups. Now, with the world’s attention fixed on Iran, Pakistan has more freedom to deal with these threats quietly, without attracting much outside criticism. However, if Iran becomes unstable, the problems could easily spread. The Pakistan-Iran border stretches over 900 kilometres and is poorly monitored. Terror groups could slip across easily, using the conflict as cover. That would hurt Pakistan’s economy, especially in Balochistan, where major trade and energy projects are based. It could also scare investors away and threaten plans to connect Pakistan to Central Asian markets. The road to talks Reports in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper and Turkey’s Anadolu Agency confirm that American officials may soon arrive in Islamabad for preparatory discussions. Iran has officially denied holding talks, but the tone of its denial suggested that some quiet exchanges are already happening. Analysts believe Pakistan’s advantage lies in its working relations with both camps. Islamabad has deep ties with the United States through trade, the military, and diplomacy. With Iran, Pakistan shares a long border and ongoing regional agreements. And even though Pakistan does not recognise Israel, it quietly communicates through friendly Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As Zeeshan Shah, a geopolitical analyst based in Washington, told Al-Monitor, Pakistan’s growing role as a mediator is “not surprising.” He explained that Islamabad is one of the few countries near Iran that has not been attacked by Tehran in this war. Its balanced ties with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the US give it rare credibility as a go-between. Some analysts also note another layer — a new kind of financial diplomacy. Zach Witkoff, a business figure close to the Trump family, reportedly visited Islamabad in January to discuss using digital currency systems for international payments. This suggests that apart from politics, economic interests are now shaping how Pakistan engages the world during this crisis. Tehran’s tentative response For now, Iran insists that it is not holding any formal talks with the US. But the country’s statements are carefully worded. Tehran says it has received messages from “friendly mediators” but will stick to its conditions — mainly that the US and Israel must stop attacks, pay compensation for the damage, and respect Iran’s security. However, many within Iran’s power circles — especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — strongly oppose any negotiations. According to experts quoted in Al-Monitor, the IRGC fears that such talks could weaken its influence and create internal divisions within Iran’s power structure. Can Pakistan really pull this off? Realistically, Pakistan’s offer faces several challenges. The US is still sending more Marines and naval forces to the Gulf, and Iran continues missile attacks on Israeli and allied targets. The battlefield is still hot, making peace talks fragile at best. Still, diplomatic voices in Washington and Dubai describe Pakistan’s role as “a small but genuine hope.” Even a short-term truce could slow missile exchanges, reopen shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, and stabilise global oil prices. That alone would bring relief to millions across Asia, including India and Pakistan, where petrol and gas costs are climbing sharply. But as Theodore Karasik, a Middle East expert also quoted in Al-Monitor, pointed out, diplomacy will only work if both sides truly want it. If the talks turn into political theater—more about headlines than healing—then the war will likely resume in full force. For now, Islamabad has achieved what few expected: it has placed itself at the centre of world diplomacy, even if only for a moment. As the bombs fall and oil prices rise, the world watches to see whether this unexpected mediator from South Asia can turn a flicker of hope into something real — or whether Pakistan’s peace promise will disappear like smoke over the burning Strait of Hormuz. (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.)

Just before the Iran war began, Pakistan had launched airstrikes inside Afghan territory against terrorist groups. Now, with the world’s attention fixed on Iran, Pakistan has more freedom to deal with these threats quietly, without attracting much outside criticism.

Pakistan offers peace: Can it really end the US–Iran–Israel War?

&nbsp;President Trump’s unilateral postponement of strikes on power infrastructure in Iran, a threat/ultimatum he gave for the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, citing “Good and Productive Conversation”, which Iran denied. It seems Iranian resilience, counter-threats and counter-strikes like Dimona have brought a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) moment for him. Is the war heading towards de-escalation, or is Trump buying time for bigger action remains uncertain.Four weeks into the coordinated US-Israeli air campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a clear strategic lesson emerges for students of modern warfare: tactical air superiority cannot substitute for a viable political end-state. Operations “Epic Fury” and “Rising Lion” have showcased the coalition’s ability to inflict high-intensity degradation, yet they have not led to the expected systemic collapse in Tehran. The coalition now faces the hard limits of standoff power when used against a state prepared for prolonged "Strategic Endurance" and "Asymmetric Defiance."&nbsp;<h2>A Clash of Strategic Cultures</h2>The ongoing conflict is not a conventional war of attrition but a clash of strategic cultures. Iran uses a "Mosaic Defence" that is intended to use geographic depth, terrain friction, and international economic interdependencies as long-lasting levers of deterrence, while the coalition uses "Shock and Awe" through integrated multi-domain operations and technological superiority.Strategic Miscalculation: Maximalist Goals vs. Realistic ResultsThe US-Israeli campaign is predicated on a strategic miscalculation: the idea that domestic regime change could be sparked by overwhelming military force. This "maximalist" strategy, which calls for the "Unconditional Surrender" of a regional power, ignores past examples like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where the capacity to destroy targets did not equate to the capacity to maintain peace.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-sets-these-conditions-to-end-israel-us-war-after-trump-s-5-day-halt-closure-of-us-bases-to-hormuz-control-1774326659739">Iran sets THESE conditions to end war after Trump's 5-day halt: From closure of US bases to Hormuz control - Full list</a>&nbsp;<h2>The Strategic Vacuum of the JCPoA Withdrawal</h2>The roots of this confrontation trace back to the 2018 unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA). By abandoning a multilateral framework that provided verification and restraint, Washington created a strategic vacuum. The expectation was that "Maximum Pressure" would produce a "better deal" addressing Iran’s ballistic missile programmes and regional proxy networks. However, without a credible diplomatic off-ramp, the progression from economic sanctions to military strikes became inevitable and flawed. It’s true that diplomacy without the credible threat of force is weak, but force without a diplomatic objective is aimless.Also Read: &nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-claims-war-pause-iran-reports-new-strikes-on-isfahan-and-khorramshahr-energy-sites-1774331004518">Trump claims war pause; Iran reports new strikes on Isfahan and Khorramshahr energy sites</a><h2>Domestic Drivers and the "Maduro Fallacy"</h2>In the context of a sequel to military action, it is essential to scrutinise the domestic motivations of the Trump and Netanyahu administrations. Both have sought to use military "victories" to offset internal political volatility, ranging from Epstein files and tariff controversies in the US and legal and political challenges in Israel. There was a clear hope that eliminating top Iranian leaders would galvanise public opinion against the clerical regime. They seem to have fallen into the "Maduro Fallacy"—assuming that tactics used in Venezuela could be replicated in a country with four times the territory of Iraq and a much deeper ideological and military infrastructure.&nbsp;<h2>The Intelligence Gap</h2>The justification for "imminent threat" proved intellectually thin. Key US officials, including Joe Kent and Intelligence Chief Tulsi Gabbard, previously indicated that Iran posed no immediate ICBM threat to the American mainland. This suggests that the strikes are less about immediate defence and more about broader strategic objectives: disrupting Chinese energy lifelines and preserving the dominance of the petrodollar against emerging Eurasian alternatives.&nbsp;<h2>Operational Art: Iran’s "Mosaic Defence" and Strategic Endurance</h2>In analysing Iranian operational art, it is evident that Tehran has avoided conventional "force-on-force" engagements in favour of a decentralised, asymmetric model, central to which is the Mosaic Defence, a strategy which focuses on decentralising power across local commanders and ensuring that forces can continue operating based on broad guidelines, even if top leadership is eliminated. The IRGC had previously assigned some successors to important positions and transferred control down the ranks. Despite the top hierarchy's removal, missile strikes, drone swarms, marine disruption, and proxy operations have persisted.&nbsp;As conventional ammunition stocks dwindle and military capabilities get degraded, Iran may transition to Asymmetric War: shifting to "harassing fire"—rationing drones and missiles to launch sporadic, unpredictable attacks that keep adversaries engaged at a very heavy cost, and disrupt commerce for a prolonged period.&nbsp;https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-talks-who-is-mohammad-bagher-ghalibaf-iran-speaker-in-spotlight-amid-trump-claim-1774333790343/embed&nbsp;<h2>Using Terrain Friction as Force Multiplier</h2>Iran's most effective deterrent is its ability to shut the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital to the global energy supply. By threatening 20% of the world's oil supply, Tehran has imposed a "Global Inflationary Tax." This represents a masterclass in hybrid warfare; Iran is not just confronting the US Navy but also the US economy. The resulting volatility in energy prices and shipping insurance feeds directly into the American domestic political landscape, increasing pressure on President Trump through the inflation he promised to control.&nbsp;<h2>Strategic Friction: The Human and Material Calculus</h2>The coalition’s dependence on standoff airpower has reached the point of diminishing returns. While nuclear-related sites and IRGC naval bases have been targeted, breaking the national will has proved elusive.&nbsp;<h2>The Unintended Unifier</h2>Military science teaches us to identify the "Centre of Gravity." The coalition assumed this was the regime, but collateral damage—such as the tragic deaths of schoolgirls in Minab and destruction of energy hubs like the South Pars Gas Field—shifted the centre of gravity to the Iranian people's sense of national sovereignty. A collective resolve to resist external, unjustified, offensive forces has momentarily eclipsed internal disgruntlement against the Khameini regime.&nbsp;<h2>The Obliteration Myth</h2>Iran's tactical defiance is still strong despite severe military and infrastructural degradation. The shooting down of an F-35 and missile strikes reaching Diego Garcia in the fourth week of the war have shattered the coalition’s aura of invincibility. As long as Iran maintains its "missile cities" hidden in mountain tunnels, it cannot be "obliterated" by airpower alone. Achieving a definitive victory would require a costly ground invasion—a "Boots on the Ground" scenario that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv is prepared to pursue.&nbsp;<h2>Resilient Leadership: The Emergence of the "Revenge Doctrine"</h2>The new Supreme Leader, Mustafa Khamenei, represents a shift toward a more radicalised and defiant posture. Having lost his father, wife, and children in enemy strikes, he is viewed as a leader without the "fear of death," which reinforces a doctrine of revenge and regime survival. All new leaders seem more hardened than those killed.&nbsp;<h2>Geopolitical Realignment: The Eurasian Pivot</h2>The battle is accelerating a fundamental shift in the global order, bringing the world closer to a "Multipolar Reality."&nbsp;Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran now engage in strategic coordination in addition to intelligence sharing. Rising oil prices and the diversion of Western resources benefit Russia, which improves its own standing in Ukraine. In the meantime, China watches as the United States, its main adversary, depletes military capacity, munitions and morale in the Middle East, depriving its power projection capability in the Indo-Pacific, losing out in long-term “Big Power Contestation”. &nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>The Indian Strategic Calculations</h2>The uncompromisable energy dependence of India on the Persian Gulf makes this conflict a direct threat to our national interests.Energy Security: Because India depends on Gulf gas and oil, disruptions at Hormuz affect the country's budget deficit and drive up domestic prices. This crisis highlights the accelerating diversification of our sources of gas and oil globally.Diaspora: Since over nine million Indians in the Gulf rely heavily on their remittances to maintain our economy, it is imperative that they be protected.Strategic Autonomy: With events like the strike on Bandar Anjali, connectivity projects like the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the Chabahar Port—our entry point to Central Asia—face existential uncertainty. India’s exercise of “Strategic Autonomy” and multilateral engagements found itself in a slightly better position than many others in navigating this economic and energy crisis so far, vindicating its long-term diplomatic strategy. &nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Emerging Scenarios</h2>The war was started by the U.S. and Israel, and they retain the initiative to shape future scenarios. Two most likely scenarios seem to be realistic.&nbsp;The "Declared Victory" Exit: President Trump could unilaterally declare that coalition objectives have been achieved and create a scenario of meaningful talks, and find an exit with compromises. His five-day pause on strikes on the power grid could well be a precursor to it. By claiming a "mission accomplished" moment, he may withdraw to stabilise energy markets. However, this would leave a militarily weakened but ideologically hardened Iran, convinced that only a nuclear deterrent guarantees survival, claiming victory over a superpower and putting up unrealistic demands for negotiations.&nbsp;Extended Regional Conflict: President Trump could use the declared pause to build up for limited ground action like limited ground actions on Iranian islands like Kharg or the Strait of Hormuz coastline. This could result in a dangerous escalation of tit-for-tat strikes on nuclear establishments and water salination plants, with catastrophic consequences and an extended regional campaign involving the "Axis of Resistance" (Hezbollah, Houthis, and militias). In this case, oil prices may shoot above $140 per barrel for a long time, which would be disastrous for the world economy. &nbsp;The future trajectory and end state of war, therefore, remain uncertain.&nbsp;<h2>Conclusion: Strategic Lessons &nbsp;</h2>A hard reality is exposed by the Iran-Trump conflict: technological dominance and operational skill cannot take the place of well-defined political objectives. Although the US and Israel have demonstrated their ability to destroy targets at will, they will continue to struggle to achieve their unrealistic aims, such as Iranian surrender, dictating regime selection to a sovereign country, not to enrich uranium, or not to have missiles for its defence. So far, Iran has shown that asymmetric military superiority alone can’t capitulate a determined nation. &nbsp;&nbsp;The use of geographic configurations like the Strait of Hormuz as strategic leverage in a war has been well demonstrated by Iran, with a lesson for India to plan contingencies for the Malacca Strait in our national interest in combat scenarios. &nbsp;&nbsp;The most crucial strategic lesson is that military force must always be employed to achieve a clear, viable political objective. Without an "Exit Strategy" or a "Diplomatic End-State," the alliance could win a tactical battle but lose the strategic fight for regional dominance and ‘Big Power Contestation’.&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.)

“Without a "Exit Strategy" or a "Diplomatic End-State," the alliance could win a tactical battle but lose the strategic fight for regional dominance in ‘Big Power Contestation”.

President Trump’s unilateral postponement of strikes on power infrastructure in Iran, a threat/ultimatum he gave for the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, citing “Good and Productive Conversation”, which Iran denied. It seems Iranian resilience, counter-threats and counter-strikes like Dimona have brought a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) moment for him. Is the war heading towards de-escalation, or is Trump buying time for bigger action remains uncertain. Four weeks into the coordinated US-Israeli air campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a clear strategic lesson emerges for students of modern warfare: tactical air superiority cannot substitute for a viable political end-state. Operations “Epic Fury” and “Rising Lion” have showcased the coalition’s ability to inflict high-intensity degradation, yet they have not led to the expected systemic collapse in Tehran. The coalition now faces the hard limits of standoff power when used against a state prepared for prolonged "Strategic Endurance" and "Asymmetric Defiance." A Clash of Strategic Cultures The ongoing conflict is not a conventional war of attrition but a clash of strategic cultures. Iran uses a "Mosaic Defence" that is intended to use geographic depth, terrain friction, and international economic interdependencies as long-lasting levers of deterrence, while the coalition uses "Shock and Awe" through integrated multi-domain operations and technological superiority. Strategic Miscalculation: Maximalist Goals vs. Realistic Results The US-Israeli campaign is predicated on a strategic miscalculation: the idea that domestic regime change could be sparked by overwhelming military force. This "maximalist" strategy, which calls for the "Unconditional Surrender" of a regional power, ignores past examples like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where the capacity to destroy targets did not equate to the capacity to maintain peace. Also Read: Iran sets THESE conditions to end war after Trump's 5-day halt: From closure of US bases to Hormuz control - Full list The Strategic Vacuum of the JCPoA Withdrawal The roots of this confrontation trace back to the 2018 unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA). By abandoning a multilateral framework that provided verification and restraint, Washington created a strategic vacuum. The expectation was that "Maximum Pressure" would produce a "better deal" addressing Iran’s ballistic missile programmes and regional proxy networks. However, without a credible diplomatic off-ramp, the progression from economic sanctions to military strikes became inevitable and flawed. It’s true that diplomacy without the credible threat of force is weak, but force without a diplomatic objective is aimless. Also Read: Trump claims war pause; Iran reports new strikes on Isfahan and Khorramshahr energy sites Domestic Drivers and the "Maduro Fallacy" In the context of a sequel to military action, it is essential to scrutinise the domestic motivations of the Trump and Netanyahu administrations. Both have sought to use military "victories" to offset internal political volatility, ranging from Epstein files and tariff controversies in the US and legal and political challenges in Israel. There was a clear hope that eliminating top Iranian leaders would galvanise public opinion against the clerical regime. They seem to have fallen into the "Maduro Fallacy"—assuming that tactics used in Venezuela could be replicated in a country with four times the territory of Iraq and a much deeper ideological and military infrastructure. The Intelligence Gap The justification for "imminent threat" proved intellectually thin. Key US officials, including Joe Kent and Intelligence Chief Tulsi Gabbard, previously indicated that Iran posed no immediate ICBM threat to the American mainland. This suggests that the strikes are less about immediate defence and more about broader strategic objectives: disrupting Chinese energy lifelines and preserving the dominance of the petrodollar against emerging Eurasian alternatives. Operational Art: Iran’s "Mosaic Defence" and Strategic Endurance In analysing Iranian operational art, it is evident that Tehran has avoided conventional "force-on-force" engagements in favour of a decentralised, asymmetric model, central to which is the Mosaic Defence, a strategy which focuses on decentralising power across local commanders and ensuring that forces can continue operating based on broad guidelines, even if top leadership is eliminated. The IRGC had previously assigned some successors to important positions and transferred control down the ranks. Despite the top hierarchy's removal, missile strikes, drone swarms, marine disruption, and proxy operations have persisted. As conventional ammunition stocks dwindle and military capabilities get degraded, Iran may transition to Asymmetric War: shifting to "harassing fire"—rationing drones and missiles to launch sporadic, unpredictable attacks that keep adversaries engaged at a very heavy cost, and disrupt commerce for a prolonged period. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-talks-who-is-mohammad-bagher-ghalibaf-iran-speaker-in-spotlight-amid-trump-claim-1774333790343/embed Using Terrain Friction as Force Multiplier Iran's most effective deterrent is its ability to shut the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital to the global energy supply. By threatening 20% of the world's oil supply, Tehran has imposed a "Global Inflationary Tax." This represents a masterclass in hybrid warfare; Iran is not just confronting the US Navy but also the US economy. The resulting volatility in energy prices and shipping insurance feeds directly into the American domestic political landscape, increasing pressure on President Trump through the inflation he promised to control. Strategic Friction: The Human and Material Calculus The coalition’s dependence on standoff airpower has reached the point of diminishing returns. While nuclear-related sites and IRGC naval bases have been targeted, breaking the national will has proved elusive. The Unintended Unifier Military science teaches us to identify the "Centre of Gravity." The coalition assumed this was the regime, but collateral damage—such as the tragic deaths of schoolgirls in Minab and destruction of energy hubs like the South Pars Gas Field—shifted the centre of gravity to the Iranian people's sense of national sovereignty. A collective resolve to resist external, unjustified, offensive forces has momentarily eclipsed internal disgruntlement against the Khameini regime. The Obliteration Myth Iran's tactical defiance is still strong despite severe military and infrastructural degradation. The shooting down of an F-35 and missile strikes reaching Diego Garcia in the fourth week of the war have shattered the coalition’s aura of invincibility. As long as Iran maintains its "missile cities" hidden in mountain tunnels, it cannot be "obliterated" by airpower alone. Achieving a definitive victory would require a costly ground invasion—a "Boots on the Ground" scenario that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv is prepared to pursue. Resilient Leadership: The Emergence of the "Revenge Doctrine" The new Supreme Leader, Mustafa Khamenei, represents a shift toward a more radicalised and defiant posture. Having lost his father, wife, and children in enemy strikes, he is viewed as a leader without the "fear of death," which reinforces a doctrine of revenge and regime survival. All new leaders seem more hardened than those killed. Geopolitical Realignment: The Eurasian Pivot The battle is accelerating a fundamental shift in the global order, bringing the world closer to a "Multipolar Reality." Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran now engage in strategic coordination in addition to intelligence sharing. Rising oil prices and the diversion of Western resources benefit Russia, which improves its own standing in Ukraine. In the meantime, China watches as the United States, its main adversary, depletes military capacity, munitions and morale in the Middle East, depriving its power projection capability in the Indo-Pacific, losing out in long-term “Big Power Contestation”. The Indian Strategic Calculations The uncompromisable energy dependence of India on the Persian Gulf makes this conflict a direct threat to our national interests. Energy Security: Because India depends on Gulf gas and oil, disruptions at Hormuz affect the country's budget deficit and drive up domestic prices. This crisis highlights the accelerating diversification of our sources of gas and oil globally. Diaspora: Since over nine million Indians in the Gulf rely heavily on their remittances to maintain our economy, it is imperative that they be protected. Strategic Autonomy: With events like the strike on Bandar Anjali, connectivity projects like the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the Chabahar Port—our entry point to Central Asia—face existential uncertainty. India’s exercise of “Strategic Autonomy” and multilateral engagements found itself in a slightly better position than many others in navigating this economic and energy crisis so far, vindicating its long-term diplomatic strategy. Emerging Scenarios The war was started by the U.S. and Israel, and they retain the initiative to shape future scenarios. Two most likely scenarios seem to be realistic. The "Declared Victory" Exit: President Trump could unilaterally declare that coalition objectives have been achieved and create a scenario of meaningful talks, and find an exit with compromises. His five-day pause on strikes on the power grid could well be a precursor to it. By claiming a "mission accomplished" moment, he may withdraw to stabilise energy markets. However, this would leave a militarily weakened but ideologically hardened Iran, convinced that only a nuclear deterrent guarantees survival, claiming victory over a superpower and putting up unrealistic demands for negotiations. Extended Regional Conflict: President Trump could use the declared pause to build up for limited ground action like limited ground actions on Iranian islands like Kharg or the Strait of Hormuz coastline. This could result in a dangerous escalation of tit-for-tat strikes on nuclear establishments and water salination plants, with catastrophic consequences and an extended regional campaign involving the "Axis of Resistance" (Hezbollah, Houthis, and militias). In this case, oil prices may shoot above $140 per barrel for a long time, which would be disastrous for the world economy. The future trajectory and end state of war, therefore, remain uncertain. Conclusion: Strategic Lessons A hard reality is exposed by the Iran-Trump conflict: technological dominance and operational skill cannot take the place of well-defined political objectives. Although the US and Israel have demonstrated their ability to destroy targets at will, they will continue to struggle to achieve their unrealistic aims, such as Iranian surrender, dictating regime selection to a sovereign country, not to enrich uranium, or not to have missiles for its defence. So far, Iran has shown that asymmetric military superiority alone can’t capitulate a determined nation. The use of geographic configurations like the Strait of Hormuz as strategic leverage in a war has been well demonstrated by Iran, with a lesson for India to plan contingencies for the Malacca Strait in our national interest in combat scenarios. The most crucial strategic lesson is that military force must always be employed to achieve a clear, viable political objective. Without an "Exit Strategy" or a "Diplomatic End-State," the alliance could win a tactical battle but lose the strategic fight for regional dominance and ‘Big Power Contestation’. (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.)

“Without a "Exit Strategy" or a "Diplomatic End-State," the alliance could win a tactical battle but lose the strategic fight for regional dominance in ‘Big Power Contestation”.

Has Iran created a TACO moment for Trump? Decoding strategies and limits of military power

Written by &nbsp;Dr Shristi Pukhrem&nbsp;The question of whether the rules-based order is still alive is both timely and consequential, particularly in the context of the Indo-Pacific. The answer is neither a straightforward affirmation nor a definitive negation. Rather, the rules-based order today is under strain, contested, and evolving. Despite these challenges, it remains relevant and continues to be actively upheld by key regional actors, most notably India, Japan, and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations).<h2>The Indo-Pacific: A region in flux</h2>The Indo-Pacific has emerged as the epicenter of global economic dynamism, maritime connectivity, and geopolitical competition. At the same time, it is a region where fundamental principles such as sovereignty, freedom of navigation, peaceful dispute resolution, and adherence to international law are increasingly being tested. The contemporary rules-based order, largely shaped in the aftermath of World War II, was designed to ensure predictability and stability through institutions and norms. However, rising unilateral actions, maritime disputes, and intensifying strategic rivalries have raised concerns about the durability of these rules in guiding state behaviour.<h2>India and Japan: Pillars of a free and open Indo-Pacific</h2>Despite mounting pressures, the persistence of the rules-based order is evident in the continued commitment of regional powers. India and Japan have become key advocates for a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific. Japan’s vision of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP), first articulated under Shinzo Abe, emphasizes maritime security, rule of law, and economic connectivity. Central to this vision is respect for international legal frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), which serves as the cornerstone of global maritime governance.&nbsp;India complements this approach through its doctrine of Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR), announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2015 and in March 2025 as Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions (MAHASAGAR). Coupled with the Act East Policy (upgraded from the Look East Policy in 2014), India’s Indo-Pacific vision underscores openness, inclusivity, and the centrality of ASEAN. India’s official Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI), launched in 2019, further operationalizes this vision through pillars such as maritime security, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable use of marine resources.<h2>ASEAN centrality and regional architecture</h2>At the heart of the Indo-Pacific’s institutional architecture lies the ASEAN, established in 1967 through the Bangkok Declaration. ASEAN centrality remains a foundational principle for maintaining regional stability and dialogue. ASEAN-led mechanisms including the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) provide critical platforms for confidence-building, multilateral engagement, and diplomatic dialogue. These institutions play a vital role in fostering norms of peaceful dispute resolution and cooperative security.&nbsp;&nbsp;The ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP), adopted in 2019, reinforces principles that closely align with those advocated by India and Japan: openness, transparency, inclusivity, respect for international law, and development-oriented cooperation. The AOIP notably avoids securitized frameworks and instead emphasizes dialogue and cooperation, thereby offering a bridging mechanism between competing strategic visions.<h2>Trilateral cooperation: Opportunities and pathways</h2>The evolving Indo-Pacific landscape presents significant opportunities for enhanced cooperation among India, Japan, and ASEAN.<ul><li>Maritime Security and Capacity Building: Southeast Asian nations face growing challenges in maritime domain awareness, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and maritime law enforcement. India has engaged in capacity-building through initiatives such as training programs under the Indian Coast Guard and information-sharing through the Information Fusion Centre–Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR). Japan, through the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), has supported coast guard modernization and maritime infrastructure development across Southeast Asia.</li><li>Connectivity and Infrastructure Development: Transparent and sustainable infrastructure remains essential for maintaining a stable regional order. Japan’s Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (2015) emphasizes economic efficiency, environmental sustainability, and debt transparency. India’s connectivity projects such as the India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway (IMT) and the Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project (KMTTP) aim to physically link South Asia with Southeast Asia. Collaborative initiatives involving ASEAN can reinforce rules-based development norms and offer viable alternatives to opaque financing models.</li><li>Supply Chain Resilience and Economic Cooperation: The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent geopolitical disruptions have exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains. The Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI), launched in 2020 by India, Japan, and Australia, seeks to diversify supply networks and reduce over-dependence on single sources. Expanding this framework to include ASEAN economies could significantly enhance regional economic resilience.</li><li>Norm-Building in Emerging Domains: The future of the rules-based order will increasingly be shaped in emerging domains such as digital governance, cybersecurity, climate change, and critical technologies. Frameworks such as the ASEAN Digital Masterplan 2025 and India’s Digital Public Infrastructure initiatives provide opportunities for collaborative norm-setting. Similarly, Japan’s leadership in green technologies and climate finance can complement ASEAN’s sustainability goals under the ASEAN Community Vision 2025.</li></ul><h2>Flexibility and inclusivity: Strengths of regional order</h2>Maintaining a rules-based order does not necessitate rigid or uniform structures. The Indo-Pacific is characterized by diversity in governance systems, economic priorities, and threat perceptions. Its resilience lies in its flexibility and inclusiveness. In this context, the complementary strengths of India, Japan, and ASEAN become particularly significant. India offers geographic and strategic connectivity between the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia; Japan contributes technological expertise and financial resources; and ASEAN provides institutional legitimacy and convening power that sustains regional multilateralism.<h2>Conclusion</h2>The rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific is undoubtedly under pressure, but it is far from obsolete. Its endurance depends on the continued commitment and cooperation of regional actors. India, Japan, and ASEAN, through shared principles and pragmatic engagement, possess both the responsibility and the capacity to sustain and revitalize this order. The critical question, therefore, is not whether the rules-based order is alive, but who will shape and uphold it in the years to come. In the Indo-Pacific Region, these three actors are uniquely positioned to lead that effort.&nbsp;The author, Dr Shristi Pukhrem is a Director, Act East Centre &amp; Visiting Fellow, India Foundation. India Foundation is an independent research centre focused on the issues, challenges and opportunities of the Indian polity.

Reassessing rules-based order: India, Japan, and ASEAN in changing Indo-Pacific

Written by Dr Shristi Pukhrem The question of whether the rules-based order is still alive is both timely and consequential, particularly in the context of the Indo-Pacific. The answer is neither a straightforward affirmation nor a definitive negation. Rather, the rules-based order today is under strain, contested, and evolving. Despite these challenges, it remains relevant and continues to be actively upheld by key regional actors, most notably India, Japan, and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). The Indo-Pacific: A region in flux The Indo-Pacific has emerged as the epicenter of global economic dynamism, maritime connectivity, and geopolitical competition. At the same time, it is a region where fundamental principles such as sovereignty, freedom of navigation, peaceful dispute resolution, and adherence to international law are increasingly being tested. The contemporary rules-based order, largely shaped in the aftermath of World War II, was designed to ensure predictability and stability through institutions and norms. However, rising unilateral actions, maritime disputes, and intensifying strategic rivalries have raised concerns about the durability of these rules in guiding state behaviour. India and Japan: Pillars of a free and open Indo-Pacific Despite mounting pressures, the persistence of the rules-based order is evident in the continued commitment of regional powers. India and Japan have become key advocates for a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific. Japan’s vision of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP), first articulated under Shinzo Abe, emphasizes maritime security, rule of law, and economic connectivity. Central to this vision is respect for international legal frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), which serves as the cornerstone of global maritime governance. India complements this approach through its doctrine of Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR), announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2015 and in March 2025 as Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions (MAHASAGAR). Coupled with the Act East Policy (upgraded from the Look East Policy in 2014), India’s Indo-Pacific vision underscores openness, inclusivity, and the centrality of ASEAN. India’s official Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI), launched in 2019, further operationalizes this vision through pillars such as maritime security, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable use of marine resources. ASEAN centrality and regional architecture At the heart of the Indo-Pacific’s institutional architecture lies the ASEAN, established in 1967 through the Bangkok Declaration. ASEAN centrality remains a foundational principle for maintaining regional stability and dialogue. ASEAN-led mechanisms including the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) provide critical platforms for confidence-building, multilateral engagement, and diplomatic dialogue. These institutions play a vital role in fostering norms of peaceful dispute resolution and cooperative security. The ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP), adopted in 2019, reinforces principles that closely align with those advocated by India and Japan: openness, transparency, inclusivity, respect for international law, and development-oriented cooperation. The AOIP notably avoids securitized frameworks and instead emphasizes dialogue and cooperation, thereby offering a bridging mechanism between competing strategic visions. Trilateral cooperation: Opportunities and pathways The evolving Indo-Pacific landscape presents significant opportunities for enhanced cooperation among India, Japan, and ASEAN. Maritime Security and Capacity Building: Southeast Asian nations face growing challenges in maritime domain awareness, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and maritime law enforcement. India has engaged in capacity-building through initiatives such as training programs under the Indian Coast Guard and information-sharing through the Information Fusion Centre–Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR). Japan, through the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), has supported coast guard modernization and maritime infrastructure development across Southeast Asia. Connectivity and Infrastructure Development: Transparent and sustainable infrastructure remains essential for maintaining a stable regional order. Japan’s Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (2015) emphasizes economic efficiency, environmental sustainability, and debt transparency. India’s connectivity projects such as the India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway (IMT) and the Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project (KMTTP) aim to physically link South Asia with Southeast Asia. Collaborative initiatives involving ASEAN can reinforce rules-based development norms and offer viable alternatives to opaque financing models. Supply Chain Resilience and Economic Cooperation: The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent geopolitical disruptions have exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains. The Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI), launched in 2020 by India, Japan, and Australia, seeks to diversify supply networks and reduce over-dependence on single sources. Expanding this framework to include ASEAN economies could significantly enhance regional economic resilience. Norm-Building in Emerging Domains: The future of the rules-based order will increasingly be shaped in emerging domains such as digital governance, cybersecurity, climate change, and critical technologies. Frameworks such as the ASEAN Digital Masterplan 2025 and India’s Digital Public Infrastructure initiatives provide opportunities for collaborative norm-setting. Similarly, Japan’s leadership in green technologies and climate finance can complement ASEAN’s sustainability goals under the ASEAN Community Vision 2025. Flexibility and inclusivity: Strengths of regional order Maintaining a rules-based order does not necessitate rigid or uniform structures. The Indo-Pacific is characterized by diversity in governance systems, economic priorities, and threat perceptions. Its resilience lies in its flexibility and inclusiveness. In this context, the complementary strengths of India, Japan, and ASEAN become particularly significant. India offers geographic and strategic connectivity between the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia; Japan contributes technological expertise and financial resources; and ASEAN provides institutional legitimacy and convening power that sustains regional multilateralism. Conclusion The rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific is undoubtedly under pressure, but it is far from obsolete. Its endurance depends on the continued commitment and cooperation of regional actors. India, Japan, and ASEAN, through shared principles and pragmatic engagement, possess both the responsibility and the capacity to sustain and revitalize this order. The critical question, therefore, is not whether the rules-based order is alive, but who will shape and uphold it in the years to come. In the Indo-Pacific Region, these three actors are uniquely positioned to lead that effort. The author, Dr Shristi Pukhrem is a Director, Act East Centre & Visiting Fellow, India Foundation. India Foundation is an independent research centre focused on the issues, challenges and opportunities of the Indian polity.

The Indo-Pacific has emerged as the epicenter of global economic dynamism, maritime connectivity, and geopolitical competition. At the same time, it is a region where fundamental principles and adherence to international law are increasingly being tested

As the United States and the Israel-Iran conflict moved into a critical phase, with US President Donald Trump warning of possible strikes on electricity grids, a different story was unfolding about 1,758 miles away. In Yashobhumi, the national capital of India, the four-day Bharat Electricity Summit 2026 brought together energy leaders from across the world. The event featured deep and thoughtful discussions, important business meetings, a huge crowd of investors and innovators, and valuable talks between countries.&nbsp;&nbsp;The first-ever Bharat Electricity Summit, organised under the guidance of the Union Ministry of Power, proved highly successful. It showed India’s firm promise to cooperate with other nations on energy matters and strongly supported Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s forward-looking vision of One Sun, One World, One Grid.&nbsp;&nbsp;This idea connects solar energy across borders so that clean power can be shared by all countries. While India marches towards its Viksit Bharat Mission to become a fully developed nation by 2047, it is making impressive progress on its energy goals. The country aims to build 500 gigawatts of power capacity from non-fossil sources such as solar and wind by 2030. More than 250 gigawatts have already been achieved, which means India has reached its COP26 climate promises well ahead of schedule.&nbsp;&nbsp;At the same time, the nation remains fully committed to net zero emissions by 2070, a target that will help fight climate change for future generations. Union Power Minister Manohar Lal Khattar explained it simply and clearly: electricity is a common resource that every part of the economy depends on, and this understanding is giving fresh momentum to India’s journey of self-reliance and overall development.<h2>Energy security for Global South</h2>The Bharat Electricity Summit 2026 opened many doors for global cooperation and practical deals that will benefit people far beyond India’s borders. High-level bilateral meetings took place with representatives from several countries, including Malawi, Tajikistan, Mauritius, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Industry groups such as Africa50 and other international delegations also joined these conversations.&nbsp;&nbsp;The talks centred on four key areas that matter most for energy security today: sharing electricity across national borders, working together on renewable energy projects, building stronger transmission networks, and helping each other through training and the transfer of new technology. One special highlight was the India-Africa Strategic Meet, which focused on expanding renewable energy sources, modernising old power grids, and making sure electricity reaches every last village and home across the African continent. These partnerships are not just about signing papers; they are about creating real solutions that can light up homes, run schools, and power small businesses in developing regions.&nbsp;According to a report from the Press Information Bureau, the business side of the summit was equally impressive. More than 1,200 buyer-seller meetings took place, and the total business enquiries crossed Rs 517 crore. This shows strong interest from companies ready to invest and trade. More than 500 global exhibitors displayed the latest innovations covering every part of the electricity chain, from producing power to storing it and using it smartly.&nbsp;&nbsp;The event clearly reinforced India’s growing role in supporting the energy needs of South Asia and the wider Global South through both technology and investment. As noted by KPMG, the Bharat Electricity Summit worked like a bridge where India’s own strengths in manufacturing and innovation met the larger dreams of the world. The goal was to create real and lasting results that improve energy security for entire regions. For ordinary people, this means more reliable power supply, lower costs over time, and new job opportunities in green industries. By bringing everyone together—governments, companies, and experts—the summit proved that teamwork across borders is the best way to solve the big energy challenges of our time. India is not only meeting its own needs but also stepping up as a trusted partner for many nations that are still building their power systems.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-pauses-all-military-strikes-against-iranian-energy-sites-for-five-days-1774264303064">Trump pauses all military strikes against Iranian energy sites for five days</a><h2>Energy for every corner</h2>The Bharat Electricity Summit 2026 gave a big push to the idea of Make in India for the World, showing how Indian manufacturing can supply clean energy equipment and solutions to every corner of the globe. Detailed discussions made it clear that India’s long journey towards complete energy transition will need huge investments—more than 22 trillion US dollars by 2070. These funds will go into building new power plants, stronger transmission lines, advanced storage systems, and modern digital controls. To give one concrete example, the country must add over 1.37 lakh circuit kilometres of new transmission lines by 2030, and this alone will require around 9 lakh crore rupees.&nbsp;&nbsp;Such massive expansion is needed to carry clean electricity from sunny deserts and windy coasts to cities and villages where people need it most. Energy storage is becoming equally important because the sun does not shine at night and the wind does not always blow. India has a huge potential of more than 200 gigawatts in pumped storage projects, which work like giant natural batteries by lifting water uphill during the day and releasing it to generate power later. Battery Energy Storage Systems, or BESS, are also gaining popularity as an easy way to handle peak demand hours when everyone switches on lights and fans at the same time.<h2>Bharat builds, world buys</h2>On the financial side, renewable energy tariffs and market rules are getting better, which helps investors feel more confident about long-term returns. A major step forward was the launch of the Indian Carbon Market Portal. Trading on this platform is expected to start soon, and it will open new ways to finance climate-friendly projects. Technology is changing the power sector in exciting ways too. Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and digital twins—virtual copies of real power systems—are being used to predict problems before they happen and run grids more intelligently. Inspired by the success of India’s digital public infrastructure like UPI and Aadhaar, the concept of an “India Energy Stack” is now taking shape.&nbsp;&nbsp;This will create one smooth and connected system for the entire energy world, making it easier for producers, distributors, and users to work together. At the consumer level, smart meters and rooftop solar panels are turning ordinary households into “prosumers”—people who both produce and consume electricity. When a family’s solar panels generate extra power, they can sell it back to the grid and earn money. This simple change is empowering millions of Indians to become active players in the energy story rather than just passive users. All these developments together are creating a strong domestic industry that can export world-class clean energy technology while also meeting India’s own growing demand. The summit proved that Make in India is not just a slogan; it is a practical plan that will create jobs, reduce dependence on imports, and help the country lead the global supply chain for green power.&nbsp;The Bharat Electricity Summit 2026 has set a clear direction for India’s power sector: anchored in resilience, energy transition, and global leadership. The summit reaffirmed India’s commitment to building a future-ready, technology-driven, and investment-friendly energy ecosystem, while supporting the energy needs of both the nation and the Global South.&nbsp;&nbsp;The outcomes of the summit will contribute significantly to shaping policy, strengthening partnerships, and accelerating the transition towards a reliable, affordable, and clean energy future. In the end, events like this remind us that when nations work together on something as basic as electricity, they are actually building a brighter and more secure world for everyone. India’s success at the Bharat Electricity Summit shows that a developing country can lead the way in solving one of humanity’s biggest challenges—providing clean power to all without harming the planet. As ordinary families switch on lights, run fans, and charge phones each day, they can now feel confident that India is quietly working behind the scenes to make sure this power is affordable, uninterrupted, and green for generations to come. The road ahead is long, but the summit has given a strong and hopeful start.

While India marches towards its Viksit Bharat Mission to become a fully developed nation by 2047, it is making impressive progress on its energy goals. The country aims to build 500 gigawatts of power capacity from non-fossil sources such as solar and wind by 2030.

As the United States and the Israel-Iran conflict moved into a critical phase, with US President Donald Trump warning of possible strikes on electricity grids, a different story was unfolding about 1,758 miles away. In Yashobhumi, the national capital of India, the four-day Bharat Electricity Summit 2026 brought together energy leaders from across the world. The event featured deep and thoughtful discussions, important business meetings, a huge crowd of investors and innovators, and valuable talks between countries. The first-ever Bharat Electricity Summit, organised under the guidance of the Union Ministry of Power, proved highly successful. It showed India’s firm promise to cooperate with other nations on energy matters and strongly supported Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s forward-looking vision of One Sun, One World, One Grid. This idea connects solar energy across borders so that clean power can be shared by all countries. While India marches towards its Viksit Bharat Mission to become a fully developed nation by 2047, it is making impressive progress on its energy goals. The country aims to build 500 gigawatts of power capacity from non-fossil sources such as solar and wind by 2030. More than 250 gigawatts have already been achieved, which means India has reached its COP26 climate promises well ahead of schedule. At the same time, the nation remains fully committed to net zero emissions by 2070, a target that will help fight climate change for future generations. Union Power Minister Manohar Lal Khattar explained it simply and clearly: electricity is a common resource that every part of the economy depends on, and this understanding is giving fresh momentum to India’s journey of self-reliance and overall development. Energy security for Global South The Bharat Electricity Summit 2026 opened many doors for global cooperation and practical deals that will benefit people far beyond India’s borders. High-level bilateral meetings took place with representatives from several countries, including Malawi, Tajikistan, Mauritius, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Industry groups such as Africa50 and other international delegations also joined these conversations. The talks centred on four key areas that matter most for energy security today: sharing electricity across national borders, working together on renewable energy projects, building stronger transmission networks, and helping each other through training and the transfer of new technology. One special highlight was the India-Africa Strategic Meet, which focused on expanding renewable energy sources, modernising old power grids, and making sure electricity reaches every last village and home across the African continent. These partnerships are not just about signing papers; they are about creating real solutions that can light up homes, run schools, and power small businesses in developing regions. According to a report from the Press Information Bureau, the business side of the summit was equally impressive. More than 1,200 buyer-seller meetings took place, and the total business enquiries crossed Rs 517 crore. This shows strong interest from companies ready to invest and trade. More than 500 global exhibitors displayed the latest innovations covering every part of the electricity chain, from producing power to storing it and using it smartly. The event clearly reinforced India’s growing role in supporting the energy needs of South Asia and the wider Global South through both technology and investment. As noted by KPMG, the Bharat Electricity Summit worked like a bridge where India’s own strengths in manufacturing and innovation met the larger dreams of the world. The goal was to create real and lasting results that improve energy security for entire regions. For ordinary people, this means more reliable power supply, lower costs over time, and new job opportunities in green industries. By bringing everyone together—governments, companies, and experts—the summit proved that teamwork across borders is the best way to solve the big energy challenges of our time. India is not only meeting its own needs but also stepping up as a trusted partner for many nations that are still building their power systems. Also Read: Trump pauses all military strikes against Iranian energy sites for five days Energy for every corner The Bharat Electricity Summit 2026 gave a big push to the idea of Make in India for the World, showing how Indian manufacturing can supply clean energy equipment and solutions to every corner of the globe. Detailed discussions made it clear that India’s long journey towards complete energy transition will need huge investments—more than 22 trillion US dollars by 2070. These funds will go into building new power plants, stronger transmission lines, advanced storage systems, and modern digital controls. To give one concrete example, the country must add over 1.37 lakh circuit kilometres of new transmission lines by 2030, and this alone will require around 9 lakh crore rupees. Such massive expansion is needed to carry clean electricity from sunny deserts and windy coasts to cities and villages where people need it most. Energy storage is becoming equally important because the sun does not shine at night and the wind does not always blow. India has a huge potential of more than 200 gigawatts in pumped storage projects, which work like giant natural batteries by lifting water uphill during the day and releasing it to generate power later. Battery Energy Storage Systems, or BESS, are also gaining popularity as an easy way to handle peak demand hours when everyone switches on lights and fans at the same time. Bharat builds, world buys On the financial side, renewable energy tariffs and market rules are getting better, which helps investors feel more confident about long-term returns. A major step forward was the launch of the Indian Carbon Market Portal. Trading on this platform is expected to start soon, and it will open new ways to finance climate-friendly projects. Technology is changing the power sector in exciting ways too. Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and digital twins—virtual copies of real power systems—are being used to predict problems before they happen and run grids more intelligently. Inspired by the success of India’s digital public infrastructure like UPI and Aadhaar, the concept of an “India Energy Stack” is now taking shape. This will create one smooth and connected system for the entire energy world, making it easier for producers, distributors, and users to work together. At the consumer level, smart meters and rooftop solar panels are turning ordinary households into “prosumers”—people who both produce and consume electricity. When a family’s solar panels generate extra power, they can sell it back to the grid and earn money. This simple change is empowering millions of Indians to become active players in the energy story rather than just passive users. All these developments together are creating a strong domestic industry that can export world-class clean energy technology while also meeting India’s own growing demand. The summit proved that Make in India is not just a slogan; it is a practical plan that will create jobs, reduce dependence on imports, and help the country lead the global supply chain for green power. The Bharat Electricity Summit 2026 has set a clear direction for India’s power sector: anchored in resilience, energy transition, and global leadership. The summit reaffirmed India’s commitment to building a future-ready, technology-driven, and investment-friendly energy ecosystem, while supporting the energy needs of both the nation and the Global South. The outcomes of the summit will contribute significantly to shaping policy, strengthening partnerships, and accelerating the transition towards a reliable, affordable, and clean energy future. In the end, events like this remind us that when nations work together on something as basic as electricity, they are actually building a brighter and more secure world for everyone. India’s success at the Bharat Electricity Summit shows that a developing country can lead the way in solving one of humanity’s biggest challenges—providing clean power to all without harming the planet. As ordinary families switch on lights, run fans, and charge phones each day, they can now feel confident that India is quietly working behind the scenes to make sure this power is affordable, uninterrupted, and green for generations to come. The road ahead is long, but the summit has given a strong and hopeful start.

While India marches towards its Viksit Bharat Mission to become a fully developed nation by 2047, it is making impressive progress on its energy goals. The country aims to build 500 gigawatts of power capacity from non-fossil sources such as solar and wind by 2030.

War drums in West, green energy in Bharat! India powers Global South at Bharat Electricity Summit 2026

Written by: Srikumar Bharathi P&nbsp;For much of the recent era, a dominant narrative in international relations discourse has suggested that India lacks a coherent strategic culture. This critique articulated by a certain Western Thinktank posited that Indian strategic thought was largely ad hoc, reactive and defensive. Critics argued that the Indian concept of time, cyclical and infinite, prevented long-term strategic planning. They pointed to the absence of a single, unified "Indian War Doctrine" or historical documents comparable to the military archives of Prussia or the strategies of the colonial empires.However, this criticism suffers from a blind spot, as it judges Indian strategy by foreign templates. This view fails to recognise that Indian strategic culture is not monolithic in the Western sense, rather it is civilisational. It is embedded in the civilisational strength and the ethical codes that have governed statecraft for millennia. The Indian strategy in reality is ever evolving, yet has its roots to sophisticated preference for principled flexibility, strategic restraint and calculated use of force.<h2>Realist Counter: Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Machiavelli vs Kautilya - Valluvar</h2>The Western and certain Asian ideas of strategy are dominated by Sun Tzu’s deception, Clausewitz’s "war as politics" and Machiavelli’s “ruthlessness”. Indian ways are more aligned with the Arthashastra and strategically profound Thirukkural.While Machiavelli’s The Prince is often cited as the ultimate manual on power, Kautilya’s Arthashastra (300 BCE) precedes it by 1,500 years and offers a far more granular approach to statecraft. Unlike Sun Tzu, who focuses largely on the battlefield, Kautilya focuses on the Mandala (Circle of States), a geopolitical algorithm. Kautilya defines the Saptanga (Seven Limbs of the State), placing the King and Ministers alongside Forts and Treasury. This anticipates modern "Comprehensive National Power" indices.Often obscured as a book of Tamil poetry, the Thirukkural by Thiruvalluvar (300 BCE - 2nd Century CE) contains the Porutpal (Chapters on Wealth/State), which offers a startlingly sharp counter to Clausewitz. Where Clausewitz sees war as an extension of politics, Valluvar sees war as a failure of defence and diplomacy, yet prepares for it meticulously. &nbsp;&nbsp;On Foreign Policy and Alliances: "To discern the enemy’s strength, one's own strength and the strength of one’s allies and then to act - that is strategy" (Kural 471).Importance of Army: “An army which is complete in its components and conquers without fear of wounds is the chief wealth of the king” (Kural 761).Valluvar counters the brute force narratives by emphasising Aran (Fortification). He argues that a fort is not just a wall, but a system of economic sustainability during a siege, a lesson pertinent to modern economic sanctions.<h2>Philosophical Counter: Aristotle, Plato, Socrates vs Mahabharata, Thirukkural</h2>Western political philosophy, rooted in the Hellenistic tradition, seeks the "Ideal" Plato’s Republic imagines a utopia ruled by philosopher-kings, Aristotle categorises constitutions. Indian thought, however, is deeply rooted in the "Real" and the "Contextual".Aristotle seeks a golden mean in virtue. The Mahabharata rejects the binary of Good vs Evil for the complexity of Dharma (Duty). When Arjuna questions the morality of killing kin, he was not offered a platitude about "justice", rather he was offered the treatise on Dharma-Yuddha (Just War).The Mahabharata teaches that non-violence (Ahimsa) is the highest Dharma, but the protection of the innocent requires the capacity for war. This nuance is often missing in Western idealism. Bhishma, on his deathbed, instructs Yudhishthira that a King must be "like a gardener" (nurturing) but also "like a garland maker" (plucking flowers before they wilt), a metaphor for pre-emptive strikes against threats.Valluvar wants a ruler trained in listening, "King who does not have the courage to listen to bitter advice will perish, even without enemies" (Kural 448). This counters the Western authoritarian tendency often found in Platonism. The Thirukkural posits that the legitimacy of the state rests not on divine right or intellectual superiority, but on Sengol (Righteous Sceptre/Good Governance).Way of Life Counter: Confucius vs The Indian TriadConfucianism emphasises hierarchy, ritual and saving face. It seeks order through conformity. The Indian triad Arthashastra, Mahabharata, Thirukkural counters this by emphasising Dharma, which binds even the King.Mahabharata is a lesson in the dangers of gambling with state sovereignty. The 18-day war is a case study in alliance management, psychological warfare and the heavy cost of victory. It teaches a "Way of Life" that accepts volatility rather than the Confucian desire to freeze social structures.Similarly, labelling the Thirukkural as poetry undermines its status as a manual for all - Strategist, King and Householder alike. Unlike Confucius, who separated the rulers from the ruled via complex rituals, Valluvar integrates the domestic and the political. He argues that a state is only as strong as the families within it. This highlights that strategic autonomy is a way of life, requiring the patience to wait for the opportune moment (Kaalam), a distinct counter to the Confucian emphasis on rigid ceremonial action.<h2>Return of the Civilizational State</h2>In the present scenario of a volatile world, marked by shifting alliances, grey-zone warfare and economic weaponisation, the relevance of these Indian treatises is undeniable. India’s modern defence and diplomatic outreach are not mimicking the West; they are aligning towards its civilisational routes. India's refusal to be dragged into binary blocs and maintaining Multi-Alignment is a direct application of the Arthashastra’s strategy, maintaining strategic autonomy while engaging with all sides.The "Strategic Restraint" often mistaken by others is actually Thirukkural’s wisdom of "waiting for the right time" and yet prepared for war. The recent assertive posturing reflects the Mahabharata’s lesson: when everything fails, the display of power (Danda) is the only path to peace. India’s "Vaccine Maitri" and role as a "Net Security Provider" in the Indian Ocean reflect the Dharmic obligation of the state to contribute to universal welfare.Indian strategic culture is very much alive in the living ethos of the civilisation that treats the Mahabharata as the soul, the Arthashastra as a thought and the Thirukkural as a conscience. By recognising the strategic weight of these texts, the world can better understand the rise of India, a stabilising pole in the global order.&nbsp;The author, Srikumar Bharathi P, is an officer in the Indian Army with experience in counter-terrorism and United Nations peacekeeping operations. The officer has authored a book on China and has been a regular contributor of articles on matters of strategy, defence, and geopolitics.

Critics argued that the Indian concept of time, cyclical and infinite, prevented long-term strategic planning. However, this criticism suffers from a blind spot, as it judges Indian strategy by foreign templates. 

Written by: Srikumar Bharathi P For much of the recent era, a dominant narrative in international relations discourse has suggested that India lacks a coherent strategic culture. This critique articulated by a certain Western Thinktank posited that Indian strategic thought was largely ad hoc, reactive and defensive. Critics argued that the Indian concept of time, cyclical and infinite, prevented long-term strategic planning. They pointed to the absence of a single, unified "Indian War Doctrine" or historical documents comparable to the military archives of Prussia or the strategies of the colonial empires. However, this criticism suffers from a blind spot, as it judges Indian strategy by foreign templates. This view fails to recognise that Indian strategic culture is not monolithic in the Western sense, rather it is civilisational. It is embedded in the civilisational strength and the ethical codes that have governed statecraft for millennia. The Indian strategy in reality is ever evolving, yet has its roots to sophisticated preference for principled flexibility, strategic restraint and calculated use of force. Realist Counter: Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Machiavelli vs Kautilya - Valluvar The Western and certain Asian ideas of strategy are dominated by Sun Tzu’s deception, Clausewitz’s "war as politics" and Machiavelli’s “ruthlessness”. Indian ways are more aligned with the Arthashastra and strategically profound Thirukkural. While Machiavelli’s The Prince is often cited as the ultimate manual on power, Kautilya’s Arthashastra (300 BCE) precedes it by 1,500 years and offers a far more granular approach to statecraft. Unlike Sun Tzu, who focuses largely on the battlefield, Kautilya focuses on the Mandala (Circle of States), a geopolitical algorithm. Kautilya defines the Saptanga (Seven Limbs of the State), placing the King and Ministers alongside Forts and Treasury. This anticipates modern "Comprehensive National Power" indices. Often obscured as a book of Tamil poetry, the Thirukkural by Thiruvalluvar (300 BCE - 2nd Century CE) contains the Porutpal (Chapters on Wealth/State), which offers a startlingly sharp counter to Clausewitz. Where Clausewitz sees war as an extension of politics, Valluvar sees war as a failure of defence and diplomacy, yet prepares for it meticulously. On Foreign Policy and Alliances: "To discern the enemy’s strength, one's own strength and the strength of one’s allies and then to act - that is strategy" (Kural 471). Importance of Army: “An army which is complete in its components and conquers without fear of wounds is the chief wealth of the king” (Kural 761). Valluvar counters the brute force narratives by emphasising Aran (Fortification). He argues that a fort is not just a wall, but a system of economic sustainability during a siege, a lesson pertinent to modern economic sanctions. Philosophical Counter: Aristotle, Plato, Socrates vs Mahabharata, Thirukkural Western political philosophy, rooted in the Hellenistic tradition, seeks the "Ideal" Plato’s Republic imagines a utopia ruled by philosopher-kings, Aristotle categorises constitutions. Indian thought, however, is deeply rooted in the "Real" and the "Contextual". Aristotle seeks a golden mean in virtue. The Mahabharata rejects the binary of Good vs Evil for the complexity of Dharma (Duty). When Arjuna questions the morality of killing kin, he was not offered a platitude about "justice", rather he was offered the treatise on Dharma-Yuddha (Just War). The Mahabharata teaches that non-violence (Ahimsa) is the highest Dharma, but the protection of the innocent requires the capacity for war. This nuance is often missing in Western idealism. Bhishma, on his deathbed, instructs Yudhishthira that a King must be "like a gardener" (nurturing) but also "like a garland maker" (plucking flowers before they wilt), a metaphor for pre-emptive strikes against threats. Valluvar wants a ruler trained in listening, "King who does not have the courage to listen to bitter advice will perish, even without enemies" (Kural 448). This counters the Western authoritarian tendency often found in Platonism. The Thirukkural posits that the legitimacy of the state rests not on divine right or intellectual superiority, but on Sengol (Righteous Sceptre/Good Governance). Way of Life Counter: Confucius vs The Indian Triad Confucianism emphasises hierarchy, ritual and saving face. It seeks order through conformity. The Indian triad Arthashastra, Mahabharata, Thirukkural counters this by emphasising Dharma, which binds even the King. Mahabharata is a lesson in the dangers of gambling with state sovereignty. The 18-day war is a case study in alliance management, psychological warfare and the heavy cost of victory. It teaches a "Way of Life" that accepts volatility rather than the Confucian desire to freeze social structures. Similarly, labelling the Thirukkural as poetry undermines its status as a manual for all - Strategist, King and Householder alike. Unlike Confucius, who separated the rulers from the ruled via complex rituals, Valluvar integrates the domestic and the political. He argues that a state is only as strong as the families within it. This highlights that strategic autonomy is a way of life, requiring the patience to wait for the opportune moment (Kaalam), a distinct counter to the Confucian emphasis on rigid ceremonial action. Return of the Civilizational State In the present scenario of a volatile world, marked by shifting alliances, grey-zone warfare and economic weaponisation, the relevance of these Indian treatises is undeniable. India’s modern defence and diplomatic outreach are not mimicking the West; they are aligning towards its civilisational routes. India's refusal to be dragged into binary blocs and maintaining Multi-Alignment is a direct application of the Arthashastra’s strategy, maintaining strategic autonomy while engaging with all sides. The "Strategic Restraint" often mistaken by others is actually Thirukkural’s wisdom of "waiting for the right time" and yet prepared for war. The recent assertive posturing reflects the Mahabharata’s lesson: when everything fails, the display of power (Danda) is the only path to peace. India’s "Vaccine Maitri" and role as a "Net Security Provider" in the Indian Ocean reflect the Dharmic obligation of the state to contribute to universal welfare. Indian strategic culture is very much alive in the living ethos of the civilisation that treats the Mahabharata as the soul, the Arthashastra as a thought and the Thirukkural as a conscience. By recognising the strategic weight of these texts, the world can better understand the rise of India, a stabilising pole in the global order. The author, Srikumar Bharathi P, is an officer in the Indian Army with experience in counter-terrorism and United Nations peacekeeping operations. The officer has authored a book on China and has been a regular contributor of articles on matters of strategy, defence, and geopolitics.

Critics argued that the Indian concept of time, cyclical and infinite, prevented long-term strategic planning. However, this criticism suffers from a blind spot, as it judges Indian strategy by foreign templates.&nbsp;

Beyond foreign templates: Roots of Indian strategic culture

The war in West Asia has severely disrupted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — one of the world’s most crucial energy corridors that handles about one-quarter of the world's seaborne crude oil trade — roughly 20 million barrels per day — and nearly one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments. Today, amid the escalating US-Israel-Iran conflict, this vital chokepoint has turned into a high-risk zone of deep uncertainty, sending shockwaves through energy markets and economies far beyond the Middle East. Tanker movement has slowed, insurance costs have jumped, and supply chains face fresh uncertainty.&nbsp;Consequently, oil prices have surged sharply, with Brent crude trading above $100 per barrel. Shipping delays are affecting industries worldwide. Transport costs are rising. Fertiliser prices are climbing, putting pressure on agriculture and food supply systems. Economists warn that prolonged disruption could dent global growth this year. &nbsp;&nbsp;India faces this shock acutely. The country imports around 85–90 per cent of its crude oil requirements. A significant share of these supplies traditionally moves through Hormuz-linked routes. LPG supplies are also under strain, as India depends heavily on imports from Gulf producers. Price volatility and delivery delays are adding pressure on households and industry.&nbsp;Lo and behold, the geopolitical tension triggered by the Israel-Iran war has dropped bombshells on the GST bonanza by dampening demand momentum, set to give a jolt to the manufacturing sector. Yet this difficult moment also presents a strategic opening. With decisive action, India can turn disruption into an accelerator for energy security and self-reliance — advancing faster toward Viksit Bharat and long-term resilience.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-strait-of-hormuz-only-closed-for-araghchi-says-iran-has-not-requested-ceasefire-1773673079517">'Strait of Hormuz only closed for...': Araghchi says Iran ready to take war as far as necessary</a>&nbsp;So, 5 game-changing opportunities India must seize now to turn global energy shock into rapid progress toward Atmanirbhar Energy.&nbsp;1. Break free from Middle East oil reliance: India has historically sourced a large portion of its crude imports from the Middle East, though supplier diversification has improved in recent years. Expanding procurement from the US, Russia, Latin America, and Africa can further reduce geographic risk. At the same time, boosting domestic exploration and accelerating renewable deployment will strengthen long-term energy security. The present crisis underscores that energy resilience is a strategic necessity, not just an economic choice. The crisis has made energy security a top national need. Use this drive for strong policy steps.&nbsp;2. Build massive energy storage as a shock absorber: Renewable energy capacity is expanding rapidly, but solar and wind are intermittent. Grid-scale storage — including battery energy storage systems and pumped hydro — is essential for reliable round-the-clock power. Multiple large storage projects are under development. Expanding storage capacity significantly by 2030 will help stabilise supply, reduce diesel backup dependence, and make renewables more dependable during global fuel disruptions.&nbsp;Also Read:&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Switch kitchens to clean electric cooking: Over 33 crore households use LPG. We import 60 per cent of our LPG needs. Almost 90 per cent of imports came through Hormuz. Shortages now drive people to induction stoves. Link them to rooftop solar. The PM Surya Ghar scheme grows fast. Over 30 lakh households now benefit from rooftop solar as per recent updates. One family switching saves 5,000 to 8,000 rupees yearly. Nationally, import costs drop by billions. Expand solar cooking trials. Boost subsidies for induction setups.&nbsp;4. Push hard for Solar &amp; Renewable self-sufficiency: India's installed renewable energy capacity now stands at 263.19 GW. This marks a key milestone, with renewables—including solar, wind, small hydro, and biomass—now making up over 50 per cent of the country's total installed power capacity of about 520.5 GW. Solar alone stands at around 140 GW. The 500 GW non-fossil target by 2030 turns into a survival goal. The crisis speeds up action. Set up more solar modules and inverter plants at home. Add wind and hybrid setups quickly. Every new gigawatt of local solar cuts the tanker needs from Hormuz. This gives true safety and big savings.&nbsp;5. Race toward full electric transport: The transportation sector accounts for the highest share of petroleum consumption in the country and relies predominantly on fuels derived from imported crude. The shock makes EVs a money-saving must, not just green. To put EVs on the fast track, there is a need to build local battery factories faster. Also, if FAME-III incentives are considered, it could expedite the pace. The government must zero in on rolling out charging points at high speed. Recent data shows millions of EVs on the roads. Schemes have helped sell many lakhs. Every million EVs saves billions in oil imports. They create lakhs of green jobs too. Turn world trouble into India's factory growth story.&nbsp;This Hormuz undoubtedly shocks today. Yet it can spark our best energy future. Act now on these five steps. India will reach energy independence more quickly. Homes cook with clean power. Roads fill with electric rides. Factories run on steady renewables. Import fears fade. Growth holds firm in hard times. Viksit Bharat comes sooner and stronger. The path is open. Seize it. Build an India that stands strong and free for all future generations.

India faces the Hormuz shock acutely. The country imports around 85–90 per cent of its crude oil requirements. A significant share of these supplies traditionally moves through Hormuz-linked routes.

The war in West Asia has severely disrupted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — one of the world’s most crucial energy corridors that handles about one-quarter of the world's seaborne crude oil trade — roughly 20 million barrels per day — and nearly one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments. Today, amid the escalating US-Israel-Iran conflict, this vital chokepoint has turned into a high-risk zone of deep uncertainty, sending shockwaves through energy markets and economies far beyond the Middle East. Tanker movement has slowed, insurance costs have jumped, and supply chains face fresh uncertainty. Consequently, oil prices have surged sharply, with Brent crude trading above $100 per barrel. Shipping delays are affecting industries worldwide. Transport costs are rising. Fertiliser prices are climbing, putting pressure on agriculture and food supply systems. Economists warn that prolonged disruption could dent global growth this year. India faces this shock acutely. The country imports around 85–90 per cent of its crude oil requirements. A significant share of these supplies traditionally moves through Hormuz-linked routes. LPG supplies are also under strain, as India depends heavily on imports from Gulf producers. Price volatility and delivery delays are adding pressure on households and industry. Lo and behold, the geopolitical tension triggered by the Israel-Iran war has dropped bombshells on the GST bonanza by dampening demand momentum, set to give a jolt to the manufacturing sector. Yet this difficult moment also presents a strategic opening. With decisive action, India can turn disruption into an accelerator for energy security and self-reliance — advancing faster toward Viksit Bharat and long-term resilience. Also Read: 'Strait of Hormuz only closed for...': Araghchi says Iran ready to take war as far as necessary So, 5 game-changing opportunities India must seize now to turn global energy shock into rapid progress toward Atmanirbhar Energy. 1. Break free from Middle East oil reliance: India has historically sourced a large portion of its crude imports from the Middle East, though supplier diversification has improved in recent years. Expanding procurement from the US, Russia, Latin America, and Africa can further reduce geographic risk. At the same time, boosting domestic exploration and accelerating renewable deployment will strengthen long-term energy security. The present crisis underscores that energy resilience is a strategic necessity, not just an economic choice. The crisis has made energy security a top national need. Use this drive for strong policy steps. 2. Build massive energy storage as a shock absorber: Renewable energy capacity is expanding rapidly, but solar and wind are intermittent. Grid-scale storage — including battery energy storage systems and pumped hydro — is essential for reliable round-the-clock power. Multiple large storage projects are under development. Expanding storage capacity significantly by 2030 will help stabilise supply, reduce diesel backup dependence, and make renewables more dependable during global fuel disruptions. Also Read: 3. Switch kitchens to clean electric cooking: Over 33 crore households use LPG. We import 60 per cent of our LPG needs. Almost 90 per cent of imports came through Hormuz. Shortages now drive people to induction stoves. Link them to rooftop solar. The PM Surya Ghar scheme grows fast. Over 30 lakh households now benefit from rooftop solar as per recent updates. One family switching saves 5,000 to 8,000 rupees yearly. Nationally, import costs drop by billions. Expand solar cooking trials. Boost subsidies for induction setups. 4. Push hard for Solar & Renewable self-sufficiency: India's installed renewable energy capacity now stands at 263.19 GW. This marks a key milestone, with renewables—including solar, wind, small hydro, and biomass—now making up over 50 per cent of the country's total installed power capacity of about 520.5 GW. Solar alone stands at around 140 GW. The 500 GW non-fossil target by 2030 turns into a survival goal. The crisis speeds up action. Set up more solar modules and inverter plants at home. Add wind and hybrid setups quickly. Every new gigawatt of local solar cuts the tanker needs from Hormuz. This gives true safety and big savings. 5. Race toward full electric transport: The transportation sector accounts for the highest share of petroleum consumption in the country and relies predominantly on fuels derived from imported crude. The shock makes EVs a money-saving must, not just green. To put EVs on the fast track, there is a need to build local battery factories faster. Also, if FAME-III incentives are considered, it could expedite the pace. The government must zero in on rolling out charging points at high speed. Recent data shows millions of EVs on the roads. Schemes have helped sell many lakhs. Every million EVs saves billions in oil imports. They create lakhs of green jobs too. Turn world trouble into India's factory growth story. This Hormuz undoubtedly shocks today. Yet it can spark our best energy future. Act now on these five steps. India will reach energy independence more quickly. Homes cook with clean power. Roads fill with electric rides. Factories run on steady renewables. Import fears fade. Growth holds firm in hard times. Viksit Bharat comes sooner and stronger. The path is open. Seize it. Build an India that stands strong and free for all future generations.

India faces the Hormuz shock acutely. The country imports around 85–90 per cent of its crude oil requirements. A significant share of these supplies traditionally moves through Hormuz-linked routes.

Hormuz Shock to Atmanirbhar energy: 5 game-changing opportunities India must grab now

<ul><li>By Maitreya Buddha Samantaray</li></ul>In times of war, every statement becomes a strategic act. Words are not merely descriptive. They are instruments of influence, deterrence, reassurance, and control. Governments understand this instinctively. When missiles fly and markets tremble, leaders know that communication is not a supporting function. It is an operational capability.&nbsp;The ongoing tensions in the Middle East provide a striking demonstration of this reality. Beyond the military dimension, conflict is also an intense contest of narratives. Statements from political leaders, defense establishments, and foreign ministries are carefully constructed to shape perception among multiple audiences, including domestic populations, adversaries, allies, financial markets, and the global public.&nbsp;For business leaders, crisis communication often becomes most visible during moments of uncertainty. The patterns emerging from official communications during the conflict offer valuable lessons for corporate leadership, crisis communication teams, CEO offices, and Boards. These lessons are not about geopolitics. They are about the mechanics of leadership under pressure.&nbsp;What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new grammar of crisis communication.<h2>Clarity of Objective Creates Stability</h2>Messaging from the United States, Israel, and Iran has been marked by relative ambiguity regarding objectives such as deterrence, self-defence, and protection of interests, creating strategic uncertainty. Meanwhile, neutral actors like India employ thoughtful statecraft by maintaining open communication channels with all sides and diversifying relationships without emotional commitment, effectively positioning themselves as potential winners without direct conflict. Complementing this, symbolic gestures such as the UAE President and Dubai Crown Prince appearing publicly at a bustling mall act as powerful reassurances, reinforcing public trust and stability amid regional tensions.Overall, clarity matters because uncertainty fuels instability. Markets react to ambiguity. Employees react to uncertainty. Stakeholders respond to perceived hesitation in leadership. In corporate crises, leaders often issue cautious statements that convey concern while allowing space to understand the evolving situation. Phrases such as “we are monitoring the situation” or “we are assessing developments” can provide time to gather facts. However, stakeholders often seek an understanding of the broader objective guiding leadership decisions.&nbsp;The lesson from the current situation is that communication benefits from clearly articulating the objective early. Stakeholders want to understand what leadership is trying to achieve. Is the priority safety, operational continuity, financial stabilization, or reputational recovery? When the objective is articulated clearly, it anchors the narrative and reduces speculation.<h2>Repetition Builds Narrative Authority</h2>Another characteristic of wartime messaging is disciplined repetition. Governments return to the same core ideas repeatedly, including security, deterrence, legitimacy, defense, and responsibility. The phrasing may evolve, but the narrative frame remains constant. This repetition is somewhat intentional and ensures that the intended message becomes the dominant interpretation of events.&nbsp;Companies and business leaders can draw insight from this approach. Consistency in language across communications helps stakeholders interpret developments more clearly. A key takeaway of effective crisis communication is message discipline. A small set of core themes can guide every statement, internal briefing, and external update. The objective is not rhetorical creativity but narrative consistency.<h2>Separate Strategy from Instruction</h2>Official communications during the conflict reveal another important principle. Strategic messaging is separated from operational instruction. Political leaders speak about national objectives and strategic direction. Military and civil defense authorities communicate practical guidance to citizens, including where to go, what to do, and how to remain safe. This distinction prevents confusion. Strategic narratives address the broader situation while operational communications guide immediate behaviour.&nbsp;Organizations can benefit from adopting a similar clarity in communication. Leadership strategic messaging can focus on the broader context and reassure stakeholders about the direction of the organization. Operational communications can provide clear guidance to employees, customers, and partners regarding necessary actions. Corporate leaders may find it helpful to avoid combining strategic messaging and detailed operational instructions within the same communication. When separated appropriately, both messages become clearer and more effective.&nbsp;&nbsp;A structured operational framework for crisis communication involves establishing a leadership-led communication team supported by trained spokespersons authorized to deliver clear, consistent messages. Robust protocols, including emergency call trees, facilitate rapid information flow across the organization. Tailoring communication strategies to key audiences and their specific information needs is essential, supported by scenario planning to prepare for potential disruptions and accurate situation assessment to develop concise messaging. Selecting appropriate channels such as dedicated status pages for detailed operational updates and social media for real-time acknowledgment ensures timely and effective information dissemination. Continuous monitoring of social media and news, coupled with real-time sentiment tracking, enables organizations to gauge public perception dynamically. Finally, measuring specific metrics during and after crises is critical to evaluating the effectiveness of communication efforts in protecting or restoring reputation and financial value.<h2>Legitimacy Is as Important as Accuracy</h2>A striking feature of statements emerging from Iran is the consistent emphasis on legal and moral framing. References to international law, civilian protection, and sovereignty appear repeatedly in official rhetoric. The goal is not only to present facts but also to position the narrative within a broader moral framework. This reflects an important reality. Crises are judged not only by what happened but also by whether the response appears legitimate.&nbsp;In the business context, stakeholders want to understand not only the facts of a situation but also whether the organization is responding in accordance with its values and principles, including transparency, accountability, fairness, and responsibility. Communication therefore, benefits from articulating both the facts and the standards guiding the response. Legitimacy builds trust even when complete information is still emerging. When responding to regulatory incidents, workplace concerns, or operational disruptions, leaders may find value in emphasizing both factual clarity and procedural integrity.<h2>Preserve Strategic Flexibility</h2>Another notable aspect of the ongoing conflict’s rhetoric is the use of conditional language. Statements frequently emphasize readiness to escalate or de-escalate depending on circumstances. This language allows leaders to project confidence while preserving room to adapt as events evolve.&nbsp;Corporate leaders may also consider this balance. Avoiding absolute statements about outcomes can help maintain credibility during uncertain situations. Declaring that issues will be resolved immediately or that risks are fully contained may provide short-term reassurance but may not always reflect the evolving reality of a crisis. Strategic communication benefits from balancing confidence with flexibility. Leaders can demonstrate control while allowing space for adjustments as new information becomes available.&nbsp;(About the author: Maitreya Buddha Samantaray is the Convenor of the Crisis Intelligence Community (CIC). With over 18 years of experience in consulting and industry, he specialises in helping organisations navigate complex risks in volatile environments. His expertise includes geopolitical risk analysis, crisis management, business continuity, enterprise risk, duty of care, and operational resilience. The views expressed are personal.)

The lesson from the current situation is that communication benefits from clearly articulating the objective early. Stakeholders want to understand what leadership is trying to achieve. 

By Maitreya Buddha Samantaray In times of war, every statement becomes a strategic act. Words are not merely descriptive. They are instruments of influence, deterrence, reassurance, and control. Governments understand this instinctively. When missiles fly and markets tremble, leaders know that communication is not a supporting function. It is an operational capability. The ongoing tensions in the Middle East provide a striking demonstration of this reality. Beyond the military dimension, conflict is also an intense contest of narratives. Statements from political leaders, defense establishments, and foreign ministries are carefully constructed to shape perception among multiple audiences, including domestic populations, adversaries, allies, financial markets, and the global public. For business leaders, crisis communication often becomes most visible during moments of uncertainty. The patterns emerging from official communications during the conflict offer valuable lessons for corporate leadership, crisis communication teams, CEO offices, and Boards. These lessons are not about geopolitics. They are about the mechanics of leadership under pressure. What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new grammar of crisis communication. Clarity of Objective Creates Stability Messaging from the United States, Israel, and Iran has been marked by relative ambiguity regarding objectives such as deterrence, self-defence, and protection of interests, creating strategic uncertainty. Meanwhile, neutral actors like India employ thoughtful statecraft by maintaining open communication channels with all sides and diversifying relationships without emotional commitment, effectively positioning themselves as potential winners without direct conflict. Complementing this, symbolic gestures such as the UAE President and Dubai Crown Prince appearing publicly at a bustling mall act as powerful reassurances, reinforcing public trust and stability amid regional tensions. Overall, clarity matters because uncertainty fuels instability. Markets react to ambiguity. Employees react to uncertainty. Stakeholders respond to perceived hesitation in leadership. In corporate crises, leaders often issue cautious statements that convey concern while allowing space to understand the evolving situation. Phrases such as “we are monitoring the situation” or “we are assessing developments” can provide time to gather facts. However, stakeholders often seek an understanding of the broader objective guiding leadership decisions. The lesson from the current situation is that communication benefits from clearly articulating the objective early. Stakeholders want to understand what leadership is trying to achieve. Is the priority safety, operational continuity, financial stabilization, or reputational recovery? When the objective is articulated clearly, it anchors the narrative and reduces speculation. Repetition Builds Narrative Authority Another characteristic of wartime messaging is disciplined repetition. Governments return to the same core ideas repeatedly, including security, deterrence, legitimacy, defense, and responsibility. The phrasing may evolve, but the narrative frame remains constant. This repetition is somewhat intentional and ensures that the intended message becomes the dominant interpretation of events. Companies and business leaders can draw insight from this approach. Consistency in language across communications helps stakeholders interpret developments more clearly. A key takeaway of effective crisis communication is message discipline. A small set of core themes can guide every statement, internal briefing, and external update. The objective is not rhetorical creativity but narrative consistency. Separate Strategy from Instruction Official communications during the conflict reveal another important principle. Strategic messaging is separated from operational instruction. Political leaders speak about national objectives and strategic direction. Military and civil defense authorities communicate practical guidance to citizens, including where to go, what to do, and how to remain safe. This distinction prevents confusion. Strategic narratives address the broader situation while operational communications guide immediate behaviour. Organizations can benefit from adopting a similar clarity in communication. Leadership strategic messaging can focus on the broader context and reassure stakeholders about the direction of the organization. Operational communications can provide clear guidance to employees, customers, and partners regarding necessary actions. Corporate leaders may find it helpful to avoid combining strategic messaging and detailed operational instructions within the same communication. When separated appropriately, both messages become clearer and more effective. A structured operational framework for crisis communication involves establishing a leadership-led communication team supported by trained spokespersons authorized to deliver clear, consistent messages. Robust protocols, including emergency call trees, facilitate rapid information flow across the organization. Tailoring communication strategies to key audiences and their specific information needs is essential, supported by scenario planning to prepare for potential disruptions and accurate situation assessment to develop concise messaging. Selecting appropriate channels such as dedicated status pages for detailed operational updates and social media for real-time acknowledgment ensures timely and effective information dissemination. Continuous monitoring of social media and news, coupled with real-time sentiment tracking, enables organizations to gauge public perception dynamically. Finally, measuring specific metrics during and after crises is critical to evaluating the effectiveness of communication efforts in protecting or restoring reputation and financial value. Legitimacy Is as Important as Accuracy A striking feature of statements emerging from Iran is the consistent emphasis on legal and moral framing. References to international law, civilian protection, and sovereignty appear repeatedly in official rhetoric. The goal is not only to present facts but also to position the narrative within a broader moral framework. This reflects an important reality. Crises are judged not only by what happened but also by whether the response appears legitimate. In the business context, stakeholders want to understand not only the facts of a situation but also whether the organization is responding in accordance with its values and principles, including transparency, accountability, fairness, and responsibility. Communication therefore, benefits from articulating both the facts and the standards guiding the response. Legitimacy builds trust even when complete information is still emerging. When responding to regulatory incidents, workplace concerns, or operational disruptions, leaders may find value in emphasizing both factual clarity and procedural integrity. Preserve Strategic Flexibility Another notable aspect of the ongoing conflict’s rhetoric is the use of conditional language. Statements frequently emphasize readiness to escalate or de-escalate depending on circumstances. This language allows leaders to project confidence while preserving room to adapt as events evolve. Corporate leaders may also consider this balance. Avoiding absolute statements about outcomes can help maintain credibility during uncertain situations. Declaring that issues will be resolved immediately or that risks are fully contained may provide short-term reassurance but may not always reflect the evolving reality of a crisis. Strategic communication benefits from balancing confidence with flexibility. Leaders can demonstrate control while allowing space for adjustments as new information becomes available. (About the author: Maitreya Buddha Samantaray is the Convenor of the Crisis Intelligence Community (CIC). With over 18 years of experience in consulting and industry, he specialises in helping organisations navigate complex risks in volatile environments. His expertise includes geopolitical risk analysis, crisis management, business continuity, enterprise risk, duty of care, and operational resilience. The views expressed are personal.)

The lesson from the current situation is that communication benefits from clearly articulating the objective early. Stakeholders want to understand what leadership is trying to achieve.&nbsp;

The new grammar of Corporate Crisis Communication: Lessons from Middle East conflict

The numbers coming out of Beijing tell one story. The reality unfolding inside China tells another. China's National Bureau of Statistics reported 5.0 percent GDP growth for 2025, neatly hitting the government's annual target. But headline figures in authoritarian states are political instruments as much as economic ones, and this one is doing a great deal of heavy lifting. Independent analysts at the Rhodium Group put real growth somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 percent — roughly half the official reading — with fixed asset investment down 11 percent in nominal terms in the second half of the year compared to the same period in 2024. The divergence between what Beijing reports and what the data actually shows is not a rounding error. It is a portrait of an economy being propped up by narrative as much as by output.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-raises-doubts-about-supreme-leader-mojtaba-s-wellbeing-rules-out-iran-war-deal-for-now-1773538495777">Trump raises doubts about Supreme Leader Mojtaba's wellbeing, rules out Iran war deal for now</a>&nbsp;What growth did materialize in 2025 came overwhelmingly from exports. China's trade surplus jumped 20 percent to a record $1.19 trillion, with exports accounting for a third of total economic growth — the highest share since 1997. An economy of China's size cannot sustain itself on the backs of foreign consumers indefinitely, and the IMF's December 2025 Article IV assessment said exactly that, warning that China's continued reliance on exports is politically unsustainable for its trading partners and structurally unviable for China itself. The current account surplus is projected to reach 3.3 percent of GDP for 2025. Meanwhile, retail sales grew just 3.7 percent in nominal terms across the year — far too slow to rebalance an economy that desperately needs domestic demand to carry more weight.&nbsp;The property sector, now in its fifth year of contraction since the market peaked in 2021, remains the deepest wound. Roughly 80 million homes sit unsold or vacant. New housing starts are running at approximately 75 percent below their peak; property investment has fallen around 50 percent from its high. The downstream effects on local government finances have been brutal. Land lease revenues — once the fiscal lifeblood of Chinese municipalities — have cratered. Consolidated local government fiscal revenue managed just 0.2 percent year-on-year growth in the first ten months of 2025. Beijing launched a 10 trillion yuan debt-swap program in late 2024 to refinance local government financing vehicle liabilities at lower rates and longer maturities, but the scale of the structural hole means most municipalities will be in fiscal austerity for years — cutting precisely the infrastructure spending and social services that might otherwise help restore consumer confidence.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-as-a-sincere-friend-china-responds-after-trump-urges-countries-to-send-warships-to-secure-strait-of-hormuz-amid-iran-threat-1773524775265">'As a sincere friend...': China responds after Trump urges countries to send warships to secure Strait of Hormuz</a>&nbsp;Deflation is now the defining condition of this economic era. An economy-wide price gauge shows China in deflation for three consecutive years — the longest such streak since the country's market transition in the late 1970s. Producer prices fell 3.6 percent year-on-year in June 2025, the ninth consecutive month of factory-gate deflation and the sharpest monthly drop in nearly two years. Consumer prices barely registered a pulse across 2025 as a whole, with core inflation remaining below 1 percent. These are not temporary fluctuations. They reflect a structural collapse in domestic demand that Xi Jinping's economic framework has not come close to addressing.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-us-intelligence-reports-says-iran-laying-mines-in-strat-of-hormuz-1773548072232/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-us-intelligence-reports-says-iran-laying-mines-in-strat-of-hormuz-1773548072232/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Chinese households know this better than any statistic captures. Youth unemployment — even after the government's 2023 statistical revision stripped students from the calculation — hit 16.9 percent for the 16-to-24 cohort in February 2025. Household savings rates have stayed elevated as families brace for job insecurity, thin pension coverage, and the continued erosion of their biggest asset: their homes. The World Bank's December 2025 China Economic Update projected consumer spending growth to remain subdued well into 2026, constrained by a soft labor market and persistent property price adjustments.&nbsp;The long-run picture is no more encouraging. China recorded 7.92 million births in 2025, the lowest figure since records began in 1949. The total population declined for a fourth consecutive year. Government subsidy programs have not reversed the trend. A shrinking workforce combined with a rapidly aging population puts mounting pressure on an already underfunded pension system — adding a slow-burn fiscal crisis to problems that are already acute.&nbsp;External conditions are worsening too. US tariffs on Chinese goods surged above 100 percent in April 2025 before a partial truce brought them back to 30 percent in May. The European Union's anti-subsidy duties on Chinese electric vehicles, imposed in mid-2024, have since been followed by additional trade friction across multiple sectors. Fitch Ratings projected in January 2026 that Chinese growth would slow further to 4.1 percent this year. The World Bank sees 4.4 percent; the IMF, 4.5 percent. Every credible independent forecast sits well below Beijing's comfort zone.&nbsp;And then there is Xi Jinping himself. Overseas Chinese media have reported that he sought treatment for a cerebral aneurysm as far back as late 2021. His notable absence from the BRICS Summit in Brazil in October 2025 and the cancellation of a planned APEC meeting with President Trump in South Korea — attributed by some analysts to internal political pressure rather than logistics — have intensified speculation about both his health and his authority within the Party. The 21st Party Congress is scheduled for 2027, and who leads China into that moment, with what mandate and in what condition, has become one of the most consequential open questions in global affairs. Xi's economic model was always a bet that the state could manufacture durable growth through investment, industrial policy, and export competitiveness. That bet has produced a real estate catastrophe, a deflation trap, hollowed-out local governments, and an increasingly isolated trading position. Without a genuine pivot toward household-level reform — stronger social safety nets, wealth redistribution, and policies that put money in ordinary people's pockets — the 5 percent headline will continue to be what it already is: a number designed to manage perceptions rather than reflect reality.

China reported 5 per cent GDP growth in 2025, but analysts estimate real growth closer to 2.5–3 per  cent, pointing to weak domestic demand, deflation, and a deep property crisis. Experts warn China’s economic model faces serious structural challenges.

The numbers coming out of Beijing tell one story. The reality unfolding inside China tells another. China's National Bureau of Statistics reported 5.0 percent GDP growth for 2025, neatly hitting the government's annual target. But headline figures in authoritarian states are political instruments as much as economic ones, and this one is doing a great deal of heavy lifting. Independent analysts at the Rhodium Group put real growth somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 percent — roughly half the official reading — with fixed asset investment down 11 percent in nominal terms in the second half of the year compared to the same period in 2024. The divergence between what Beijing reports and what the data actually shows is not a rounding error. It is a portrait of an economy being propped up by narrative as much as by output. Also Read: Trump raises doubts about Supreme Leader Mojtaba's wellbeing, rules out Iran war deal for now What growth did materialize in 2025 came overwhelmingly from exports. China's trade surplus jumped 20 percent to a record $1.19 trillion, with exports accounting for a third of total economic growth — the highest share since 1997. An economy of China's size cannot sustain itself on the backs of foreign consumers indefinitely, and the IMF's December 2025 Article IV assessment said exactly that, warning that China's continued reliance on exports is politically unsustainable for its trading partners and structurally unviable for China itself. The current account surplus is projected to reach 3.3 percent of GDP for 2025. Meanwhile, retail sales grew just 3.7 percent in nominal terms across the year — far too slow to rebalance an economy that desperately needs domestic demand to carry more weight. The property sector, now in its fifth year of contraction since the market peaked in 2021, remains the deepest wound. Roughly 80 million homes sit unsold or vacant. New housing starts are running at approximately 75 percent below their peak; property investment has fallen around 50 percent from its high. The downstream effects on local government finances have been brutal. Land lease revenues — once the fiscal lifeblood of Chinese municipalities — have cratered. Consolidated local government fiscal revenue managed just 0.2 percent year-on-year growth in the first ten months of 2025. Beijing launched a 10 trillion yuan debt-swap program in late 2024 to refinance local government financing vehicle liabilities at lower rates and longer maturities, but the scale of the structural hole means most municipalities will be in fiscal austerity for years — cutting precisely the infrastructure spending and social services that might otherwise help restore consumer confidence. Also Read: 'As a sincere friend...': China responds after Trump urges countries to send warships to secure Strait of Hormuz Deflation is now the defining condition of this economic era. An economy-wide price gauge shows China in deflation for three consecutive years — the longest such streak since the country's market transition in the late 1970s. Producer prices fell 3.6 percent year-on-year in June 2025, the ninth consecutive month of factory-gate deflation and the sharpest monthly drop in nearly two years. Consumer prices barely registered a pulse across 2025 as a whole, with core inflation remaining below 1 percent. These are not temporary fluctuations. They reflect a structural collapse in domestic demand that Xi Jinping's economic framework has not come close to addressing. https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-us-intelligence-reports-says-iran-laying-mines-in-strat-of-hormuz-1773548072232/embed Chinese households know this better than any statistic captures. Youth unemployment — even after the government's 2023 statistical revision stripped students from the calculation — hit 16.9 percent for the 16-to-24 cohort in February 2025. Household savings rates have stayed elevated as families brace for job insecurity, thin pension coverage, and the continued erosion of their biggest asset: their homes. The World Bank's December 2025 China Economic Update projected consumer spending growth to remain subdued well into 2026, constrained by a soft labor market and persistent property price adjustments. The long-run picture is no more encouraging. China recorded 7.92 million births in 2025, the lowest figure since records began in 1949. The total population declined for a fourth consecutive year. Government subsidy programs have not reversed the trend. A shrinking workforce combined with a rapidly aging population puts mounting pressure on an already underfunded pension system — adding a slow-burn fiscal crisis to problems that are already acute. External conditions are worsening too. US tariffs on Chinese goods surged above 100 percent in April 2025 before a partial truce brought them back to 30 percent in May. The European Union's anti-subsidy duties on Chinese electric vehicles, imposed in mid-2024, have since been followed by additional trade friction across multiple sectors. Fitch Ratings projected in January 2026 that Chinese growth would slow further to 4.1 percent this year. The World Bank sees 4.4 percent; the IMF, 4.5 percent. Every credible independent forecast sits well below Beijing's comfort zone. And then there is Xi Jinping himself. Overseas Chinese media have reported that he sought treatment for a cerebral aneurysm as far back as late 2021. His notable absence from the BRICS Summit in Brazil in October 2025 and the cancellation of a planned APEC meeting with President Trump in South Korea — attributed by some analysts to internal political pressure rather than logistics — have intensified speculation about both his health and his authority within the Party. The 21st Party Congress is scheduled for 2027, and who leads China into that moment, with what mandate and in what condition, has become one of the most consequential open questions in global affairs. Xi's economic model was always a bet that the state could manufacture durable growth through investment, industrial policy, and export competitiveness. That bet has produced a real estate catastrophe, a deflation trap, hollowed-out local governments, and an increasingly isolated trading position. Without a genuine pivot toward household-level reform — stronger social safety nets, wealth redistribution, and policies that put money in ordinary people's pockets — the 5 percent headline will continue to be what it already is: a number designed to manage perceptions rather than reflect reality.

China reported 5 per cent GDP growth in 2025, but analysts estimate real growth closer to 2.5–3 per &nbsp;cent, pointing to weak domestic demand, deflation, and a deep property crisis. Experts warn China’s economic model faces serious structural challenges.

China's growth on paper, stagnation in practice

From Ahmedabad to history books, it was all about the Men in Blue and their blunt, brutal dominance in world cricket. India recently clinched its record third T20 World Cup title, the most by any team, and rewrote its T20 dynasty following a triumphant campaign. What was more beautiful than watching a bunch of hungry, motivated and skilled champions sip their winning champagne was them doing it at the venue, which broke a billion hearts in November 2023. Seeking redemption since then, this T20I unit delivered the winning punch by 96 runs to enter the history books.&nbsp;India rewrote the record books in a single night. They became the first team in 19 years to defend the title, the first to win it on home soil, and the first to reach a 'Triple Crown' of three T20 World Cups. The ‘Dhurandhars’ of Ahmedabad left no stone unturned to maximise the team’s potential and win the trophy they were always bound to, which, even the best of the teams knew from the beginning.&nbsp;Over the last four ICC tournaments since the start of the 2023 ODI World Cup, Team India has dominated white-ball cricket for fun, winning 31 of the 33 contested matches, including three trophies. While the heartbreaking loss to Australia in the final of the home edition still haunts Indian cricket and its countless fans, winning two T20 World Cups under different captain-coach pair and in separate conditions, not to forget the Champions Trophy title last year, cements India’s place at the top in world cricket.&nbsp;Although its naysayers have their reasons to pull it down, the Indian white-ball teams, like ‘Dhurandhars’, know a way to stand up and punch in the face of defeat.&nbsp;&nbsp;In the past two years or so, India won the T20 World Cup in the Americas without losing a game, the ICC Champions Trophy 2025 in the UAE, a multilateral tournament – Asia Cup later that year, and six months later, its third T20 WC crown in the Asian conditions.&nbsp;Those who have enjoyed watching the West Indies and Australian dominance years ago, when the two teams used to stand like a rock between their opponents and their will to win, are also witnessing India setting a similar narrative in this new-age cricket.<h2>Aura farming in cricket</h2>India has always produced 'God-level' batters, but it has rarely possessed a battery of match-winning all-rounders. Enter Hardik Pandya, Shivam Dube, and Axar Patel—the trio that stole crunch moments and tore through opposition game plans. The three best game-changers enjoyed their time tearing into oppositions and stealing winning moments for India. While the record books might never scream their names loudly, the fans are aware of their contributions and the impact they made in crunch games.&nbsp;In Ahmedabad on Sunday, India mauled the Kiwis. After being sent out to bat first, India broke most records to register the third-highest team total (255/7) in the competition’s history, and the highest in the T20 World Cup final, with Sanju Samson and Abhishek Sharma powering India to 92 inside the Powerplay alone. Handy contributions propelled them to a match-winning total, before Axar’s twin strike within the first six overs broke New Zealand’s back. &nbsp;&nbsp;Although the Kiwis had this little phase, where they enjoyed finding gaps and scored runs, facing Jasprit Bumrah at the death sealed theirs and the finale’s fate, as the ‘greatest modern-day bowler’ tore into its tail to finish with four wickets for 15 runs in four overs.&nbsp;Abhishek, who just found form in time, hammered the final nail in the coffin to help India win the T20 World Cup 2026 by 96 runs.&nbsp;With a talent pool this deep and a mindset this clinical, India’s white-ball dominance isn't just a phase—it’s the new world order. For now, the rest of the cricketing world is just playing in India's backyard.

From the heartbreak of 2023 to the glory of 2026: India’s ‘Dhurandhars’ dismantle New Zealand in Ahmedabad to clinch a record 3rd T20 World Cup title. Explore how the Men in Blue cemented a T20 dynasty with a brutal 96-run victory on home soil.

From Ahmedabad to history books, it was all about the Men in Blue and their blunt, brutal dominance in world cricket. India recently clinched its record third T20 World Cup title, the most by any team, and rewrote its T20 dynasty following a triumphant campaign. What was more beautiful than watching a bunch of hungry, motivated and skilled champions sip their winning champagne was them doing it at the venue, which broke a billion hearts in November 2023. Seeking redemption since then, this T20I unit delivered the winning punch by 96 runs to enter the history books. India rewrote the record books in a single night. They became the first team in 19 years to defend the title, the first to win it on home soil, and the first to reach a 'Triple Crown' of three T20 World Cups. The ‘Dhurandhars’ of Ahmedabad left no stone unturned to maximise the team’s potential and win the trophy they were always bound to, which, even the best of the teams knew from the beginning. Over the last four ICC tournaments since the start of the 2023 ODI World Cup, Team India has dominated white-ball cricket for fun, winning 31 of the 33 contested matches, including three trophies. While the heartbreaking loss to Australia in the final of the home edition still haunts Indian cricket and its countless fans, winning two T20 World Cups under different captain-coach pair and in separate conditions, not to forget the Champions Trophy title last year, cements India’s place at the top in world cricket. Although its naysayers have their reasons to pull it down, the Indian white-ball teams, like ‘Dhurandhars’, know a way to stand up and punch in the face of defeat. In the past two years or so, India won the T20 World Cup in the Americas without losing a game, the ICC Champions Trophy 2025 in the UAE, a multilateral tournament – Asia Cup later that year, and six months later, its third T20 WC crown in the Asian conditions. Those who have enjoyed watching the West Indies and Australian dominance years ago, when the two teams used to stand like a rock between their opponents and their will to win, are also witnessing India setting a similar narrative in this new-age cricket. Aura farming in cricket India has always produced 'God-level' batters, but it has rarely possessed a battery of match-winning all-rounders. Enter Hardik Pandya, Shivam Dube, and Axar Patel—the trio that stole crunch moments and tore through opposition game plans. The three best game-changers enjoyed their time tearing into oppositions and stealing winning moments for India. While the record books might never scream their names loudly, the fans are aware of their contributions and the impact they made in crunch games. In Ahmedabad on Sunday, India mauled the Kiwis. After being sent out to bat first, India broke most records to register the third-highest team total (255/7) in the competition’s history, and the highest in the T20 World Cup final, with Sanju Samson and Abhishek Sharma powering India to 92 inside the Powerplay alone. Handy contributions propelled them to a match-winning total, before Axar’s twin strike within the first six overs broke New Zealand’s back. Although the Kiwis had this little phase, where they enjoyed finding gaps and scored runs, facing Jasprit Bumrah at the death sealed theirs and the finale’s fate, as the ‘greatest modern-day bowler’ tore into its tail to finish with four wickets for 15 runs in four overs. Abhishek, who just found form in time, hammered the final nail in the coffin to help India win the T20 World Cup 2026 by 96 runs. With a talent pool this deep and a mindset this clinical, India’s white-ball dominance isn't just a phase—it’s the new world order. For now, the rest of the cricketing world is just playing in India's backyard.

From the heartbreak of 2023 to the glory of 2026: India’s ‘Dhurandhars’ dismantle New Zealand in Ahmedabad to clinch a record 3rd T20 World Cup title. Explore how the Men in Blue cemented a T20 dynasty with a brutal 96-run victory on home soil.

Cricket's ‘Dhurandhars’ flaunt dominance as India rewrite T20 dynasty with triumphant campaign

On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched a joint operation against Iran. US President Donald Trump announced that the US had begun “major combat operations in Iran” Trump told the Iranian people, “Your hour of freedom is at hand…when we are finished taking over your government, it will be yours to take.”The US Operation was named “Epic Fury", while Israel named its mission “Lion's Roar”.&nbsp;There is some intricate reflection of war psychology if you trace the naming of the war and the war itself. The name of a war, for the majority of the times is the story that the country likes to tell its people and the world to rationalise its actions. &nbsp;For example, India's “Operation Sindoor” was a response to the punitive action that wiped out the vermilion and widowed Indian woman. Similarly, Israel's Lion's Roar clarifies its motive; the lion was at the centre of ancient Zoroastrianism and later adopted by the Iranian Shas, and it also had ancient Jewish symbolism, the lion of Judah. US operations naming has evolved over time. In Afghanistan, it was Enduring Freedom. In Iraq, it was Operation Iraqi Freedom, then in Libya, it was Operation Odyssey Dawn. Then came the Trump era Operation Southern Spear in Venezuela, Operation Midnight Hammer in Iran. Now, “Epic Fury”- a name so disconnected from history or reality that it sounds like an energy drink or a Pokémon's power move.&nbsp;<h2>Moral Legitimacy</h2>Operation Enduring Freedom, launched in 2001, was a coherent propaganda. The US was attacked on its own soil, at the epitome of global capitalism. The rationale was clean “war on terror”. The perpetrators were sheltered by the Taliban, and who else will deliver justice if not the US, as “Freedom” was the most enticing commodity the US was selling to everyone. The name was the PR of US and Western values, portraying themself as the liberator.<h2>Rhetorical Crack&nbsp;</h2>Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003, the early success of the Afghan war and consistent lobbying from various individuals and institutions like Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, Dick Cheney, neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the US entered into another war in Baghdad. The threat was supposedly so imminent that there was no time left for the United Nations. Except there was no evidence of chemical weapons, no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The first crack appeared here; the name did not justify the rationale.&nbsp;<h2>Symbolic Incoherence</h2>Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, 2011. The names sounded accidental, no relation to the war. Odyssey means uncertain, endless journey, and Dawn suggests a new beginning. The two are self-contradictory to each other. In 2009, as chair of the African Union, Gaddafi proposed the Gold Dinar, a gold-backed currency for the entire continent, a threat to the Petrodollar system. The United Nations, the European Union, and the US sanctioned Gaddafi, and soon NATO started supplying weapons to stir up a resistance, and then the rationale was to save the Libyan people from a dictator.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-qalibaf-warns-us-israel-khamenei-killed-strikes-1772348429956">Iran speaker warns US, Israel of 'devastating blows' after Khamenei killed in strikes</a><h2>The Trump era and performative aggression</h2>Trump's Midnight Hammer, Southern Spear, and Epic Fury are not selling freedom, not even pretending to; they are selling force as its own justification. Venezuela tried to reason with Trump, and so did Iran. The rationale is similar; Trump wants to liberate the people of Iran and Venezuela. But the US doesn't care to hide its intentions anymore. The US openly admits it wants Venezuelan oil, and the US openly claims it is stirring up protests in Iran, which it was hiding in Libya.&nbsp;<h2>Plot hole revealing themselves?</h2>&nbsp;Overtime agents within the network are revealing the plot. The 2010 WikiLeaks by Julian Assange- the 93,000-page Afghan War Diary- the Task Force 373 revealed the brutal crimes of the US military in Afghanistan. The most horrifying one being the “Kill Teams”, a group within the US army which killed civilians and collected their body parts as a “trophy”. Assange noted that the war was used to siphon funds to a “transnational security elite”; the goal was not to end the war but its endless continuation. After 20 years US withdrew from Afghanistan and spent trillions of dollars, thousands of death and the return of the Taliban, it didn't justify the plot it was setting up.&nbsp;&nbsp;Then the Iraqi war and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein created a power vacuum and fertile ground for ISIS, leaving thousands of trained Sunni soldiers and bureaucrats unemployed and resentful. Groups of security forces were tortured in Camp Bucca before converting themselves into the Islamic State of Iraq, including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The same happened in Libya, a power vaccum no succession plan and a viper's nest of militias, many of these militias now control detention centres, where migrants are brought and sold for forced labour.&nbsp;<h2>What a name reveal!</h2>Military operation names, though, seem arbitrary, but they are psychological framing device to reflect consent and coercion. The US tries to rationalise the war as liberating people. Contrary to the framing evidence everywhere points differentlyWherever the US intervened, especially in West Asia, it resulted in destabilising outcomes. Operation Enduring Freedom knew what it was selling. As time evolved, the name get louder and the rationale get more quite and foggy. Operation Epic Fury seems like the group stopped thinking about selling it. It reflects a war aesthetic; the rhetoric moved from selling “freedom” to selling “dominance”.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

From Enduring Freedom to Epic Fury, how US military operation names evolved from selling liberation to projecting dominance.

On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched a joint operation against Iran. US President Donald Trump announced that the US had begun “major combat operations in Iran” Trump told the Iranian people, “Your hour of freedom is at hand…when we are finished taking over your government, it will be yours to take.”The US Operation was named “Epic Fury", while Israel named its mission “Lion's Roar”. There is some intricate reflection of war psychology if you trace the naming of the war and the war itself. The name of a war, for the majority of the times is the story that the country likes to tell its people and the world to rationalise its actions. For example, India's “Operation Sindoor” was a response to the punitive action that wiped out the vermilion and widowed Indian woman. Similarly, Israel's Lion's Roar clarifies its motive; the lion was at the centre of ancient Zoroastrianism and later adopted by the Iranian Shas, and it also had ancient Jewish symbolism, the lion of Judah. US operations naming has evolved over time. In Afghanistan, it was Enduring Freedom. In Iraq, it was Operation Iraqi Freedom, then in Libya, it was Operation Odyssey Dawn. Then came the Trump era Operation Southern Spear in Venezuela, Operation Midnight Hammer in Iran. Now, “Epic Fury”- a name so disconnected from history or reality that it sounds like an energy drink or a Pokémon's power move. Moral Legitimacy Operation Enduring Freedom, launched in 2001, was a coherent propaganda. The US was attacked on its own soil, at the epitome of global capitalism. The rationale was clean “war on terror”. The perpetrators were sheltered by the Taliban, and who else will deliver justice if not the US, as “Freedom” was the most enticing commodity the US was selling to everyone. The name was the PR of US and Western values, portraying themself as the liberator. Rhetorical Crack Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003, the early success of the Afghan war and consistent lobbying from various individuals and institutions like Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, Dick Cheney, neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the US entered into another war in Baghdad. The threat was supposedly so imminent that there was no time left for the United Nations. Except there was no evidence of chemical weapons, no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The first crack appeared here; the name did not justify the rationale. Symbolic Incoherence Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, 2011. The names sounded accidental, no relation to the war. Odyssey means uncertain, endless journey, and Dawn suggests a new beginning. The two are self-contradictory to each other. In 2009, as chair of the African Union, Gaddafi proposed the Gold Dinar, a gold-backed currency for the entire continent, a threat to the Petrodollar system. The United Nations, the European Union, and the US sanctioned Gaddafi, and soon NATO started supplying weapons to stir up a resistance, and then the rationale was to save the Libyan people from a dictator. Also Read: Iran speaker warns US, Israel of 'devastating blows' after Khamenei killed in strikes The Trump era and performative aggression Trump's Midnight Hammer, Southern Spear, and Epic Fury are not selling freedom, not even pretending to; they are selling force as its own justification. Venezuela tried to reason with Trump, and so did Iran. The rationale is similar; Trump wants to liberate the people of Iran and Venezuela. But the US doesn't care to hide its intentions anymore. The US openly admits it wants Venezuelan oil, and the US openly claims it is stirring up protests in Iran, which it was hiding in Libya. Plot hole revealing themselves? Overtime agents within the network are revealing the plot. The 2010 WikiLeaks by Julian Assange- the 93,000-page Afghan War Diary- the Task Force 373 revealed the brutal crimes of the US military in Afghanistan. The most horrifying one being the “Kill Teams”, a group within the US army which killed civilians and collected their body parts as a “trophy”. Assange noted that the war was used to siphon funds to a “transnational security elite”; the goal was not to end the war but its endless continuation. After 20 years US withdrew from Afghanistan and spent trillions of dollars, thousands of death and the return of the Taliban, it didn't justify the plot it was setting up. Then the Iraqi war and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein created a power vacuum and fertile ground for ISIS, leaving thousands of trained Sunni soldiers and bureaucrats unemployed and resentful. Groups of security forces were tortured in Camp Bucca before converting themselves into the Islamic State of Iraq, including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The same happened in Libya, a power vaccum no succession plan and a viper's nest of militias, many of these militias now control detention centres, where migrants are brought and sold for forced labour. What a name reveal! Military operation names, though, seem arbitrary, but they are psychological framing device to reflect consent and coercion. The US tries to rationalise the war as liberating people. Contrary to the framing evidence everywhere points differently Wherever the US intervened, especially in West Asia, it resulted in destabilising outcomes. Operation Enduring Freedom knew what it was selling. As time evolved, the name get louder and the rationale get more quite and foggy. Operation Epic Fury seems like the group stopped thinking about selling it. It reflects a war aesthetic; the rhetoric moved from selling “freedom” to selling “dominance”.

From Enduring Freedom to Epic Fury, how US military operation names evolved from selling liberation to projecting dominance.

Epic Fury to Enduring Freedom: What war names reveal about power

It is truly a watershed moment for Indian cinema as the Manipuri film Boong earns its place in the pages of history. Directed by Lakshmipriya Devi and co-produced by Farhan Akhtar’s Excel Entertainment, the small film from Manipur about a little boy in search of his missing father beat big commercial giants like Zootopia 2 and Lilo &amp; Stitch to earn the Best Children’s and Family Film at the BAFTA film awards on Sunday night.&nbsp;&nbsp;While the film brings laurels to Indian cinema at large, being the first Indian production to win a BAFTA award and also the first Indian film ever to win in this category, Boong’s win should be seen as a turning point for Indian cinema at large from a global perspective.&nbsp;<h2>About Boong</h2>A coming-of-age film, Boong is set in rural Manipur, where a boy embarks on a journey to find his estranged father and reunite him with his mother. The film poignantly highlights the troubled times we live in, the man made broders that divide people, and also delves into the insider vs outsider debate in a tense landscape like Manipur’s. The film stars child actors Gugun Kipgen and Angom Sanamatum&nbsp;as the lead protagonists and is a heartwarming story of discovery, learning, acceptance and more.&nbsp;&nbsp;Directed by Lakshmipriya Devi and produced by Farhan Akhtar, Vikesh Bhutani, Alan McAlex, Ritesh Sidhwani and Shujaat Saudagar- Boong first premiered at the Discovery section of the 2024 Toronto International Film Festival on 5 September 2024. It got a limited theatrical release in India in 2025 and won critical acclaim.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bollywood/bafta-2026-honours-dharmendra-in-emotional-in-memoriam-tribute-fans-react-1771821644846">BAFTA 2026 honours Dharmendra in emotional In Memoriam tribute; fans react</a><h2>The classic underdog story&nbsp;</h2>What makes Boong’s win so special? It is the classic underdog story. The sheer nomination for the small film, made on a modest budget at the BAFTAs, which is often considered the British Oscars, was an achievement in itself. No one, perhaps, could have envisioned that film would fetch India its first BAFTA, considering it was pitted against Hollywood commercial giants like Zootopia 2 and Lilo&amp; Stitch- both backed by big studios, with fancy VFX, were box office hits.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bollywood/elegance-and-style-farhan-akhtar-shibani-dandekar-turn-heads-at-bafta-2026-as-boong-bags-major-win-1771816959625">Farhan Akhtar, Shibani Dandekar turn heads at BAFTA 2026 as Boong bags major win</a>&nbsp;Boong’s win highlighted that at BAFTAs, story and content won over the commercial razzmatazz.<h2>Manipur: Beyond the headlines</h2>As Boong director Lakshipriya Devi rightly pointed out, the film represented a state like Manipuri that is often overlooked, ignored and grossly misrepresented in the mainstream. Often referred to as the generic North-East, Manipur’s culture and ethos are widely unknown to people in the rest of India.&nbsp;&nbsp;A conflicted state for years now, Devi’s plea for peace, especially for displaced children of Manipur during her winning speech, has once again brought focus to the conflicted areas of the state. In Manipur, there has been a ban on Hindi films for months now and Boong’s win will be seen as a victory for the people and their culture, which is unknown due to politics and the dominance of Hindi cinema.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bafta-awards-2026-boong-director-lakshmipriya-devi-pays-homage-to-ignored-unrepresented-manipur-in-her-winning-speech-pray-for-peace-1771811798786">BAFTA awards 2026: Boong director Lakshmipriya Devi pays homage to ‘ignored, unrepresented’ Manipur in her winning speech: ‘Pray for peace'</a><h2>The ‘New Wave’ of Indian Regional Cinema</h2>Boong’s win should be seen as a win for Indian cinema. Beyond Bollywood, Indian cinema and talent are now getting noticed through International Film Festivals and Awards. Be it Rima Das’ Assamese film Not A Hero, which won a Crystal Bear Special Mention at Berlinale, or SS Rajamouli’s mammoth RRR in Telugu that made the world dance or now Boong, a small Manipuri film, cinema lovers globally are now looking beyond Bollywood and noticing Indian cinema and its talents.&nbsp;Language is no longer a barrier, and Boong’s win is a testament to that fact. A Manipuri-language film has managed to capture a British audience, proving that the more specific a story is, the more universal it becomes.<h2>Innocence in Conflict</h2>Boong also manages to move out of the international lens of ‘poverty porn’ and instead focuses on a more innocent, pure-at-heart human story. It is simply not a story of just a boy wanting to ‘gift’ his father to his mom, but so much more. It touches upon the themes of family, hope, and the resilient spirit of children.<h2>A woman’s middas touch</h2>Guneet Monga was not completely wrong when she said that the future of Indian cinema in women when she won her Oscar for Best Short Film at the Oscars 2023 along with filmmaker Kartiki Gonsalves. Last year, Payal Kapadia and her film All We Imagine As Light dominated global film festivals and awards. This year, it’s a woman again who has taken Indian cinema to the global stage.&nbsp;&nbsp;Do we need the validation of the West, though? Perhaps for smaller films like Boong, a BAFTA win is pertinent. After all, how else would a cinema lover sitting in Lucknow or Delhi get to know about a Manipuri film about a little boy and his big search for his missing father?

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bafta-2026-farhan-akhtar-s-manipuri-drama-boong-wins-1771786875450">BAFTA: India's Manipuri drama Boong wins Best Children's and Family Film award</a>

Manipuri film Boong's historic win at the BAFTA film awards 2026 is a watershed moment for Indian cinema. Its win proves that the global audience is ready to see India from a fresh perspective sans the Bollywood glamour and drama. 

It is truly a watershed moment for Indian cinema as the Manipuri film Boong earns its place in the pages of history. Directed by Lakshmipriya Devi and co-produced by Farhan Akhtar’s Excel Entertainment, the small film from Manipur about a little boy in search of his missing father beat big commercial giants like Zootopia 2 and Lilo & Stitch to earn the Best Children’s and Family Film at the BAFTA film awards on Sunday night. While the film brings laurels to Indian cinema at large, being the first Indian production to win a BAFTA award and also the first Indian film ever to win in this category, Boong’s win should be seen as a turning point for Indian cinema at large from a global perspective. About Boong A coming-of-age film, Boong is set in rural Manipur, where a boy embarks on a journey to find his estranged father and reunite him with his mother. The film poignantly highlights the troubled times we live in, the man made broders that divide people, and also delves into the insider vs outsider debate in a tense landscape like Manipur’s. The film stars child actors Gugun Kipgen and Angom Sanamatum as the lead protagonists and is a heartwarming story of discovery, learning, acceptance and more. Directed by Lakshmipriya Devi and produced by Farhan Akhtar, Vikesh Bhutani, Alan McAlex, Ritesh Sidhwani and Shujaat Saudagar- Boong first premiered at the Discovery section of the 2024 Toronto International Film Festival on 5 September 2024. It got a limited theatrical release in India in 2025 and won critical acclaim. Also read: BAFTA 2026 honours Dharmendra in emotional In Memoriam tribute; fans react The classic underdog story What makes Boong’s win so special? It is the classic underdog story. The sheer nomination for the small film, made on a modest budget at the BAFTAs, which is often considered the British Oscars, was an achievement in itself. No one, perhaps, could have envisioned that film would fetch India its first BAFTA, considering it was pitted against Hollywood commercial giants like Zootopia 2 and Lilo& Stitch- both backed by big studios, with fancy VFX, were box office hits. Also read:Farhan Akhtar, Shibani Dandekar turn heads at BAFTA 2026 as Boong bags major win Boong’s win highlighted that at BAFTAs, story and content won over the commercial razzmatazz. Manipur: Beyond the headlines As Boong director Lakshipriya Devi rightly pointed out, the film represented a state like Manipuri that is often overlooked, ignored and grossly misrepresented in the mainstream. Often referred to as the generic North-East, Manipur’s culture and ethos are widely unknown to people in the rest of India. A conflicted state for years now, Devi’s plea for peace, especially for displaced children of Manipur during her winning speech, has once again brought focus to the conflicted areas of the state. In Manipur, there has been a ban on Hindi films for months now and Boong’s win will be seen as a victory for the people and their culture, which is unknown due to politics and the dominance of Hindi cinema. Also read: BAFTA awards 2026: Boong director Lakshmipriya Devi pays homage to ‘ignored, unrepresented’ Manipur in her winning speech: ‘Pray for peace' The ‘New Wave’ of Indian Regional Cinema Boong’s win should be seen as a win for Indian cinema. Beyond Bollywood, Indian cinema and talent are now getting noticed through International Film Festivals and Awards. Be it Rima Das’ Assamese film Not A Hero, which won a Crystal Bear Special Mention at Berlinale, or SS Rajamouli’s mammoth RRR in Telugu that made the world dance or now Boong, a small Manipuri film, cinema lovers globally are now looking beyond Bollywood and noticing Indian cinema and its talents. Language is no longer a barrier, and Boong’s win is a testament to that fact. A Manipuri-language film has managed to capture a British audience, proving that the more specific a story is, the more universal it becomes. Innocence in Conflict Boong also manages to move out of the international lens of ‘poverty porn’ and instead focuses on a more innocent, pure-at-heart human story. It is simply not a story of just a boy wanting to ‘gift’ his father to his mom, but so much more. It touches upon the themes of family, hope, and the resilient spirit of children. A woman’s middas touch Guneet Monga was not completely wrong when she said that the future of Indian cinema in women when she won her Oscar for Best Short Film at the Oscars 2023 along with filmmaker Kartiki Gonsalves. Last year, Payal Kapadia and her film All We Imagine As Light dominated global film festivals and awards. This year, it’s a woman again who has taken Indian cinema to the global stage. Do we need the validation of the West, though? Perhaps for smaller films like Boong, a BAFTA win is pertinent. After all, how else would a cinema lover sitting in Lucknow or Delhi get to know about a Manipuri film about a little boy and his big search for his missing father?

Manipuri film Boong's historic win at the BAFTA film awards 2026 is a watershed moment for Indian cinema. Its win proves that the global audience is ready to see India from a fresh perspective sans the Bollywood glamour and drama.&nbsp;

Beyond the borders of Bollywood: Why Boong’s BAFTA win is India’s true cinematic watershed

Let me ask you something simple. When you go to a shop and the shopkeeper says, “Sorry, the price has gone up because the government added a new tax,” what do you do? You pay more. You have no choice. That is exactly what is happening right now in America — and what happens in America does not just stay in America. It travels. It reaches India. It reaches your life.&nbsp;On Saturday, 21st February, American President Donald Trump announced a brand new 15% import tax on all goods coming into the United States from other countries. Import tax, also called a tariff, is simply extra money that a country charges when goods arrive from outside. Think of it like an entry fee. That extra cost is not eaten by the seller alone. It gets passed on to the buyer — the ordinary American person wondering why the price of their rice cooker or running shoes just went up.&nbsp;This 15% tax actually replaced a 10% tax that Trump had announced just the day before. And that 10% tax itself came because the Supreme Court of America struck down Trump’s earlier, much larger tariff plan. The court said Trump had no legal authority to impose those tariffs using IEEPA — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. IEEPA is a tool meant for emergencies like blocking money transfers or controlling trade with enemy nations, not for placing import taxes on the whole world. The court cancelled those tariffs.&nbsp;So Trump found another law — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Never used before in American history to impose tariffs, this law allows a president to place up to 15% import tax, but only for 150 days, roughly five months. Section 122 was created for situations where America is spending far more on buying goods from other countries than it earns by selling its own — what is called a trade deficit. Trump argues this is exactly the kind of problem this law was made for. Legal experts, however, are not fully convinced. There is a real possibility someone will take this to court too. But for now, the tariff is in place and it is real.&nbsp;In simple numbers — before the Supreme Court’s ruling, America's average import tax was 16%. After the ruling it dropped sharply to 9.1%. Now, with the new 15% tariff, it is expected to settle around 13.7%. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, a study by the Budget Lab at Yale University confirmed this.&nbsp;Now, why should you care? India exports medicines, textiles, software services, gems and engineering goods to America. A 15% tax means Indian companies either absorb the loss or charge more and risk losing customers. Either way, jobs are affected. Salaries are affected. Trade is not a faraway government matter — it is connected to someone’s job, someone’s evening meal.&nbsp;“Wait,” you might ask, “didn’t India just agree to an 18% rate earlier this month?” Yes, we did. But that deal was built on a legal foundation that the Supreme Court just demolished. While the new 15% tax sounds lower on paper, it is actually a trap. It strips away India’s special status and puts us in the same bucket as everyone else, all while hanging a 150-day timer over our heads. In trade, a lower tax with high uncertainty is often worse than a higher tax with a clear future.&nbsp;Not everything is taxed equally. Medicines, important minerals, defence goods, and products from Canada and Mexico under an existing trade agreement are exempt. But for most imports — including cheap goods from Chinese apps like Shein and Temu — the tax applies fully.&nbsp;Earlier, packages worth $800 or less could enter America without any tax. Trump ended this benefit, and the White House confirmed it will not return. Every small package now faces the 15% tariff. The Republican Party has also passed a law to permanently end this system from June 2027.&nbsp;On the ground, The Wall Street Journal noted that January’s inflation report showed prices for home appliances, furniture, and new cars had already gone up. For most of 2025, American companies and buyers paid over 90% of the extra costs themselves. Some companies stopped hiring. But shrimp fishermen in Alabama said tariffs actually helped them compete against cheaper foreign imports. So the story has two sides.&nbsp;My honest opinion? Tariff policy is not a light switch you can flick on and off every few days. Every change creates uncertainty. Uncertainty is itself a cost. And that cost finds its way to ordinary people every single time.&nbsp;Trump’s goal — protecting American industries, reducing dependence on China, bringing back jobs — is not wrong. But changing rates every 48 hours, getting them struck down in court, and finding new laws does not inspire confidence. A country’s trade policy must be stable and legally sound. What we are seeing right now is the opposite of that.&nbsp;And that, my friend, is exactly why you should be paying attention.&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.)

Donald Trump’s 15% tariff shake-up creates global trade uncertainty, raising prices, legal doubts, and economic ripple effects reaching India. While the new 15% tax sounds lower on paper, it strips away India’s special status and puts us in the same bucket as everyone else.

Let me ask you something simple. When you go to a shop and the shopkeeper says, “Sorry, the price has gone up because the government added a new tax,” what do you do? You pay more. You have no choice. That is exactly what is happening right now in America — and what happens in America does not just stay in America. It travels. It reaches India. It reaches your life. On Saturday, 21st February, American President Donald Trump announced a brand new 15% import tax on all goods coming into the United States from other countries. Import tax, also called a tariff, is simply extra money that a country charges when goods arrive from outside. Think of it like an entry fee. That extra cost is not eaten by the seller alone. It gets passed on to the buyer — the ordinary American person wondering why the price of their rice cooker or running shoes just went up. This 15% tax actually replaced a 10% tax that Trump had announced just the day before. And that 10% tax itself came because the Supreme Court of America struck down Trump’s earlier, much larger tariff plan. The court said Trump had no legal authority to impose those tariffs using IEEPA — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. IEEPA is a tool meant for emergencies like blocking money transfers or controlling trade with enemy nations, not for placing import taxes on the whole world. The court cancelled those tariffs. So Trump found another law — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Never used before in American history to impose tariffs, this law allows a president to place up to 15% import tax, but only for 150 days, roughly five months. Section 122 was created for situations where America is spending far more on buying goods from other countries than it earns by selling its own — what is called a trade deficit. Trump argues this is exactly the kind of problem this law was made for. Legal experts, however, are not fully convinced. There is a real possibility someone will take this to court too. But for now, the tariff is in place and it is real. In simple numbers — before the Supreme Court’s ruling, America's average import tax was 16%. After the ruling it dropped sharply to 9.1%. Now, with the new 15% tariff, it is expected to settle around 13.7%. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, a study by the Budget Lab at Yale University confirmed this. Now, why should you care? India exports medicines, textiles, software services, gems and engineering goods to America. A 15% tax means Indian companies either absorb the loss or charge more and risk losing customers. Either way, jobs are affected. Salaries are affected. Trade is not a faraway government matter — it is connected to someone’s job, someone’s evening meal. “Wait,” you might ask, “didn’t India just agree to an 18% rate earlier this month?” Yes, we did. But that deal was built on a legal foundation that the Supreme Court just demolished. While the new 15% tax sounds lower on paper, it is actually a trap. It strips away India’s special status and puts us in the same bucket as everyone else, all while hanging a 150-day timer over our heads. In trade, a lower tax with high uncertainty is often worse than a higher tax with a clear future. Not everything is taxed equally. Medicines, important minerals, defence goods, and products from Canada and Mexico under an existing trade agreement are exempt. But for most imports — including cheap goods from Chinese apps like Shein and Temu — the tax applies fully. Earlier, packages worth $800 or less could enter America without any tax. Trump ended this benefit, and the White House confirmed it will not return. Every small package now faces the 15% tariff. The Republican Party has also passed a law to permanently end this system from June 2027. On the ground, The Wall Street Journal noted that January’s inflation report showed prices for home appliances, furniture, and new cars had already gone up. For most of 2025, American companies and buyers paid over 90% of the extra costs themselves. Some companies stopped hiring. But shrimp fishermen in Alabama said tariffs actually helped them compete against cheaper foreign imports. So the story has two sides. My honest opinion? Tariff policy is not a light switch you can flick on and off every few days. Every change creates uncertainty. Uncertainty is itself a cost. And that cost finds its way to ordinary people every single time. Trump’s goal — protecting American industries, reducing dependence on China, bringing back jobs — is not wrong. But changing rates every 48 hours, getting them struck down in court, and finding new laws does not inspire confidence. A country’s trade policy must be stable and legally sound. What we are seeing right now is the opposite of that. And that, my friend, is exactly why you should be paying attention. (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.)

Donald Trump’s 15% tariff shake-up creates global trade uncertainty, raising prices, legal doubts, and economic ripple effects reaching India. While the new 15% tax sounds lower on paper, it strips away India’s special status and puts us in the same bucket as everyone else.

The 150-day fuse: Trump’s new plan to tax the world

The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs in a 6-3 decision that translates to a clear message: your executive powers have limits.The ruling was Trump’s first major defeat in his second term. It removes a tool he has aggressively used to remake US trade deals, collect billions of dollars from American companies importing foreign goods, and interfere in the domestic affairs of countries whose leaders fail to bend to his will.The most glaring example of tariffs as a political punishment came in July when Trump slapped a 50 percent on most Brazilian goods in response to what he called a “witch hunt” against former president Jair Bolsonaro, who was on trial for an attempted coup.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-is-neal-katyal-all-about-the-indian-origin-lawyer-who-led-legal-challenge-against-trump-tariffs-at-scotus-1771641242108">Who is Neal Katyal? All about the Indian-origin lawyer who led legal challenge against Trump tariffs at SCOTUS</a>The Brazilian government ignored the apparent attempt to stop the trial and Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison.India was another example of Trump tariffs as a geopolitical weapon. Last August, tariffs on goods from India were doubled to 50 per cent as punishment for continued purchases of discounted Russian oil. &nbsp;The row was settled in February with an agreement to roll back tariffs from 50 to 18 per cent in exchange forthe &nbsp;Indian agreement to eliminate tariffs and non-tariff barriers on US goods with the stated goal to bring all barriers to zero. &nbsp;In an angry press conference denouncing the Supreme Court judges, Trump singled out Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “a great man” and stressed that under the US.-Indian trade agreement, the US is no longer paying tariffs to India.The court on Friday rued that Trump had overstepped his legal authority by imposing broad tariffs on countries around the world without clear approval from Congress. &nbsp;Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying that if the Trump administration was allowed to pursue its tax agenda, “it would replace the long-standing executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policy-making. Accordingly, the President must point to clear congressional authorisation to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs. He cannot,”The ruling applies to tariffs Trump announced on what he called “Liberation Day” on April 2, when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address trade imbalances. Ostensibly, part of the “emergency” was rooted in the flow of drugs from Mexico and Canada.Friday’s ruling could be something of a turning point in Trump’s relentless pursuit of more executive power, which has stirred mass protests on several occasions by demonstrators lofting signs saying “No Kings.”The Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority has blessed Trump’s expansive exertion of presidential powers in a series of other rulings issued on an emergency basis. Friday’s decision enraged Trump in particular because two of the six judges who ruled against him were appointed by him in his first term.What was left unclear was whether the estimated $175 billion collected since “liberation day” would be returned to the importers who paid them. Much of the money was passed on to consumers and essentially amounted to taxes. That stood in contrast to Trump's campaign pledges that he would reduce taxes.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-absolutely-ashamed-of-certain-members-of-court-trump-lashes-out-at-supreme-court-over-tariff-decision-1771612420264">Trump announces 10% global tariff; says ‘absolutely ashamed’ of US Supreme Court</a>Importers have already filed more than 1,000 lawsuits in the Court of International Trade, and a flood of new cases is likely. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the logistics of refunds could drag on for “weeks, months, years.”Opposition to the reciprocal tariffs the Supreme Court ruled on had come from both sides of America’s division, even from Trump’s Vice President during his first term, Mike Pence, founder of Advancing American Freedom, a group that has lobbied against the levies.“American families and American businesses pay American tariffs – not foreign countries. With this decision, American families can sigh a breath of relief,” he said.Perhaps. Trump has already made clear that he will re-impose tariffs using other laws on presidential authority. He has not spelt out details but announced a new global tariff of 10 per cent.Even for a White House which excels in creating alternative realities, it will be difficult to portray the Supreme Court ruling as anything but an embarrassing defeat. Democrats will no doubt use it in the campaign for mid-term elections in November, a contest for the House of Representatives Republicans are predicted to lose. &nbsp;That would turn Donald Trump into a very lame duck and change the Washington political scene. &nbsp;

The ruling was Trump’s first major defeat in his 2nd term. It removes a tool he aggressively used to remake US trade deals, collect billions of dollars from American companies importing foreign goods, and interfere in the domestic affairs of countries whose leaders fail to bend to his will.

The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs in a 6-3 decision that translates to a clear message: your executive powers have limits. The ruling was Trump’s first major defeat in his second term. It removes a tool he has aggressively used to remake US trade deals, collect billions of dollars from American companies importing foreign goods, and interfere in the domestic affairs of countries whose leaders fail to bend to his will. The most glaring example of tariffs as a political punishment came in July when Trump slapped a 50 percent on most Brazilian goods in response to what he called a “witch hunt” against former president Jair Bolsonaro, who was on trial for an attempted coup. Also read | Who is Neal Katyal? All about the Indian-origin lawyer who led legal challenge against Trump tariffs at SCOTUS The Brazilian government ignored the apparent attempt to stop the trial and Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison. India was another example of Trump tariffs as a geopolitical weapon. Last August, tariffs on goods from India were doubled to 50 per cent as punishment for continued purchases of discounted Russian oil. The row was settled in February with an agreement to roll back tariffs from 50 to 18 per cent in exchange forthe Indian agreement to eliminate tariffs and non-tariff barriers on US goods with the stated goal to bring all barriers to zero. In an angry press conference denouncing the Supreme Court judges, Trump singled out Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “a great man” and stressed that under the US.-Indian trade agreement, the US is no longer paying tariffs to India. The court on Friday rued that Trump had overstepped his legal authority by imposing broad tariffs on countries around the world without clear approval from Congress. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying that if the Trump administration was allowed to pursue its tax agenda, “it would replace the long-standing executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policy-making. Accordingly, the President must point to clear congressional authorisation to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs. He cannot,” The ruling applies to tariffs Trump announced on what he called “Liberation Day” on April 2, when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address trade imbalances. Ostensibly, part of the “emergency” was rooted in the flow of drugs from Mexico and Canada. Friday’s ruling could be something of a turning point in Trump’s relentless pursuit of more executive power, which has stirred mass protests on several occasions by demonstrators lofting signs saying “No Kings.” The Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority has blessed Trump’s expansive exertion of presidential powers in a series of other rulings issued on an emergency basis. Friday’s decision enraged Trump in particular because two of the six judges who ruled against him were appointed by him in his first term. What was left unclear was whether the estimated $175 billion collected since “liberation day” would be returned to the importers who paid them. Much of the money was passed on to consumers and essentially amounted to taxes. That stood in contrast to Trump's campaign pledges that he would reduce taxes. Also read | Trump announces 10% global tariff; says ‘absolutely ashamed’ of US Supreme Court Importers have already filed more than 1,000 lawsuits in the Court of International Trade, and a flood of new cases is likely. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the logistics of refunds could drag on for “weeks, months, years.” Opposition to the reciprocal tariffs the Supreme Court ruled on had come from both sides of America’s division, even from Trump’s Vice President during his first term, Mike Pence, founder of Advancing American Freedom, a group that has lobbied against the levies. “American families and American businesses pay American tariffs – not foreign countries. With this decision, American families can sigh a breath of relief,” he said. Perhaps. Trump has already made clear that he will re-impose tariffs using other laws on presidential authority. He has not spelt out details but announced a new global tariff of 10 per cent. Even for a White House which excels in creating alternative realities, it will be difficult to portray the Supreme Court ruling as anything but an embarrassing defeat. Democrats will no doubt use it in the campaign for mid-term elections in November, a contest for the House of Representatives Republicans are predicted to lose. That would turn Donald Trump into a very lame duck and change the Washington political scene.

The ruling was Trump’s first major defeat in his 2nd term. It removes a tool he aggressively used to remake US trade deals, collect billions of dollars from American companies importing foreign goods, and interfere in the domestic affairs of countries whose leaders fail to bend to his will.

Donald Trump suffers first major blow to his economic and diplomatic policy

I am writing this from New Delhi, on the second day of the AI Summit, 17th February. The air here is electric. Not because of the weather. But because what is being discussed inside these halls could change the lives of every single Indian—from a farmer in Punjab to a teenager in a small town in Tamil Nadu.&nbsp;Let me start with what Prime Minister Narendra Modi said just a short while ago. He gave an interview to ANI, the Indian news agency. And his words were bold. He said he wants India to be among the top three AI superpowers in the world. Not just as a country that uses AI tools made by others, but as a country that actually builds them. He said Indian AI models should serve billions of people in their own native languages. He said Indian AI startups should one day be worth hundreds of billions of dollars and create millions of good jobs. That is the dream on the table.&nbsp;Now, big dreams need big money. And that is exactly what Day Two of this summit was all about.&nbsp;The headline number is $200 billion. Yes, two hundred billion dollars. That is how much investment India is expecting to attract in AI over the next two years. This was announced by Ashwini Vaishnaw, India’s Minister for Electronics and IT. He also added that another $17 billion is expected separately—mainly for advanced AI research and real products that people actually use, like health apps, chatbots, and translation tools.&nbsp;So where exactly will this money go? To understand that, you need to understand something called the five layers of AI. Think of it like a five-floor building. Every floor matters. Remove one, and the whole structure collapses.&nbsp;The ground floor is energy. AI systems run on enormous amounts of electricity. Without reliable and affordable power, nothing else is possible. That is why energy comes first.&nbsp;The second floor is data centres and networks. Think of data centres as giant warehouses where all digital information is stored and processed. And networks—your internet, broadband, 5G—are the highways that carry that information from one place to another. Without these highways and warehouses, AI has nowhere to live and no way to move.&nbsp;The third floor is compute—meaning chips and semiconductors. These are the muscle of AI. They do the actual heavy lifting, processing millions of calculations every second. Without powerful chips, AI cannot function at speed, especially when millions of people are using it at the same time.&nbsp;The fourth floor is the AI model itself. This is the brain. It is trained on vast amounts of data—the way a person learns by reading thousands of books over years. It finds patterns in that data and uses those patterns to answer questions, make predictions, or take decisions. This is what powers tools like ChatGPT.&nbsp;The fifth and top floor is applications. This is the part you and I actually touch and use—a chatbot answering your question, an app diagnosing a health condition, a platform helping a farmer decide when to water his crops. These are the real products that bring AI from laboratories into everyday life.&nbsp;Most of the $200 billion will go into the lower floors—energy, infrastructure, data centres, and chips. The additional $17 billion will go into the upper floors—the models and the apps.&nbsp;Now, global giants are already moving. OpenAI, which created ChatGPT, has been in India for a while. On 16th February, Anthropic—another major AI company—announced it is opening an office in Bengaluru. This is not just about renting a desk somewhere. These companies are building real partnerships with Indian businesses and even the government. Air India is using Anthropic’s AI tool, Claude, to build custom software. Cognizant is rolling it out to its employees worldwide. Infosys will work with Anthropic to build AI agents—think of them as smart digital helpers—for industries like telecom and banking.&nbsp;Google and Meta are also expanding their data centres in India. The message is clear: India is no longer just a market where foreign companies sell their products. India is becoming a partner—a place where AI is built together.&nbsp;But here is the crucial part. India cannot depend entirely on foreign AI. Western models are powerful, but they often do not understand India deeply. India has 22 official languages and hundreds of dialects. Most Indians do not use English in their daily lives. And most global AI tools still struggle with this reality.&nbsp;This is why two Indian-made AI projects matter. BharatGen, backed by the government, has unveiled Param-2, a model trained on all 22 scheduled Indian languages. Sarvam AI, an Indian startup, has launched an on-device AI that works even without internet—perfect for villages with weak connectivity.&nbsp;The summit’s biggest days are still ahead—19th and 20th February. French President Macron will speak. PM Modi will address the gathering. More announcements are expected.&nbsp;India’s AI moment has arrived. The only question is how well India grabs it.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

India’s AI Summit highlights Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bold vision, massive investments, and rising partnerships as India races to build its own multilingual AI future.

I am writing this from New Delhi, on the second day of the AI Summit, 17th February. The air here is electric. Not because of the weather. But because what is being discussed inside these halls could change the lives of every single Indian—from a farmer in Punjab to a teenager in a small town in Tamil Nadu. Let me start with what Prime Minister Narendra Modi said just a short while ago. He gave an interview to ANI, the Indian news agency. And his words were bold. He said he wants India to be among the top three AI superpowers in the world. Not just as a country that uses AI tools made by others, but as a country that actually builds them. He said Indian AI models should serve billions of people in their own native languages. He said Indian AI startups should one day be worth hundreds of billions of dollars and create millions of good jobs. That is the dream on the table. Now, big dreams need big money. And that is exactly what Day Two of this summit was all about. The headline number is $200 billion. Yes, two hundred billion dollars. That is how much investment India is expecting to attract in AI over the next two years. This was announced by Ashwini Vaishnaw, India’s Minister for Electronics and IT. He also added that another $17 billion is expected separately—mainly for advanced AI research and real products that people actually use, like health apps, chatbots, and translation tools. So where exactly will this money go? To understand that, you need to understand something called the five layers of AI. Think of it like a five-floor building. Every floor matters. Remove one, and the whole structure collapses. The ground floor is energy. AI systems run on enormous amounts of electricity. Without reliable and affordable power, nothing else is possible. That is why energy comes first. The second floor is data centres and networks. Think of data centres as giant warehouses where all digital information is stored and processed. And networks—your internet, broadband, 5G—are the highways that carry that information from one place to another. Without these highways and warehouses, AI has nowhere to live and no way to move. The third floor is compute—meaning chips and semiconductors. These are the muscle of AI. They do the actual heavy lifting, processing millions of calculations every second. Without powerful chips, AI cannot function at speed, especially when millions of people are using it at the same time. The fourth floor is the AI model itself. This is the brain. It is trained on vast amounts of data—the way a person learns by reading thousands of books over years. It finds patterns in that data and uses those patterns to answer questions, make predictions, or take decisions. This is what powers tools like ChatGPT. The fifth and top floor is applications. This is the part you and I actually touch and use—a chatbot answering your question, an app diagnosing a health condition, a platform helping a farmer decide when to water his crops. These are the real products that bring AI from laboratories into everyday life. Most of the $200 billion will go into the lower floors—energy, infrastructure, data centres, and chips. The additional $17 billion will go into the upper floors—the models and the apps. Now, global giants are already moving. OpenAI, which created ChatGPT, has been in India for a while. On 16th February, Anthropic—another major AI company—announced it is opening an office in Bengaluru. This is not just about renting a desk somewhere. These companies are building real partnerships with Indian businesses and even the government. Air India is using Anthropic’s AI tool, Claude, to build custom software. Cognizant is rolling it out to its employees worldwide. Infosys will work with Anthropic to build AI agents—think of them as smart digital helpers—for industries like telecom and banking. Google and Meta are also expanding their data centres in India. The message is clear: India is no longer just a market where foreign companies sell their products. India is becoming a partner—a place where AI is built together. But here is the crucial part. India cannot depend entirely on foreign AI. Western models are powerful, but they often do not understand India deeply. India has 22 official languages and hundreds of dialects. Most Indians do not use English in their daily lives. And most global AI tools still struggle with this reality. This is why two Indian-made AI projects matter. BharatGen, backed by the government, has unveiled Param-2, a model trained on all 22 scheduled Indian languages. Sarvam AI, an Indian startup, has launched an on-device AI that works even without internet—perfect for villages with weak connectivity. The summit’s biggest days are still ahead—19th and 20th February. French President Macron will speak. PM Modi will address the gathering. More announcements are expected. India’s AI moment has arrived. The only question is how well India grabs it. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

India’s AI Summit highlights Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bold vision, massive investments, and rising partnerships as India races to build its own multilingual AI future.

From chips to chatbots: How India is chasing AI billions

Listen, just a few months back, Elon Musk was completely obsessed with Mars. The billionaire founder of SpaceX kept saying that Mars is humanity's future home, and he was dead serious about it. He even called our Moon a "distraction", can you imagine that? But something interesting happened recently. Out of nowhere, Elon made a shocking announcement on his social media X platform that SpaceX is now prioritizing Moon settlement before going to Mars. Now I want to share with you exactly why this dramatic shift is happening, and honestly, it makes a lot of sense when you really think about it.&nbsp;Here is the real thing: Elon never actually hated the Moon. The plan was always there somewhere in the background. But what changed is the timeline and the practical thinking. Let me explain this simply. Getting to Mars is like planning a wedding that takes 20 years to prepare. The problem is that Earth and Mars only align perfectly once every 26 months, and the journey itself takes six months. So the waiting period becomes super long. But the Moon? No, it is totally different. We can launch missions every 10 days, and reaching there takes only two days. This is like the difference between a local shop and a faraway mall, understand?&nbsp;The magic word here is "testing." Elon realized something very important: if SpaceX wants to perfect the technology of space settlement, they need to do it faster. With the Moon, they can launch missions repeatedly, make mistakes, learn from them, and improve everything in just months. With Mars, it could take decades to figure out what went wrong because you need to wait for the next launch window. This is actually very smart thinking. It is like learning to drive by practicing on empty roads first instead of jumping straight into highway traffic.&nbsp;Now here is the interesting part about resources. The Moon is sitting there with massive treasure locked inside. We are talking about water ice frozen in deep craters, rare earth minerals, metals like iron and titanium, and something called helium-3 that is worth billions. Recently, a company agreed to buy helium-3 from the Moon for around 300 million dollars per year. This is not some fantasy story; this is real business happening right now. The Moon has become a genuine economic opportunity, not just an adventure destination.&nbsp;Let me tell you about this electromagnetic mass driver thing that Elon is talking about. Basically, imagine a giant magnetic launcher on the Moon, like a cosmic catapult that uses magnetic force instead of rocket fuel. Because the Moon has weak gravity and no thick atmosphere, you can launch heavy objects into space much more easily from there. So the idea is to build factories on the Moon, use Moon materials to manufacture satellites, and then shoot them into deep space using this magnetic launcher. This way, you do not have to waste money bringing everything from Earth. It is like setting up a shop in the middle of a market instead of shipping products from far away.&nbsp;Here is something mind-blowing that Elon mentioned. If this Moon-based manufacturing works perfectly, humanity could send AI-powered satellites into space with the power capacity of 500 to 1000 terawatts every year. Now, think about what that means. There is something called the Kardashev scale that measures how advanced a civilization is based on how much energy it can control. Right now, humanity has not even reached level one on this scale. But with Moon manufacturing, we could be moving toward something that would make us genuinely advanced as a civilization. We could start using meaningful portions of the Sun's own energy. That is massive.&nbsp;But wait, there is another reason Elon is nervous about Mars right now. He recently said something that shows real concern: What if there is a natural disaster or a war that stops supply ships from Earth? If a Mars colony is completely dependent on Earth for supplies, and those supplies stop coming, everyone there dies. But a Moon colony could be self-growing and independent much faster because we can send rescue missions or supplies every 10 days if needed. This is not just about ambition anymore; this is about survival and making sure humanity does not put all its eggs in one basket. Look, Elon has not canceled Mars. He is saying that work on Mars will start in 5 or 6 years, and he is even predicting a crewed Mars mission by 2031. But the Moon comes first. It is the stepping stone, the practice ground, the economic foundation.&nbsp;The truth is that this shift from Mars to the Moon is actually the most practical decision Elon has made in a long time. It is faster, safer, more affordable, and it opens up real business opportunities. The Moon is not a distraction anymore; it is the smartest first step toward making humanity truly spacefaring. And honestly, that is genius-level planning.

Elon never actually hated the Moon. The plan was always there somewhere in the background. But what changed is the timeline and the practical thinking

Listen, just a few months back, Elon Musk was completely obsessed with Mars. The billionaire founder of SpaceX kept saying that Mars is humanity's future home, and he was dead serious about it. He even called our Moon a "distraction", can you imagine that? But something interesting happened recently. Out of nowhere, Elon made a shocking announcement on his social media X platform that SpaceX is now prioritizing Moon settlement before going to Mars. Now I want to share with you exactly why this dramatic shift is happening, and honestly, it makes a lot of sense when you really think about it. Here is the real thing: Elon never actually hated the Moon. The plan was always there somewhere in the background. But what changed is the timeline and the practical thinking. Let me explain this simply. Getting to Mars is like planning a wedding that takes 20 years to prepare. The problem is that Earth and Mars only align perfectly once every 26 months, and the journey itself takes six months. So the waiting period becomes super long. But the Moon? No, it is totally different. We can launch missions every 10 days, and reaching there takes only two days. This is like the difference between a local shop and a faraway mall, understand? The magic word here is "testing." Elon realized something very important: if SpaceX wants to perfect the technology of space settlement, they need to do it faster. With the Moon, they can launch missions repeatedly, make mistakes, learn from them, and improve everything in just months. With Mars, it could take decades to figure out what went wrong because you need to wait for the next launch window. This is actually very smart thinking. It is like learning to drive by practicing on empty roads first instead of jumping straight into highway traffic. Now here is the interesting part about resources. The Moon is sitting there with massive treasure locked inside. We are talking about water ice frozen in deep craters, rare earth minerals, metals like iron and titanium, and something called helium-3 that is worth billions. Recently, a company agreed to buy helium-3 from the Moon for around 300 million dollars per year. This is not some fantasy story; this is real business happening right now. The Moon has become a genuine economic opportunity, not just an adventure destination. Let me tell you about this electromagnetic mass driver thing that Elon is talking about. Basically, imagine a giant magnetic launcher on the Moon, like a cosmic catapult that uses magnetic force instead of rocket fuel. Because the Moon has weak gravity and no thick atmosphere, you can launch heavy objects into space much more easily from there. So the idea is to build factories on the Moon, use Moon materials to manufacture satellites, and then shoot them into deep space using this magnetic launcher. This way, you do not have to waste money bringing everything from Earth. It is like setting up a shop in the middle of a market instead of shipping products from far away. Here is something mind-blowing that Elon mentioned. If this Moon-based manufacturing works perfectly, humanity could send AI-powered satellites into space with the power capacity of 500 to 1000 terawatts every year. Now, think about what that means. There is something called the Kardashev scale that measures how advanced a civilization is based on how much energy it can control. Right now, humanity has not even reached level one on this scale. But with Moon manufacturing, we could be moving toward something that would make us genuinely advanced as a civilization. We could start using meaningful portions of the Sun's own energy. That is massive. But wait, there is another reason Elon is nervous about Mars right now. He recently said something that shows real concern: What if there is a natural disaster or a war that stops supply ships from Earth? If a Mars colony is completely dependent on Earth for supplies, and those supplies stop coming, everyone there dies. But a Moon colony could be self-growing and independent much faster because we can send rescue missions or supplies every 10 days if needed. This is not just about ambition anymore; this is about survival and making sure humanity does not put all its eggs in one basket. Look, Elon has not canceled Mars. He is saying that work on Mars will start in 5 or 6 years, and he is even predicting a crewed Mars mission by 2031. But the Moon comes first. It is the stepping stone, the practice ground, the economic foundation. The truth is that this shift from Mars to the Moon is actually the most practical decision Elon has made in a long time. It is faster, safer, more affordable, and it opens up real business opportunities. The Moon is not a distraction anymore; it is the smartest first step toward making humanity truly spacefaring. And honestly, that is genius-level planning.

Elon never actually hated the Moon. The plan was always there somewhere in the background. But what changed is the timeline and the practical thinking

Not a distraction: How the Moon became Musk's most practical bet

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