Navratri 2026: 9 days, 9 forms of Goddess Durga and 9 colours- Check the complete list

Trump accuses Houthis of driving up oil prices before US midterms, warns of consequences

Russian woman and Bihar boy's love story goes viral after she reaches India to marry him

US Midterms 2026: In Alaska, cost-of-living anxiety meets strangest ballot in high-stakes Senate race

Arijit Singh 9-city India stadium tour to start from January: Check venue and ticket prices

F1 set to return to Africa for first time since 1993 

'Don't ever mess with nature!': Trump’s tiger attack post triggers social media backlash as victim's family issues heartbreaking tribute

CMs Vijay-Naidu meet in Vijayawada, discuss water sharing, river-linking

Air India Flight from Frankfurt diverted to Jaipur after hijack alert, probe on

1,500 drones illuminate Mumbai sky as Cordelia Cruises unveils second ship, Cordelia Sky

Delhi Police arrest Cockroach Janta Party's Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka, Ajinkya Shinde in Jantar Mantar case, to be produced before court

Pakistan to chair UN-backed global Borrowers’ Platform as its own debt burden mounts, triggers sarcastic reactions on social media

‘Rise up, young patriots!’: American singer Mary Millben says US donors funding CJP, backs Modi govt

Nobel Peace Prize winner Navi Pillay calls on US to 'get back to' being defender of human rights

France accuses Musk of ‘online harassment’ of European leaders, warns of poll interference

'Turn approver, resign, we'll forgive you': Rahul Gandhi claims receiving messages from CEC Gyanesh Kumar

MI5 chief warns Russia is UK’s ‘aggressor number one’ as Iran and AI threats grow

Trump reconsidering calling off Nidal Hasan's execution livestream. Here's why

‘My president, I mean my husband’: Trump's new press secretary Katie Zacharia's first briefing goes off the rails in 14 minutes

‘How many people did she illegally bring from Somalia?’ Trump targets Ilhan Omar, questions her net worth

Marco Rubio to visit India next week, focus on energy cooperation and strategic ties

US politicians mistakenly use Indian, Russian warship images for Navy's birthday posts

'Ouch!!! That must hurt': Kangana Ranaut hails Kamal Haasan's sharp reply to Elon Musk over Starlink row

Girl 'dead' for 8 hours wakes up at her own funeral, dad insists she wasn't breathing

Sidhu Moose Wala’s younger brother wins hearts by recreating late singer’s signature move at Toronto Hologram Show

UK school ditches technology, shifts from screen to pen and paper for learning

Durga Puja 2026: Kolkata roads get a splash of colours

New OTT releases this week (October 12-18, 2026): Sacrifice, Koffee with Karan S9, Roadies Rebirth- 6 titles coming on Netflix, JioHotstar and more

Inside Aneet Padda's 24th birthday bash with rumoured boyfriend Ahaan Panday and Alia Bhatt

New Cold War: Why is China buying more gold? Explained

Netanyahu wants to join Saudi's war on Houthis, but Crown Prince denies: Report

Anupam Kher joins Ranbir Kapoor's Ramayana as Jatayu, new poster unveiled

Measles kills again: 6 dead in Pennsylvania as America faces its worst outbreak in decades | Gravitas

Cornell University suspends fraternity parties over 2024 gang rape allegations

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

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

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

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

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

The Verdict: When the president becomes the brand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For many years India has built helicopters with real skill. The harder task has always been building the engine inside them. An aero engine is no ordinary part. It is the costliest and most closely guarded technology on any aircraft. That is why the fresh contract between Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Safran Helicopter Engines, and their joint company, SAFHAL, is far more than a business announcement. It is a serious step towards designing a powerful helicopter engine on Indian soil.&nbsp;The engine is named Aravalli, after one of the oldest mountain ranges in the country. It belongs to the 3,500 to 4,000 shaft horsepower class, much stronger than the Shakti engines that today fly the Dhruv, Prachanda and Light Utility Helicopter. Aravalli will power two future HAL machines—the 13-ton Indian Multi-Role Helicopter, or IMRH, and its naval version, the Deck-Based Multi-Role Helicopter, or DBMRH. Both are twin-engine, so their success rests on this engine.&nbsp;Signed on 26 August 2026, the contract covers the engine’s full life—design, development, manufacture, supply, and long-term support. HAL’s Director of Engineering and R&amp;D, Ajay Kumar Shrivastava, and Olivier Savin of SAFHAL signed the papers before HAL Chairman and Managing Director Ravi K and Safran Helicopter Engines CEO Cédric Goubet.&nbsp;India has worked with Safran for decades—first the Artouste engines of the Cheetah and Chetak, later the Shakti family for lighter helicopters. Those programmes taught Indian industry to manufacture, assemble and support engines, but never handed over the hardest skill, the original design of a high-power engine. Aravalli aims to change that. Indian engineers will sit with French engineers through design, testing and certification, gaining depth in the high-pressure compressor, power turbine, fuel and oil systems, accessory gearbox and the systems that keep an engine alive in heat, dust, salt air and thin mountain air.&nbsp;Such learning cannot be bought from a catalogue; it must be earned on a real programme. Safran says this is the first time it is co-developing an engine of this power class—a shift from “you build what we designed” to “we design together.”&nbsp;The IMRH fills a serious gap. The Air Force still depends on ageing Russian-origin Mi-17 helicopters, which cannot fly forever. A 13-ton Indian helicopter carrying troops, lifting loads, climbing mountains and working in punishing heat is a national need. The Navy’s DBMRH faces a harder life—ship decks, salt spray, tight space and rough seas. If India imports both helicopter and engine, dependence continues for decades. If it builds only the body, the dependence simply shifts from one box to another.&nbsp;A civilian side exists too. This engine class can later serve offshore oil flights, utility work and VVIP travel. After production comes maintenance, repair and overhaul, where lasting jobs and real industrial strength are created.&nbsp;HAL is no silent partner. It designs both helicopters, holds a 50:50 share in SAFHAL, and must turn drawings into machines the forces can trust. Under Chairman and Managing Director Ravi K, HAL is trying to grow from a production house into a design house. That road is tougher, because production can be planned while design brings risk, delay, failed tests and patient money. Ravi K has framed Aravalli as a step towards self-reliance in aero-engine technology and a stronger Indian aerospace ecosystem. His clear focus on design capability gives the programme direction and seriousness.&nbsp;An engine succeeds only when many firms rise with it — alloy makers, casting units, precision machine shops, electronics companies, test facilities and repair workshops. Karnataka sits at the centre of this story. Programme information shared with industry says the Aravalli manufacturing set-up is expected at Tumakuru, where HAL already has a large helicopter base. If that plan holds, Tumakuru will not merely assemble airframes; it will work on compressors, turbines and test beds, giving young engineers in the state a chance to learn real engine technology.&nbsp;Think of an engine as a small factory needing special alloys, finely cut blades, gearboxes, pumps, sensors, software and test cells. A long programme creates steady demand, and demand pushes companies to invest. Aravalli helps in five clear ways. It gives private firms a reason to enter high-end engine work. It trains engineers through design reviews, failure analysis and certification. It builds repair capability at home and saves foreign exchange. It gives HAL ownership of what it designs. And it prepares a team that will not start from zero on the next engine India needs.&nbsp;None of this is automatic. Development work is expected to run into the early 2030s, and both helicopters still await full government clearance. Engine programmes usually take longer than first promised. Honestly seen, this contract is the starting gun, not the finish line.&nbsp;The idea is simple. A helicopter without a dependable engine is only a beautiful body, and India long built the body better than the heart. The Aravalli hills are old, strong and still standing. This journey will also be long, but with HAL under Ravi K’s leadership and a manufacturing base expected in Tumakuru, it can build lasting skills, companies and confidence that will help India for many years to come.

The engine is named Aravalli, after one of the oldest mountain ranges in the country. It belongs to the 3,500 to 4,000 shaft horsepower class, much stronger than the Shakti engines that today fly the Dhruv, Prachanda and Light Utility Helicopter.

For many years India has built helicopters with real skill. The harder task has always been building the engine inside them. An aero engine is no ordinary part. It is the costliest and most closely guarded technology on any aircraft. That is why the fresh contract between Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Safran Helicopter Engines, and their joint company, SAFHAL, is far more than a business announcement. It is a serious step towards designing a powerful helicopter engine on Indian soil. The engine is named Aravalli, after one of the oldest mountain ranges in the country. It belongs to the 3,500 to 4,000 shaft horsepower class, much stronger than the Shakti engines that today fly the Dhruv, Prachanda and Light Utility Helicopter. Aravalli will power two future HAL machines—the 13-ton Indian Multi-Role Helicopter, or IMRH, and its naval version, the Deck-Based Multi-Role Helicopter, or DBMRH. Both are twin-engine, so their success rests on this engine. Signed on 26 August 2026, the contract covers the engine’s full life—design, development, manufacture, supply, and long-term support. HAL’s Director of Engineering and R&D, Ajay Kumar Shrivastava, and Olivier Savin of SAFHAL signed the papers before HAL Chairman and Managing Director Ravi K and Safran Helicopter Engines CEO Cédric Goubet. India has worked with Safran for decades—first the Artouste engines of the Cheetah and Chetak, later the Shakti family for lighter helicopters. Those programmes taught Indian industry to manufacture, assemble and support engines, but never handed over the hardest skill, the original design of a high-power engine. Aravalli aims to change that. Indian engineers will sit with French engineers through design, testing and certification, gaining depth in the high-pressure compressor, power turbine, fuel and oil systems, accessory gearbox and the systems that keep an engine alive in heat, dust, salt air and thin mountain air. Such learning cannot be bought from a catalogue; it must be earned on a real programme. Safran says this is the first time it is co-developing an engine of this power class—a shift from “you build what we designed” to “we design together.” The IMRH fills a serious gap. The Air Force still depends on ageing Russian-origin Mi-17 helicopters, which cannot fly forever. A 13-ton Indian helicopter carrying troops, lifting loads, climbing mountains and working in punishing heat is a national need. The Navy’s DBMRH faces a harder life—ship decks, salt spray, tight space and rough seas. If India imports both helicopter and engine, dependence continues for decades. If it builds only the body, the dependence simply shifts from one box to another. A civilian side exists too. This engine class can later serve offshore oil flights, utility work and VVIP travel. After production comes maintenance, repair and overhaul, where lasting jobs and real industrial strength are created. HAL is no silent partner. It designs both helicopters, holds a 50:50 share in SAFHAL, and must turn drawings into machines the forces can trust. Under Chairman and Managing Director Ravi K, HAL is trying to grow from a production house into a design house. That road is tougher, because production can be planned while design brings risk, delay, failed tests and patient money. Ravi K has framed Aravalli as a step towards self-reliance in aero-engine technology and a stronger Indian aerospace ecosystem. His clear focus on design capability gives the programme direction and seriousness. An engine succeeds only when many firms rise with it — alloy makers, casting units, precision machine shops, electronics companies, test facilities and repair workshops. Karnataka sits at the centre of this story. Programme information shared with industry says the Aravalli manufacturing set-up is expected at Tumakuru, where HAL already has a large helicopter base. If that plan holds, Tumakuru will not merely assemble airframes; it will work on compressors, turbines and test beds, giving young engineers in the state a chance to learn real engine technology. Think of an engine as a small factory needing special alloys, finely cut blades, gearboxes, pumps, sensors, software and test cells. A long programme creates steady demand, and demand pushes companies to invest. Aravalli helps in five clear ways. It gives private firms a reason to enter high-end engine work. It trains engineers through design reviews, failure analysis and certification. It builds repair capability at home and saves foreign exchange. It gives HAL ownership of what it designs. And it prepares a team that will not start from zero on the next engine India needs. None of this is automatic. Development work is expected to run into the early 2030s, and both helicopters still await full government clearance. Engine programmes usually take longer than first promised. Honestly seen, this contract is the starting gun, not the finish line. The idea is simple. A helicopter without a dependable engine is only a beautiful body, and India long built the body better than the heart. The Aravalli hills are old, strong and still standing. This journey will also be long, but with HAL under Ravi K’s leadership and a manufacturing base expected in Tumakuru, it can build lasting skills, companies and confidence that will help India for many years to come.

The engine is named Aravalli, after one of the oldest mountain ranges in the country. It belongs to the 3,500 to 4,000 shaft horsepower class, much stronger than the Shakti engines that today fly the Dhruv, Prachanda and Light Utility Helicopter.

Designing the beast: HAL and Safran unite to power India’s 13-ton copters

Mumbai has always been a bustling city, a place where migrants come to hustle for a living. Both my maternal and paternal grandfathers arrived here in the Maximum City to build their big dreams in the early 1940s. Senior Rai and Shetty, in their heyday, boarded steamer boats from Mangalore in coastal Karnataka to Bombay. Now, as the third generation, I speak Marathi not out of compulsion, but with comfort. Moreover, the local dialect of Hindi is dubbed ‘Bambaiya’, as it seamlessly incorporates bits of Marathi and Gujarati. Some may call it broken or improperly spoken, but when you live in a city of migrants, you know it is simply fluid.&nbsp;Over the years, fruit vendors from North India have comfortably adopted calling watermelon ‘kalingad’ (which is Marathi), despite knowing very well that it is called ‘tarbooj’ back home in the Hindi heartland. But why am I delving into the nuances of language? Because force may not be the best way to encourage its adoption. Are we all speaking Tulu or Konkani in coastal Karnataka? Many don't even know the former is a language; you mean Telugu, some enquire, unaware it is a distinct language. So, pushing for mandatory compliance might be stretching it a bit too far—or maybe not.&nbsp;Every time you travel to a new place, you try to pick up local words; it's perhaps human or just a way to belong. Whether it is ‘namaskar’, ‘namaskara’, or ‘namaste’, if it feels natural, you'll say it comfortably. No auto or taxi driver has ever refused to be instructed in Marathi; even if he isn't proficient in responding, he follows the directions to a T. So, who is our target audience here? The ones who outright reject the language—then it's all going in the right direction.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/unofficial-auto-strike-hits-mumbai-over-marathi-mandate-cm-fadnavis-calms-panic-1787661056561">Unofficial auto strike hits Mumbai over Marathi Mandate; CM Fadnavis calms panic</a><h3>Learn basics…</h3>&nbsp;On August 20, the Maharashtra Transport Department launched an initiative to help auto and taxi drivers ferrying passengers across the city learn the language. Over two days, RTO officials issued formal notices to 2,767 commercial passenger vehicle drivers across Maharashtra for lacking basic Marathi proficiency.&nbsp;&nbsp;Meanwhile, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated, “We are not trying to make our Hindi-speaking brothers experts in the Marathi language, but they should have a working knowledge of the language.”&nbsp;He assured, “Efforts are being made to help them learn the language. The deadline to learn the language has been extended three times now. Our Mahayuti government will not allow injustice based on language." But not all students are the same; not everybody learns at the same pace. A gentle nudge to adopt the language would not have harmed, as not everybody handles examination pressure the same way.<h2>My acquaintance with Marathi</h2>&nbsp;I have been singing Marathi songs since I was a toddler, and guess who taught me those, my Telugu-speaking neighbour, whom I call ‘ajji'. I practised my Marathi with Kanubai, our vegetable vendor, and so did my mother, not because we feared anyone would test our proficiency, but out of a genuine zest to learn. Some words are tricky; you roll your tongue incorrectly, it immediately gives away that you're not a native speaker. However, my father has that native speaker flair. But over the years, Mumbai has heard a variety of accents, yet she has accepted each as her own.&nbsp;&nbsp;Here, everyone savours vada pav, dabeli, and masala dosa; mind you, none except the first originate from this region. We watch plays in Marathi, Hindi, and English and still have an appetite for more.&nbsp;&nbsp;As the deadline nears, auto drivers have been attending these language classes; videos of them repeating after the teacher are going viral. From directions to basic communication, trust me, auto drivers have more to share. It almost seems as though they have navigation apps for breakfast, operating seamlessly sans them. Are they the only non-Marathi speakers who need these classes, or are others exempt? Can more notices be expected? A standardised test may not be the perfect yardstick to gauge fluency.&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.)&nbsp;

A reflection on Mumbai’s cultural fluidity, ancestral roots, and why forcing Marathi proficiency on auto and cab drivers may seemingly undermine organic integration.

Mumbai has always been a bustling city, a place where migrants come to hustle for a living. Both my maternal and paternal grandfathers arrived here in the Maximum City to build their big dreams in the early 1940s. Senior Rai and Shetty, in their heyday, boarded steamer boats from Mangalore in coastal Karnataka to Bombay. Now, as the third generation, I speak Marathi not out of compulsion, but with comfort. Moreover, the local dialect of Hindi is dubbed ‘Bambaiya’, as it seamlessly incorporates bits of Marathi and Gujarati. Some may call it broken or improperly spoken, but when you live in a city of migrants, you know it is simply fluid. Over the years, fruit vendors from North India have comfortably adopted calling watermelon ‘kalingad’ (which is Marathi), despite knowing very well that it is called ‘tarbooj’ back home in the Hindi heartland. But why am I delving into the nuances of language? Because force may not be the best way to encourage its adoption. Are we all speaking Tulu or Konkani in coastal Karnataka? Many don't even know the former is a language; you mean Telugu, some enquire, unaware it is a distinct language. So, pushing for mandatory compliance might be stretching it a bit too far—or maybe not. Every time you travel to a new place, you try to pick up local words; it's perhaps human or just a way to belong. Whether it is ‘namaskar’, ‘namaskara’, or ‘namaste’, if it feels natural, you'll say it comfortably. No auto or taxi driver has ever refused to be instructed in Marathi; even if he isn't proficient in responding, he follows the directions to a T. So, who is our target audience here? The ones who outright reject the language—then it's all going in the right direction. Also read: Unofficial auto strike hits Mumbai over Marathi Mandate; CM Fadnavis calms panic Learn basics… On August 20, the Maharashtra Transport Department launched an initiative to help auto and taxi drivers ferrying passengers across the city learn the language. Over two days, RTO officials issued formal notices to 2,767 commercial passenger vehicle drivers across Maharashtra for lacking basic Marathi proficiency. Meanwhile, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated, “We are not trying to make our Hindi-speaking brothers experts in the Marathi language, but they should have a working knowledge of the language.” He assured, “Efforts are being made to help them learn the language. The deadline to learn the language has been extended three times now. Our Mahayuti government will not allow injustice based on language." But not all students are the same; not everybody learns at the same pace. A gentle nudge to adopt the language would not have harmed, as not everybody handles examination pressure the same way. My acquaintance with Marathi I have been singing Marathi songs since I was a toddler, and guess who taught me those, my Telugu-speaking neighbour, whom I call ‘ajji'. I practised my Marathi with Kanubai, our vegetable vendor, and so did my mother, not because we feared anyone would test our proficiency, but out of a genuine zest to learn. Some words are tricky; you roll your tongue incorrectly, it immediately gives away that you're not a native speaker. However, my father has that native speaker flair. But over the years, Mumbai has heard a variety of accents, yet she has accepted each as her own. Here, everyone savours vada pav, dabeli, and masala dosa; mind you, none except the first originate from this region. We watch plays in Marathi, Hindi, and English and still have an appetite for more. As the deadline nears, auto drivers have been attending these language classes; videos of them repeating after the teacher are going viral. From directions to basic communication, trust me, auto drivers have more to share. It almost seems as though they have navigation apps for breakfast, operating seamlessly sans them. Are they the only non-Marathi speakers who need these classes, or are others exempt? Can more notices be expected? A standardised test may not be the perfect yardstick to gauge fluency. (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.)

A reflection on Mumbai’s cultural fluidity, ancestral roots, and why forcing Marathi proficiency on auto and cab drivers may seemingly undermine organic integration.

Mumbai language mandate: How city of migrants learned Marathi through genuine zest, not tests

Pakistan’s military has ruled from behind the curtain for decades. But under Field Marshal Asim Munir, that curtain is disappearing, and the backlash is growing. For nearly eight decades, Pakistan’s military has been more than an army. It has been the institution that could make governments, break governments, and, at times, become the government. But something is changing. The aura of untouchability is being challenged, and increasingly, the voices doing it are coming from within Pakistan itself. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, one of Pakistan’s most influential religious-political figures, has openly challenged Asim Munir, telling the army chief that if he wants to do politics, he should take off his uniform and face the voters.&nbsp;And just this week, Fazlur Rehman invoked the trauma of 1971, warning against repeating the mistakes that preceded the breakup of Pakistan. That is significant. Because Pakistan has seen this story before. Ayub Khan seized power. Yahya Khan inherited military rule, and presided over the catastrophe of 1971 and the creation of Bangladesh. Zia-ul-Haq turned another coup into more than a decade of military dictatorship.&nbsp;And Pervez Musharraf once again brought the army directly into politics after his 1999 coup. Different generals. Different eras.But the same fundamental problem: when the military stops protecting the state and starts defining the state. Today, Asim Munir occupies an extraordinary position. Constitutional changes have made him Chief of Defence Forces, placing the army, navy and air force under a unified command. New legislation has further expanded his authority over military operations and senior personnel. Critics say Pakistan is moving closer to a system where military power is no longer simply influential, it is constitutionally entrenched.&nbsp;And that is precisely why the backlash matters. From political opposition to regional grievances, challenges are emerging against an establishment that has spent decades presenting itself as the ultimate guardian of Pakistan. The irony is difficult to ignore.Pakistan has long portrayed India as its existential enemy. Yet India, despite its own enormous political, ethnic and security challenges, has maintained civilian political supremacy over its armed forces.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/is-pakistan-s-military-aura-finally-cracking-1787676968788/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/is-pakistan-s-military-aura-finally-cracking-1787676968788/embed</a>&nbsp;For many Pakistanis, that contrast raises an uncomfortable question: If the “enemy state” can preserve its constitutional order without generals ruling the country, why must Pakistan repeatedly return to military dominance? Perhaps this is why the current moment matters beyond Asim Munir himself. Because the real battle is not simply between one General and his critics.It is over whether Pakistan can finally separate the power of the military from the identity of the nation.&nbsp;So, the verdict: Asim Munir may command Pakistan’s most powerful institution. He may have more formal authority than any recent army chief. But history offers a warning: Generals can command soldiers. They can influence governments. They can even rewrite institutions. What they cannot manufacture indefinitely is public consent. And if Pakistan’s most powerful voices are finally beginning to challenge the uniform, the real question is no longer whether Munir controls Pakistan. It is how long Pakistan will allow the uniform to define 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.

Asim Munir’s expanding military authority faces growing opposition in Pakistan, reviving fears of military dominance, civilian unrest, and a repeat of history

Pakistan’s military has ruled from behind the curtain for decades. But under Field Marshal Asim Munir, that curtain is disappearing, and the backlash is growing. For nearly eight decades, Pakistan’s military has been more than an army. It has been the institution that could make governments, break governments, and, at times, become the government. But something is changing. The aura of untouchability is being challenged, and increasingly, the voices doing it are coming from within Pakistan itself. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, one of Pakistan’s most influential religious-political figures, has openly challenged Asim Munir, telling the army chief that if he wants to do politics, he should take off his uniform and face the voters. And just this week, Fazlur Rehman invoked the trauma of 1971, warning against repeating the mistakes that preceded the breakup of Pakistan. That is significant. Because Pakistan has seen this story before. Ayub Khan seized power. Yahya Khan inherited military rule, and presided over the catastrophe of 1971 and the creation of Bangladesh. Zia-ul-Haq turned another coup into more than a decade of military dictatorship. And Pervez Musharraf once again brought the army directly into politics after his 1999 coup. Different generals. Different eras. But the same fundamental problem: when the military stops protecting the state and starts defining the state. Today, Asim Munir occupies an extraordinary position. Constitutional changes have made him Chief of Defence Forces, placing the army, navy and air force under a unified command. New legislation has further expanded his authority over military operations and senior personnel. Critics say Pakistan is moving closer to a system where military power is no longer simply influential, it is constitutionally entrenched. And that is precisely why the backlash matters. From political opposition to regional grievances, challenges are emerging against an establishment that has spent decades presenting itself as the ultimate guardian of Pakistan. The irony is difficult to ignore. Pakistan has long portrayed India as its existential enemy. Yet India, despite its own enormous political, ethnic and security challenges, has maintained civilian political supremacy over its armed forces. https://www.wionews.com/videos/is-pakistan-s-military-aura-finally-cracking-1787676968788/embed For many Pakistanis, that contrast raises an uncomfortable question: If the “enemy state” can preserve its constitutional order without generals ruling the country, why must Pakistan repeatedly return to military dominance? Perhaps this is why the current moment matters beyond Asim Munir himself. Because the real battle is not simply between one General and his critics. It is over whether Pakistan can finally separate the power of the military from the identity of the nation. So, the verdict: Asim Munir may command Pakistan’s most powerful institution. He may have more formal authority than any recent army chief. But history offers a warning: Generals can command soldiers. They can influence governments. They can even rewrite institutions. What they cannot manufacture indefinitely is public consent. And if Pakistan’s most powerful voices are finally beginning to challenge the uniform, the real question is no longer whether Munir controls Pakistan. It is how long Pakistan will allow the uniform to define 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.

Pakistan’s military power faces growing backlash as Asim Munir expands his authority, raising questions about civilian rule, democracy, and the country’s future

The Verdict | When generals rule: Why Asim Munir’s rise has Pakistan asking hard questions

Is Iran going to collapse? Is US President Donald Trump finally ending the war? Big questions with no clear answers. Iran is certainly more economically impacted and weaker than America. Yet, President Trump's new D-day sanctions may have become an old, rusted weapon. For more than 40 years, Washington has tried to force Tehran to change through economic pressure. It began after the 1979 hostage crisis, when President Jimmy Carter froze around $12 billion in Iranian assets. Then in the 1980s, US expanded trade restrictions. Then came sanctions targeting Iran's banks, oil industry, military and nuclear programme. &nbsp;Bit by bit, US has managed to pressure Iran, but never completely destroy it. America's biggest success though came before the 2015 nuclear deal. American, European and international sanctions cut deeply into Iranian economy, reduced its oil exports and isolated its banking system. That pressure helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. So, is Trump going to win against Iran this time? Well, so far he hasn't been able to.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-with-the-d-day-sanctions-all-eyes-are-on-how-iran-is-impacted-1787589665855/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-with-the-d-day-sanctions-all-eyes-are-on-how-iran-is-impacted-1787589665855/embed</a>&nbsp;When Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement in 2018, it expected Iran to give in. But the regime did not. It suffered enormously, but the regime survived. Now, Washington is trying again. Is Iran isolated? Not really. China can play spoiler in American strategy. You see, China is Iran's biggest oil customer. Even under heavy American pressure, Chinese buyers have continued purchasing Iranian crude oil. Vladimir putin is also Iran's ally. An increasing number of countries are questioning why America must decide for them. America's adversaries will not let Trump win.&nbsp;So, will these new sanctions hurt Iran? Yes. But will economic pain automatically bring political surrender? History reflects no. Essentially, the battle over Iran has become much more than Iran. It is now a battle of who gets to set the rules of the new world order, and America certainly seems to be losing that power.&nbsp;

Will Iran collapse under Trump’s new sanctions? Explore America’s economic pressure, China’s role, Iran’s resilience and the prospects of ending the war

Is Iran going to collapse? Is US President Donald Trump finally ending the war? Big questions with no clear answers. Iran is certainly more economically impacted and weaker than America. Yet, President Trump's new D-day sanctions may have become an old, rusted weapon. For more than 40 years, Washington has tried to force Tehran to change through economic pressure. It began after the 1979 hostage crisis, when President Jimmy Carter froze around $12 billion in Iranian assets. Then in the 1980s, US expanded trade restrictions. Then came sanctions targeting Iran's banks, oil industry, military and nuclear programme. Bit by bit, US has managed to pressure Iran, but never completely destroy it. America's biggest success though came before the 2015 nuclear deal. American, European and international sanctions cut deeply into Iranian economy, reduced its oil exports and isolated its banking system. That pressure helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. So, is Trump going to win against Iran this time? Well, so far he hasn't been able to. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-iran-war-with-the-d-day-sanctions-all-eyes-are-on-how-iran-is-impacted-1787589665855/embed When Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement in 2018, it expected Iran to give in. But the regime did not. It suffered enormously, but the regime survived. Now, Washington is trying again. Is Iran isolated? Not really. China can play spoiler in American strategy. You see, China is Iran's biggest oil customer. Even under heavy American pressure, Chinese buyers have continued purchasing Iranian crude oil. Vladimir putin is also Iran's ally. An increasing number of countries are questioning why America must decide for them. America's adversaries will not let Trump win. So, will these new sanctions hurt Iran? Yes. But will economic pain automatically bring political surrender? History reflects no. Essentially, the battle over Iran has become much more than Iran. It is now a battle of who gets to set the rules of the new world order, and America certainly seems to be losing that power.

Trump’s Iran sanctions are intensifying economic pressure, but history, China and Russia raise doubts over whether Tehran will surrender or collapse

The Verdict: Is Trump ending the Iran war or starting a bigger economic battle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Americans are falling out of love with Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The images from Jantar Mantar, the rise of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) as a symbol of student anger, and the resignation of the Union Education Minister have together created a rare national moment. The immediate political objective may have been achieved, but the larger question remains: Will India settle for a resignation, or will it demand a transformation?&nbsp;There is an old saying that “cockroaches survive where cleanliness and accountability fail.” The metaphor is strikingly relevant today. Paper leaks, opaque examination processes, institutional complacency and administrative lapses are the cockroaches of India’s education system. Eliminating one individual without disinfecting the ecosystem merely allows the infestation to return in another form.&nbsp;The protests, therefore, must not become another chapter in India’s familiar political script. If the movement is genuinely about educational justice—and not merely about political optics—then every stakeholder, from students and parents to teachers, policymakers, universities and civil society, must come together to shape structural reforms. India does not need another cycle of outrage; it needs legislation that restores trust in examinations and strengthens public education.&nbsp;The timing could not be more significant. India is home to nearly 1.4 billion people, with one of the world’s youngest populations. A demographic dividend can become a demographic disaster if educational institutions fail to inspire confidence. Every compromised examination is not merely an administrative failure; it is a breach of the social contract between the State and its youth.&nbsp;Ironically, the country already possesses a broad blueprint for reform. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 envisions holistic learning, multidisciplinary education, foundational literacy, technology-enabled classrooms, vocational exposure from Class VI and greater flexibility in higher education. It also seeks to raise public investment in education to 6% of GDP and improve access, equity and quality. These are ambitious and necessary goals.&nbsp;Implementation, however, is where policy meets reality. Government data through UDISE+ points to improvements in enrolment and school infrastructure, while recent policy assessments by NITI Aayog recognise progress in access and governance but also underline persistent gaps in learning outcomes, teacher capacity and regional disparities. The lesson is simple: reforms announced from New Delhi must ultimately succeed in classrooms across rural Bihar, tribal Odisha, urban Maharashtra and every district in between.&nbsp;The present crisis should therefore become an opportunity to revisit examination governance. India needs a professionally managed, technology-driven and legally accountable assessment architecture. Question paper security, encrypted digital logistics, independent audit mechanisms, faster prosecution of organised leak networks and time-bound compensation mechanisms for affected students should become statutory requirements rather than administrative discretion. Equally important is strengthening the mental health support system for students who increasingly carry the burden of high-stakes examinations.&nbsp;Every generation has, during its halcyon days, contributed to nation-building. Today’s Gen Z, roughly those aged 14 to 29 years, is carrying that responsibility with fresh ideas, energy and technological confidence. The generations before them built institutions, expanded literacy and strengthened democracy. The present generation now seeks institutions that are transparent, accountable and fair. Nation-building is not the responsibility of Gen Z alone; it is a shared obligation across generations. “Mera Desh Mahan” must evolve from a slogan into a collective national commitment.&nbsp;India has witnessed examination controversies under governments of different political persuasions. Paper leaks, administrative failures, resignations and political blame games are not exclusive to one regime. Governments change; the systemic weaknesses often remain. That is precisely why this movement must resist being hijacked for electoral mileage or partisan mobilisation. Students deserve policy outcomes, not political theatre.&nbsp;The resignation may have addressed the immediate demand on the streets, but history rarely remembers resignations. It remembers reforms. The Right to Education transformed access. NEP 2020 attempted to redefine learning. The next milestone should be a robust legal framework that guarantees integrity in examinations and accountability in educational governance.&nbsp;Jantar Mantar has often amplified public sentiment. This time, it has amplified a generation’s demand for credibility. If policymakers listen beyond the slogans, this moment can become the beginning of India’s next education revolution.&nbsp;The real victory will not lie in who resigned, but in whether the ‘cockroaches’ of corruption, complacency and incompetence are finally driven out of India’s education system. Politics may win elections, but only education can secure the Republic’s future.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

The images from Jantar Mantar, the rise of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) as a symbol of student anger, and the resignation of the Union Education Minister have together created a rare national moment. The immediate political objective may have been achieved, but the larger question remains: Will India settle for a resignation, or will it demand a transformation? There is an old saying that “cockroaches survive where cleanliness and accountability fail.” The metaphor is strikingly relevant today. Paper leaks, opaque examination processes, institutional complacency and administrative lapses are the cockroaches of India’s education system. Eliminating one individual without disinfecting the ecosystem merely allows the infestation to return in another form. The protests, therefore, must not become another chapter in India’s familiar political script. If the movement is genuinely about educational justice—and not merely about political optics—then every stakeholder, from students and parents to teachers, policymakers, universities and civil society, must come together to shape structural reforms. India does not need another cycle of outrage; it needs legislation that restores trust in examinations and strengthens public education. The timing could not be more significant. India is home to nearly 1.4 billion people, with one of the world’s youngest populations. A demographic dividend can become a demographic disaster if educational institutions fail to inspire confidence. Every compromised examination is not merely an administrative failure; it is a breach of the social contract between the State and its youth. Ironically, the country already possesses a broad blueprint for reform. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 envisions holistic learning, multidisciplinary education, foundational literacy, technology-enabled classrooms, vocational exposure from Class VI and greater flexibility in higher education. It also seeks to raise public investment in education to 6% of GDP and improve access, equity and quality. These are ambitious and necessary goals. Implementation, however, is where policy meets reality. Government data through UDISE+ points to improvements in enrolment and school infrastructure, while recent policy assessments by NITI Aayog recognise progress in access and governance but also underline persistent gaps in learning outcomes, teacher capacity and regional disparities. The lesson is simple: reforms announced from New Delhi must ultimately succeed in classrooms across rural Bihar, tribal Odisha, urban Maharashtra and every district in between. The present crisis should therefore become an opportunity to revisit examination governance. India needs a professionally managed, technology-driven and legally accountable assessment architecture. Question paper security, encrypted digital logistics, independent audit mechanisms, faster prosecution of organised leak networks and time-bound compensation mechanisms for affected students should become statutory requirements rather than administrative discretion. Equally important is strengthening the mental health support system for students who increasingly carry the burden of high-stakes examinations. Every generation has, during its halcyon days, contributed to nation-building. Today’s Gen Z, roughly those aged 14 to 29 years, is carrying that responsibility with fresh ideas, energy and technological confidence. The generations before them built institutions, expanded literacy and strengthened democracy. The present generation now seeks institutions that are transparent, accountable and fair. Nation-building is not the responsibility of Gen Z alone; it is a shared obligation across generations. “Mera Desh Mahan” must evolve from a slogan into a collective national commitment. India has witnessed examination controversies under governments of different political persuasions. Paper leaks, administrative failures, resignations and political blame games are not exclusive to one regime. Governments change; the systemic weaknesses often remain. That is precisely why this movement must resist being hijacked for electoral mileage or partisan mobilisation. Students deserve policy outcomes, not political theatre. The resignation may have addressed the immediate demand on the streets, but history rarely remembers resignations. It remembers reforms. The Right to Education transformed access. NEP 2020 attempted to redefine learning. The next milestone should be a robust legal framework that guarantees integrity in examinations and accountability in educational governance. Jantar Mantar has often amplified public sentiment. This time, it has amplified a generation’s demand for credibility. If policymakers listen beyond the slogans, this moment can become the beginning of India’s next education revolution. The real victory will not lie in who resigned, but in whether the ‘cockroaches’ of corruption, complacency and incompetence are finally driven out of India’s education system. Politics may win elections, but only education can secure the Republic’s future. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

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

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



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

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

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

Narrative communication: Beyond social media views and impressions

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

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

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

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

Students step up, education minister Dharmendra Pradhan steps down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opinions

Opinions & Blogs, News on Opinions & Blogs, stories on Opinions & Blogs, articles on Opinions & Blogs, Opinions & Blogs stories at Wion, Opinions & Blogs news, Opinions & Blogs latest news

opinions

The Verdict: When the president becomes the brand

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

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

Designing the beast: HAL and Safran unite to power India’s 13-ton copters

How city of migrants learned Marathi through genuine zest, not tests

The Verdict | When generals rule: Why Munir’s rise has Pak asking hard questions

The Verdict: Is Trump ending the Iran war or starting a bigger economic battle?

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

Americans are falling out of love with Israel

The verdict: Indian politicians need to stop mimicking Gen Zs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative communication: Beyond social media views and impressions

Students step up, education minister Dharmendra Pradhan steps down

CPEC 2.0 was supposed to bring investors to Gwadar, but...

An insider's account of the Indian army veterans rejuvenating the Thar desert

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

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