US vs China over South China Sea: Washington backs Philippines, Beijing hits back

Bigg Boss 20: Isha Rikhi evicted after three weeks in Salman Khan’s show

Musk plans to more than double xAI's chips to over 1.2 million Nvidia GPUs by year-end

After JU, clash erupts at SRFTI: BJP’s ‘Dimagi Naxal’ jibe sparks political firestorm after students protest RSS-linked event

‘Anti-social elements spreading false rumours’: LPU issues statement amid massive unrest over alleged rape

LPU students go on rampage, vandalise campus amid widespread protest: What's happening

Trump asked Xi to pressure Iran. China did not say yes — here’s what Beijing wants

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hails global crackdown on Iranian banks and airlines

An OpenAI agent escaped its locked test cage again, by hiding questions in DNS lookups

'Our video was trimmed': LPU girls who featured in rape-denial video make U-turn

3 males killed, four others injured in shooting after fight at strip club in Detroit

'Victory for low-budget consumers': Raghav Chadha hails 30-day telecom recharge rules

Claude rebuilt the 1989 game 'Prince of Persia' by reusing the original's own code

Beyond metros: How Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities could drive India’s next AI wave

Tesla builds first Cybertruck with its own refined lithium: Elon Musk's $1 billion Texas bet pays off

IndiGo flight suffers tail strike in Bengaluru while landing; DGCA to probe incident

The US and China set up an AI 'red telephone', but skipped the rulebook

‘Terror suspects arrested near UK air base were looking to do big damage’: Trump

Russian envoy claims US tactics to contain India were revealed in ‘Freudian slip’

IND vs WI 1st ODI: Kohli breaks Sachin's most runs in one country record with unbeaten 139 as India thump West Indies by 8 wickets

Researchers rebuilt exactly how 700 AI agents hacked Hugging Face: a 900-link chain trick

‘Olympic inclusion is our major target’: WPA President Ishaun Singh on pool’s global ambitions

Nations League: Spain sink England at Wembley; Modric shines for Croatia

Why has Iran released no proof of life of Mojtaba Khamenei? Araghchi reveals...

'What kind of confession is this?': Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif’s 'terrorists would be roaming New York' remark goes viral, raises alarm online. Watch

South Korea demands apology from Ukraine over North Korean prisoners' transfer

Beyond BrahMos: India targets Rs 50,000 crore in defence exports with unmatched price edge

Sri Lankan Tamil migrant worker gets death sentence in Saudi Arabia, help sought from India

Muslim marriage cannot shield sex with minor wife from prosecution under POCSO: Delhi HC

'Can't help but draw painful parallels to Nirbhaya case': SC on latest incidents of rape cases in Delhi-NCR

99.9% more powerful - Scientists find boy who can recall memories from just 3 months of age

'FIRST LOOK from inside Noah’s Ark': Researchers share video from inside mysterious mound in Turkey

UNSC reform momentum grows: Russia, Portugal, Mauritius push for India's permanent seat bid

8 US marines injured in Iranian missile attack on vessel in Strait of Hormuz: Report

New OTT releases this week (September 28-October 4, 2026): Dupahiya 2, Pooja Meri Jaan, Ohh My Dog- 5 titles coming on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Afghanistan says 28 fighters killed in clash near Pakistan border, Islamabad denies

Ceuta migrant crisis: Protesters take to streets as Spain grapples with migrant challenge

LPU suspend classes, postpones exams as violence escalates over rape claims: What's happening

New York City wants a 'kill switch' on every AI, and will pay whistleblowers who report violations

Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) is a pay parity mechanism introduced on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (6th CPC), effective 01 January 2006 and applicable to officers of organised Group A Central Services.&nbsp;Officers of the Indian Armed Forces, who face the steepest promotion pyramid and the earliest compulsory retirement ages in the Central Government, remain the sole excluded category, despite the 7th CPC’s recommendation to the contrary. This article examines the origins of NFFU, the resulting pay disparity, and the case for its priority extension to the armed forces.&nbsp;NFFU was introduced by the 6th CPC with effect from 01 January 2006 to remedy pay stagnation among officers of organised Group A Central Services.&nbsp;Under the scheme, when an IAS officer of a particular batch is empanelled to a grade at the Centre, officers of other organised Group A Services from a senior batch receive financial upgradation to that grade - irrespective of whether they hold the functional responsibilities of that post. By the time of the 7th CPC, 53 civilian services were covered, including the IAS, IPS and Indian Forest Service.&nbsp;Officers of the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force remain excluded. This exclusion persists despite the 7th CPC Chairman recommending extension to defence forces and despite a Supreme Court judgment (February 2019) and Cabinet decision (July 2019) extending NFFU to Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) with retrospective effect from 2006. The armed forces are now the sole category to whom this benefit has been denied – an anomaly two decades old.&nbsp;<h2>The structural pay disparity</h2>&nbsp;Under the 7th CPC defence pay matrix, a Colonel draws basic pay at Level 13 (Rs. 1,30,600 per month); Brigadier, the next rank, is at the distinct Level 13A (Rs. 1,39,600). A counterpart IAS officer of equivalent seniority, extended NFFU will draw financial benefits at Level 14 (Joint Secretary) or Level 15 (Additional Secretary) without necessarily holding those functional posts. This disparity compounds over a career when factoring in the pension, which is calculated on the last pay drawn.&nbsp;The inequity is compounded by the military’s service conditions. A Colonel retires at 54 and a Brigadier at 56, against a uniform civilian superannuation age of 60. Promotion to Colonel requires Selection Board clearance after at least 15 years of service; promotion to Brigadier (Level 13A) is a further competitive hurdle at approximately 25 years, with a small fraction of Colonels progressing. The majority of military officers thus face sustained pay stagnation at the precise career stage where NFFU would otherwise provide relief.&nbsp;<h2>Grounds for priority extension to Armed Forces</h2>&nbsp;Constitutional equity: Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits arbitrary discrimination. Withholding a structural benefit from a service where the qualifying condition, i.e., promotional stagnation, is more acutely present than in services that receive it cannot be justified on any rational basis.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Supreme Court’s 2019 CAPF judgment affirmed that the 6th CPC had recommended NFFU precisely because stagnation made its denial inequitable; that reasoning applies with greater force to the armed forces. Pay Commissions have consistently assessed military officers as equivalent in status to civilian counterparts at corresponding grades; denial of NFFU contradicts this equivalence.&nbsp;Officer retention: The Indian Army faces a persistent officer deficit. As of July 2024, it had 42,095 officers against a sanctioned strength of 50,538; a shortfall of 16.71%, as disclosed to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence.&nbsp;Across the three services, the shortfall at field officer levels exceeds 11,000. Pay and status concerns relative to civil services have been cited as a material driver of declining intake and rising premature release applications. NFFU extension would directly address this structural perception of inequality.&nbsp;Morale and institutional cohesion: Military morale is substantially influenced by the officer’s perception of the state's reciprocal obligations. The 7th CPC itself observed that denial of NFFU undermined the status and morale of armed forces officers.&nbsp;An officer who observes that CAPF counterparts receive financial upgradation that the armed forces are denied experiences a corrosive erosion of institutional faith; with measurable consequences for initiative, risk-taking and long-term effectiveness.&nbsp;<h2>Policy recommendation and conclusion</h2>&nbsp;Extension of NFFU to the armed forces does not require a new Pay Commission. The July 2019 Cabinet decision for CAPFs demonstrates that executive action via the Ministry of Defence in consultation with the Department of Expenditure is legally and administratively sufficient. A tailored framework substituting the IAS-empanelment trigger with service-seniority benchmarks appropriate to the military's cadre structure is feasible and implementable without awaiting the 8th CPC.&nbsp;NFFU has been progressively extended over two decades - first to IPS and IFoS, then to 53 civilian services, and finally to CAPF officers. The Indian Armed Forces alone remain excluded, despite facing more demanding service conditions, steeper promotion pyramids and earlier retirement ages than every service now covered.&nbsp;This is not a principled policy choice; it is an administrative failure with measurable costs to morale, retention, and national security. The case for priority extension is unambiguous. It is a correction whose time has long passed.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: Views expressed by the author are his own and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;&nbsp;

Officers of the Indian Armed Forces, who face the steepest promotion pyramid and the earliest compulsory retirement ages in the Central Government, remain the sole excluded category, despite the 7th CPC’s recommendation to the contrary.

Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) is a pay parity mechanism introduced on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (6th CPC), effective 01 January 2006 and applicable to officers of organised Group A Central Services. Officers of the Indian Armed Forces, who face the steepest promotion pyramid and the earliest compulsory retirement ages in the Central Government, remain the sole excluded category, despite the 7th CPC’s recommendation to the contrary. This article examines the origins of NFFU, the resulting pay disparity, and the case for its priority extension to the armed forces. NFFU was introduced by the 6th CPC with effect from 01 January 2006 to remedy pay stagnation among officers of organised Group A Central Services. Under the scheme, when an IAS officer of a particular batch is empanelled to a grade at the Centre, officers of other organised Group A Services from a senior batch receive financial upgradation to that grade - irrespective of whether they hold the functional responsibilities of that post. By the time of the 7th CPC, 53 civilian services were covered, including the IAS, IPS and Indian Forest Service. Officers of the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force remain excluded. This exclusion persists despite the 7th CPC Chairman recommending extension to defence forces and despite a Supreme Court judgment (February 2019) and Cabinet decision (July 2019) extending NFFU to Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) with retrospective effect from 2006. The armed forces are now the sole category to whom this benefit has been denied – an anomaly two decades old. The structural pay disparity Under the 7th CPC defence pay matrix, a Colonel draws basic pay at Level 13 (Rs. 1,30,600 per month); Brigadier, the next rank, is at the distinct Level 13A (Rs. 1,39,600). A counterpart IAS officer of equivalent seniority, extended NFFU will draw financial benefits at Level 14 (Joint Secretary) or Level 15 (Additional Secretary) without necessarily holding those functional posts. This disparity compounds over a career when factoring in the pension, which is calculated on the last pay drawn. The inequity is compounded by the military’s service conditions. A Colonel retires at 54 and a Brigadier at 56, against a uniform civilian superannuation age of 60. Promotion to Colonel requires Selection Board clearance after at least 15 years of service; promotion to Brigadier (Level 13A) is a further competitive hurdle at approximately 25 years, with a small fraction of Colonels progressing. The majority of military officers thus face sustained pay stagnation at the precise career stage where NFFU would otherwise provide relief. Grounds for priority extension to Armed Forces Constitutional equity: Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits arbitrary discrimination. Withholding a structural benefit from a service where the qualifying condition, i.e., promotional stagnation, is more acutely present than in services that receive it cannot be justified on any rational basis. The Supreme Court’s 2019 CAPF judgment affirmed that the 6th CPC had recommended NFFU precisely because stagnation made its denial inequitable; that reasoning applies with greater force to the armed forces. Pay Commissions have consistently assessed military officers as equivalent in status to civilian counterparts at corresponding grades; denial of NFFU contradicts this equivalence. Officer retention: The Indian Army faces a persistent officer deficit. As of July 2024, it had 42,095 officers against a sanctioned strength of 50,538; a shortfall of 16.71%, as disclosed to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence. Across the three services, the shortfall at field officer levels exceeds 11,000. Pay and status concerns relative to civil services have been cited as a material driver of declining intake and rising premature release applications. NFFU extension would directly address this structural perception of inequality. Morale and institutional cohesion: Military morale is substantially influenced by the officer’s perception of the state's reciprocal obligations. The 7th CPC itself observed that denial of NFFU undermined the status and morale of armed forces officers. An officer who observes that CAPF counterparts receive financial upgradation that the armed forces are denied experiences a corrosive erosion of institutional faith; with measurable consequences for initiative, risk-taking and long-term effectiveness. Policy recommendation and conclusion Extension of NFFU to the armed forces does not require a new Pay Commission. The July 2019 Cabinet decision for CAPFs demonstrates that executive action via the Ministry of Defence in consultation with the Department of Expenditure is legally and administratively sufficient. A tailored framework substituting the IAS-empanelment trigger with service-seniority benchmarks appropriate to the military's cadre structure is feasible and implementable without awaiting the 8th CPC. NFFU has been progressively extended over two decades - first to IPS and IFoS, then to 53 civilian services, and finally to CAPF officers. The Indian Armed Forces alone remain excluded, despite facing more demanding service conditions, steeper promotion pyramids and earlier retirement ages than every service now covered. This is not a principled policy choice; it is an administrative failure with measurable costs to morale, retention, and national security. The case for priority extension is unambiguous. It is a correction whose time has long passed. (Disclaimer: Views expressed by the author are his own and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Officers of the Indian Armed Forces, who face the steepest promotion pyramid and the earliest compulsory retirement ages in the Central Government, remain the sole excluded category, despite the 7th CPC’s recommendation to the contrary.

Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU): The case for priority extension to the Indian Armed Forces

India's carrier debate is often reduced to the wrong question. It is made to sound like a matter of prestige, tonnage or naval nostalgia. It is not. The third aircraft carrier is not about pride. It is about geography.India lives in one of the most unforgiving strategic neighbourhoods in the world. To the west is Pakistan, a nuclear-armed adversary with a long record of hostility and military adventurism. To the north and east is China, a nuclear-armed great power with whom India has fought a war and continues to face unresolved land-border tensions. &nbsp;To the south is not emptiness, but the Indian Ocean—the maritime space through which India's trade, energy, influence and strategic future move every single day.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rupee-slide-wars-and-more-indian-students-in-us-battle-currency-crisis-no-one-prepared-them-for-wion-horizons-1780044945428">Rupee slide, wars and more: Indian students in US battle currency crisis no one prepared them for | WION Horizons</a>This is India's strategic reality: two hostile continental fronts and a maritime frontier across the Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal and the wider Indian Ocean Region. That geography demands a fleet structure that can be present on both seaboards when the nation needs it. Today, India is one carrier short of that requirement.This is not a theoretical gap. It is an availability problem. Any navy that has operated major platforms understands the tyranny of maintenance, refit, training cycles, crew work-up, aviation certification and operational deployment. &nbsp;A carrier is not available every day simply because it exists on the order of battle. The old naval logic is simple: if a country needs one carrier continuously available, it needs at least three hulls — one deployed, one preparing or recovering, and one in maintenance. This "rule of three" is not a luxury calculation. It is the mathematics of maritime readiness.India currently has two aircraft carriers: INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant. That gives the Navy capability. It does not yet give it guaranteed availability across both seaboards during a national crisis.Now place this within a two-front scenario. A crisis erupts on the western land border with Pakistan. At the same time, Chinese naval activity increases in the Bay of Bengal, the eastern Indian Ocean or near the approaches to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. &nbsp;This is not an alarmist fantasy. The 2020 Galwan crisis showed that Beijing is willing to apply pressure when India is forced into strategic distraction. A coordinated or opportunistic land-maritime pressure scenario is exactly the kind of situation for which serious military planning exists.In such a crisis, if one Indian carrier is in refit or deep maintenance, the remaining carrier must choose. Does it move west into the Arabian Sea to support maritime pressure against Pakistan, protect energy routes and shape escalation? Or does it move east to counter Chinese naval signalling, reassure partners, and defend India's eastern maritime approaches? A carrier cannot be in two seas at the same time.That is the heart of the third-carrier argument. It is not a question of emotion. It is about ensuring that India is never forced to choose between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal when both may be contested simultaneously.The Pakistan dimension is often under-discussed. A carrier battle group operating in the western theatre does not merely threaten naval targets. It forces Pakistan to distribute attention, air defence, coastal surveillance, naval assets and political anxiety at a time when it may prefer to concentrate all pressure on the land border. Karachi and Pakistan's wider coastal infrastructure have always been central to its economic and military vulnerability. &nbsp;Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/critical-anchor-hegseth-at-shangri-la-dialogue-lauds-india-calls-new-delhi-a-pillar-of-regional-stability-1780120209830">'Critical anchor': Hegseth lauds India, calls it a pillar of regional stability</a>A credible Indian carrier presence in the Arabian Sea changes Pakistan's planning problem. It creates uncertainty, complicates escalation and opens another axis of pressure without immediately crossing the nuclear threshold. That is what sea power does at its best. It gives political leadership options short of, during and beyond conflict. But that option must be available when the nation needs it, not merely when the refit cycle permits it.The China dimension is larger and more long-term. The People's Liberation Army Navy already operates three carriers, and according to recent assessments, China may seek a total carrier force of up to nine by 2035. &nbsp;Whether the exact number arrives on that timeline or not, the direction is unmistakable: China is building a blue-water navy with carrier aviation as a central instrument of power projection. This is supported by a growing network of access points across the Indian Ocean Region—Djibouti, Gwadar, Hambantota, Chittagong and other nodes that together create the infrastructure of sustained far-seas operations.For India, this matters because the Indian Ocean is not a distant theatre. It is our front yard, our economic lifeline and our strategic depth. A Chinese carrier group signalling in the eastern Indian Ocean directly affects Indian maritime security, regional confidence and the balance of influence in our own oceanic neighbourhood. A two-carrier India can surge. A three-carrier India can sustain. That difference is everything.The energy dimension ties the argument together. India imports nearly 87–88 per cent of its crude oil requirement, much of it through sea lines of communication running through the Strait of Hormuz, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. A disruption in these routes is not merely a naval problem. It is an economic emergency. &nbsp;No serious country outsources the security of its energy arteries. A carrier battle group gives India the ability to position sovereign air power where land bases are either unavailable, politically constrained or operationally insufficient.That is the point often missed in the carrier debate. A destroyer can defend and strike. A submarine can deny and ambush. A maritime patrol aircraft can search and classify. But an aircraft carrier carries sovereign air power to sea—aviation, command, surveillance, strike, air defence, helicopters, unmanned systems, logistics and political signalling in one mobile instrument of national power.Having served over four years onboard INS Viraat and operated from carriers, destroyers and frigates, I can say this plainly: a carrier is not just a platform. It is a floating air station, a command centre, a logistics machine, a deterrence signal and a national statement. It is also one of the most demanding military systems a country can operate. That is precisely why only serious navies persist with it.The third carrier must therefore be seen not as an isolated procurement case but as a national maritime architecture decision. India has already demonstrated the ability to build an indigenous carrier through INS Vikrant. The skills, vendor chains and design confidence absorbed through that effort must not be allowed to fade. Warship-building capability is not a tap that can be turned on after a decade of hesitation. A follow-on carrier is not only about fleet numbers; it is about preserving and deepening India's hard-won carrier-building ecosystem.The question is not whether India can afford a third carrier. The question is whether India can afford a carrier gap in the decade when China is expanding, Pakistan remains hostile, and the Indian Ocean becomes the central arena of competition.The future Indian carrier need not be a copy of the past. It must be designed for the next fight — networked, survivable, integrated with destroyers, submarines, P-8I aircraft, MH-60R helicopters, UAVs, space-based surveillance, electronic warfare and long-range precision strike. It must be part of a kill web, not merely a battle group in the traditional sense. &nbsp;The carrier air wing must evolve to include fighters, airborne early warning, unmanned systems, loyal wingman concepts and electronic warfare payloads. The carrier will remain relevant not because it is immune to threats, but because it adapts faster than the threats trying to kill it.The United States is not retiring carriers because missiles exist. China is not avoiding carriers because it has missiles. France, Britain and others continue to treat carrier aviation as a strategic capability because sea-based air power gives a nation choices that no other platform can fully replace. India's geography is even more demanding.We do not have the luxury of choosing between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. We cannot assume that a western crisis will remain western, or that a northern crisis will remain continental. We cannot assume that China will wait outside the Indian Ocean while India is occupied elsewhere, or that Pakistan will not exploit distraction. Strategy built on such assumptions is not strategy. It is hope.A third carrier gives India continuous options across both seaboards — one available in the western theatre, one in the eastern theatre or work-up cycle, and one in maintenance or refit. It gives the Navy flexibility, political leadership choice, and adversaries uncertainty. That is deterrence.The third carrier is not about building a monument. It is about matching fleet structure to geography. It is about ensuring that India's maritime power is available when crisis comes, not when the maintenance calendar is convenient. Two hostile land borders and a three-sea maritime frontier require every instrument of national power.The third carrier is the missing instrument. From the flight deck, this is not about pride. It is about presence. And in the Indian Ocean, presence is power.&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION. &nbsp;

This is India's strategic reality: two hostile continental fronts and a maritime frontier across the Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal and the wider Indian Ocean Region. That geography demands a fleet structure that can be present on both seaboard when the nation needs it.

India's carrier debate is often reduced to the wrong question. It is made to sound like a matter of prestige, tonnage or naval nostalgia. It is not. The third aircraft carrier is not about pride. It is about geography. India lives in one of the most unforgiving strategic neighbourhoods in the world. To the west is Pakistan, a nuclear-armed adversary with a long record of hostility and military adventurism. To the north and east is China, a nuclear-armed great power with whom India has fought a war and continues to face unresolved land-border tensions. To the south is not emptiness, but the Indian Ocean—the maritime space through which India's trade, energy, influence and strategic future move every single day. Also read | Rupee slide, wars and more: Indian students in US battle currency crisis no one prepared them for | WION Horizons This is India's strategic reality: two hostile continental fronts and a maritime frontier across the Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal and the wider Indian Ocean Region. That geography demands a fleet structure that can be present on both seaboards when the nation needs it. Today, India is one carrier short of that requirement. This is not a theoretical gap. It is an availability problem. Any navy that has operated major platforms understands the tyranny of maintenance, refit, training cycles, crew work-up, aviation certification and operational deployment. A carrier is not available every day simply because it exists on the order of battle. The old naval logic is simple: if a country needs one carrier continuously available, it needs at least three hulls — one deployed, one preparing or recovering, and one in maintenance. This "rule of three" is not a luxury calculation. It is the mathematics of maritime readiness. India currently has two aircraft carriers: INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant. That gives the Navy capability. It does not yet give it guaranteed availability across both seaboards during a national crisis. Now place this within a two-front scenario. A crisis erupts on the western land border with Pakistan. At the same time, Chinese naval activity increases in the Bay of Bengal, the eastern Indian Ocean or near the approaches to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. This is not an alarmist fantasy. The 2020 Galwan crisis showed that Beijing is willing to apply pressure when India is forced into strategic distraction. A coordinated or opportunistic land-maritime pressure scenario is exactly the kind of situation for which serious military planning exists. In such a crisis, if one Indian carrier is in refit or deep maintenance, the remaining carrier must choose. Does it move west into the Arabian Sea to support maritime pressure against Pakistan, protect energy routes and shape escalation? Or does it move east to counter Chinese naval signalling, reassure partners, and defend India's eastern maritime approaches? A carrier cannot be in two seas at the same time. That is the heart of the third-carrier argument. It is not a question of emotion. It is about ensuring that India is never forced to choose between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal when both may be contested simultaneously. The Pakistan dimension is often under-discussed. A carrier battle group operating in the western theatre does not merely threaten naval targets. It forces Pakistan to distribute attention, air defence, coastal surveillance, naval assets and political anxiety at a time when it may prefer to concentrate all pressure on the land border. Karachi and Pakistan's wider coastal infrastructure have always been central to its economic and military vulnerability. Also read | 'Critical anchor': Hegseth lauds India, calls it a pillar of regional stability A credible Indian carrier presence in the Arabian Sea changes Pakistan's planning problem. It creates uncertainty, complicates escalation and opens another axis of pressure without immediately crossing the nuclear threshold. That is what sea power does at its best. It gives political leadership options short of, during and beyond conflict. But that option must be available when the nation needs it, not merely when the refit cycle permits it. The China dimension is larger and more long-term. The People's Liberation Army Navy already operates three carriers, and according to recent assessments, China may seek a total carrier force of up to nine by 2035. Whether the exact number arrives on that timeline or not, the direction is unmistakable: China is building a blue-water navy with carrier aviation as a central instrument of power projection. This is supported by a growing network of access points across the Indian Ocean Region—Djibouti, Gwadar, Hambantota, Chittagong and other nodes that together create the infrastructure of sustained far-seas operations. For India, this matters because the Indian Ocean is not a distant theatre. It is our front yard, our economic lifeline and our strategic depth. A Chinese carrier group signalling in the eastern Indian Ocean directly affects Indian maritime security, regional confidence and the balance of influence in our own oceanic neighbourhood. A two-carrier India can surge. A three-carrier India can sustain. That difference is everything. The energy dimension ties the argument together. India imports nearly 87–88 per cent of its crude oil requirement, much of it through sea lines of communication running through the Strait of Hormuz, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. A disruption in these routes is not merely a naval problem. It is an economic emergency. No serious country outsources the security of its energy arteries. A carrier battle group gives India the ability to position sovereign air power where land bases are either unavailable, politically constrained or operationally insufficient. That is the point often missed in the carrier debate. A destroyer can defend and strike. A submarine can deny and ambush. A maritime patrol aircraft can search and classify. But an aircraft carrier carries sovereign air power to sea—aviation, command, surveillance, strike, air defence, helicopters, unmanned systems, logistics and political signalling in one mobile instrument of national power. Having served over four years onboard INS Viraat and operated from carriers, destroyers and frigates, I can say this plainly: a carrier is not just a platform. It is a floating air station, a command centre, a logistics machine, a deterrence signal and a national statement. It is also one of the most demanding military systems a country can operate. That is precisely why only serious navies persist with it. The third carrier must therefore be seen not as an isolated procurement case but as a national maritime architecture decision. India has already demonstrated the ability to build an indigenous carrier through INS Vikrant. The skills, vendor chains and design confidence absorbed through that effort must not be allowed to fade. Warship-building capability is not a tap that can be turned on after a decade of hesitation. A follow-on carrier is not only about fleet numbers; it is about preserving and deepening India's hard-won carrier-building ecosystem. The question is not whether India can afford a third carrier. The question is whether India can afford a carrier gap in the decade when China is expanding, Pakistan remains hostile, and the Indian Ocean becomes the central arena of competition. The future Indian carrier need not be a copy of the past. It must be designed for the next fight — networked, survivable, integrated with destroyers, submarines, P-8I aircraft, MH-60R helicopters, UAVs, space-based surveillance, electronic warfare and long-range precision strike. It must be part of a kill web, not merely a battle group in the traditional sense. The carrier air wing must evolve to include fighters, airborne early warning, unmanned systems, loyal wingman concepts and electronic warfare payloads. The carrier will remain relevant not because it is immune to threats, but because it adapts faster than the threats trying to kill it. The United States is not retiring carriers because missiles exist. China is not avoiding carriers because it has missiles. France, Britain and others continue to treat carrier aviation as a strategic capability because sea-based air power gives a nation choices that no other platform can fully replace. India's geography is even more demanding. We do not have the luxury of choosing between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. We cannot assume that a western crisis will remain western, or that a northern crisis will remain continental. We cannot assume that China will wait outside the Indian Ocean while India is occupied elsewhere, or that Pakistan will not exploit distraction. Strategy built on such assumptions is not strategy. It is hope. A third carrier gives India continuous options across both seaboards — one available in the western theatre, one in the eastern theatre or work-up cycle, and one in maintenance or refit. It gives the Navy flexibility, political leadership choice, and adversaries uncertainty. That is deterrence. The third carrier is not about building a monument. It is about matching fleet structure to geography. It is about ensuring that India's maritime power is available when crisis comes, not when the maintenance calendar is convenient. Two hostile land borders and a three-sea maritime frontier require every instrument of national power. The third carrier is the missing instrument. From the flight deck, this is not about pride. It is about presence. And in the Indian Ocean, presence is power. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

This is India's strategic reality: two hostile continental fronts and a maritime frontier across the Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal and the wider Indian Ocean Region. That geography demands a fleet structure that can be present on both seaboard when the nation needs it.

Pakistan, China and the sea between: Why India's third carrier is about geography, not pride

India has seen political protests, student movements and anti-establishment waves before. But few have looked like the Cockroach Janata Party. The CJP exploded online in May 2026 with memes, AI-generated protest songs, parody manifestos and a flood of “cockroach” imagery. Within days, its Instagram following reportedly crossed 21 million before the account was allegedly hacked — a number larger than the ruling BJP’s online base. More than a million people reportedly signed up to join the party through online forms. For some, it was hilarious internet theatre. For others, it exposed something deeper: growing frustration among India’s youth. The real question is whether CJP is an actual political movement — or simply the internet venting in memes. It is a fever. Fever is a symptom of an underlying disease. It is time to address the fever.<h2>Cockroach Janata Party: The remark that triggered everything</h2>The movement began after remarks attributed to India’s Chief Justice, Surya Kant, during a court hearing. He reportedly compared certain unqualified or jobless entrants in professions like law and journalism to “cockroaches” and “parasites”. The backlash was immediate.The Chief Justice later clarified that his comments were aimed at people with fake degrees, not genuinely unemployed youth. But by then, social media had already transformed the controversy into a viral rebellion. The meme machine had started. The damage was done.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/-cockroach-janta-party-overtakes-bjp-in-number-of-followers-on-instagram-1779381079293/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/-cockroach-janta-party-overtakes-bjp-in-number-of-followers-on-instagram-1779381079293/embed</a><h2>Enter Abhijeet Dipke</h2>At the centre of the movement is Abhijeet Dipke, a Boston University student and former political communications strategist who had been earlier associated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). After the controversy erupted over the justice's remarks, Dipke posted a simple question on X: “What if all cockroaches come together?”Dipke launched social media handles, a website and online sign-up forms. The branding was intentionally absurd: membership requirements included being unemployed, chronically online, lazy and capable of “professional-level ranting”. Even the name — Cockroach Janata Party — was a parody of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP.What followed was a perfect storm for internet virality: satire, anger, identity politics and algorithm-friendly content.<h2>The real question: Why did CJP go viral?</h2>CJP tapped into something festering underneath. Millions of young Indians are frustrated with unemployment, rising living costs, exam scandals and shrinking opportunities. Incidents like the NEET-UG 2026 question paper leak intensified distrust in institutions that are supposed to reward merit.India’s youth unemployment rate varies depending on the dataset, but the broader anxiety is undeniable. Millions compete for limited government jobs and entrance exams for higher education and specialist fields. Even small disruptions like leaked papers, delayed results and recruitment scams hit hard, leading to enormous emotional reactions.CJP is exploiting that frustration. That is what every opportunistic political movement does.It converted anger into an internet cultural movement. Instead of ideology or speeches, its supporters used AI videos, parody songs, slogans and humour — instantly shareable content that was emotionally accessible to a generation raised online and spending large amounts of time scrolling.Dipke himself described the movement as a spontaneous satirical reaction, not a structured political organisation.Hold that thought. Because that distinction is contentious.<h2>The crackdown and shifting narratives</h2>As CJP grew, controversy followed. Its X account was allegedly blocked. Dipke moved the Delhi High Court. He claimed the movement’s Instagram account was hacked. &nbsp;Reports also emerged of police deployment outside his family home in India after alleged death threats against him and his relatives.The movement quickly became part of a discussion on censorship, suppression and state pressure.Whether one agrees with CJP or not, the perception of a crackdown often fuels online movements even further.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/-cockroaches-are-just-getting-started-more-drama-to-unfold-cjp-addresses-speculation-over-its-future-1779693042605">'Cockroaches are just getting started': More drama to unfold? CJP addresses speculation over its future</a><h2>Bots, ‘foreign links’ and political opportunism</h2>The bigger CJP became, the more questions emerged about who was really behind it. Claims circulated that some followers originated from Pakistani IP addresses or bot networks. Dipke denied those allegations vehemently. Meanwhile, opposition politicians from parties like Congress, AAP and Trinamool Congress began openly supporting the CJP trend. Karnataka Youth Congress workers even distributed “I am a cockroach” T-shirts.That created another problem for CJP.The movement initially positioned itself as anti-establishment and critical of the entire political class. But once mainstream parties started embracing it, CJP risked becoming another political tool for them.As has happened in the past, another youth movement could be hijacked and co-opted by mainstream political parties.Questions around Dipke’s own political past added to the scepticism. Was CJP truly organic? Or was it simply smart political branding disguised as rebellion? Is it possible for a single person to suddenly populate the internet with well-designed websites, logos, videos and multiple social media handles? Is Dipke really acting alone?Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-s-students-deserve-better-cockroach-janata-party-revives-petition-targeting-edu-minister-dharmendra-pradhan-neet-2026-paper-leak-1779774614724">'India’s students deserve better': Cockroach Janata Party revives petition targeting Edu Minister Dharmendra Pradhan</a><h2>Can memes become a movement?</h2>This is where the hype meets reality. CJP has dominated social media timelines, but not the streets.Yes, there are online petitions and viral campaigns. But there are no major rallies nationwide or visible offline structures. No organisation. No leadership network. No policy framework. No electoral roadmap. No ideology. Just some obviously unachievable manifesto items.That is the weakness of many internet movements. Going viral is easy. Building institutions is not.Memes can amplify anger. But they cannot automatically solve unemployment, reform education systems, generate economic growth or reduce the cost of living.Satire can expose frustration. It cannot replace governance.CJP itself embraces irony by calling itself the “Voice of the Lazy &amp; Unemployed”. That branding works online because self-deprecating humour resonates with digital culture. But politics in the real world demands organisation, negotiation and long-term strategy. Definitely not a place for the lazy.The internet rewards outrage and performance. Real politics rewards endurance.<h2>CJP is a symptom, not a solution</h2>CJP is best understood as a symptom of underlying maladies. It reflects the frustrations of a generation dealing with economic uncertainty, hyper-competition in a tech-mediated world, and distrust in institutions. It also reflects the changing nature of protest itself. Young people increasingly express political anger through reels and Reddit rather than traditional street movements.But frustration alone does not create political change.Many anti-establishment youth movements around the world generated massive online excitement before fading once the hashtag trend cycle ended. Without structure, leadership and offline infrastructure, momentum disappears quickly.That does not make CJP meaningless.In fact, its success is a warning sign for mainstream politics, across all parties. Millions of young Indians clearly feel unheard. They are willing to rally around satire because conventional political language no longer connects with them.CJP may not become a real political party. It may never contest elections or build a ground network.But it has already succeeded at one thing: forcing India’s political ecosystem to notice a generation that increasingly communicates from the easy confines of mobile screens.<h2>Entertainment or early warning system?</h2>For now, Cockroach Janata Party remains more internet spectacle than political revolution.It is loud, viral, chaotic and culturally effective. But whether it can survive outside social media feeds is another question.Can the self-identified “cockroaches” organise beyond their device screens?That answer will decide whether CJP becomes a historical footnote — or the first sign of a new kind of political and social unrest.&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.

Cockroach Janata Party became a viral online movement after remarks by Chief Justice Surya Kant sparked memes, satire and youth anger over unemployment, exam scandals and distrust in institutions. But can it really transform into a political movement?

India has seen political protests, student movements and anti-establishment waves before. But few have looked like the Cockroach Janata Party. The CJP exploded online in May 2026 with memes, AI-generated protest songs, parody manifestos and a flood of “cockroach” imagery. Within days, its Instagram following reportedly crossed 21 million before the account was allegedly hacked — a number larger than the ruling BJP’s online base. More than a million people reportedly signed up to join the party through online forms. For some, it was hilarious internet theatre. For others, it exposed something deeper: growing frustration among India’s youth. The real question is whether CJP is an actual political movement — or simply the internet venting in memes. It is a fever. Fever is a symptom of an underlying disease. It is time to address the fever. Cockroach Janata Party: The remark that triggered everything The movement began after remarks attributed to India’s Chief Justice, Surya Kant, during a court hearing. He reportedly compared certain unqualified or jobless entrants in professions like law and journalism to “cockroaches” and “parasites”. The backlash was immediate. The Chief Justice later clarified that his comments were aimed at people with fake degrees, not genuinely unemployed youth. But by then, social media had already transformed the controversy into a viral rebellion. The meme machine had started. The damage was done. https://www.wionews.com/videos/-cockroach-janta-party-overtakes-bjp-in-number-of-followers-on-instagram-1779381079293/embed Enter Abhijeet Dipke At the centre of the movement is Abhijeet Dipke, a Boston University student and former political communications strategist who had been earlier associated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). After the controversy erupted over the justice's remarks, Dipke posted a simple question on X: “What if all cockroaches come together?” Dipke launched social media handles, a website and online sign-up forms. The branding was intentionally absurd: membership requirements included being unemployed, chronically online, lazy and capable of “professional-level ranting”. Even the name — Cockroach Janata Party — was a parody of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP. What followed was a perfect storm for internet virality: satire, anger, identity politics and algorithm-friendly content. The real question: Why did CJP go viral? CJP tapped into something festering underneath. Millions of young Indians are frustrated with unemployment, rising living costs, exam scandals and shrinking opportunities. Incidents like the NEET-UG 2026 question paper leak intensified distrust in institutions that are supposed to reward merit. India’s youth unemployment rate varies depending on the dataset, but the broader anxiety is undeniable. Millions compete for limited government jobs and entrance exams for higher education and specialist fields. Even small disruptions like leaked papers, delayed results and recruitment scams hit hard, leading to enormous emotional reactions. CJP is exploiting that frustration. That is what every opportunistic political movement does. It converted anger into an internet cultural movement. Instead of ideology or speeches, its supporters used AI videos, parody songs, slogans and humour — instantly shareable content that was emotionally accessible to a generation raised online and spending large amounts of time scrolling. Dipke himself described the movement as a spontaneous satirical reaction, not a structured political organisation. Hold that thought. Because that distinction is contentious. The crackdown and shifting narratives As CJP grew, controversy followed. Its X account was allegedly blocked. Dipke moved the Delhi High Court. He claimed the movement’s Instagram account was hacked. Reports also emerged of police deployment outside his family home in India after alleged death threats against him and his relatives. The movement quickly became part of a discussion on censorship, suppression and state pressure. Whether one agrees with CJP or not, the perception of a crackdown often fuels online movements even further. Also read: 'Cockroaches are just getting started': More drama to unfold? CJP addresses speculation over its future Bots, ‘foreign links’ and political opportunism The bigger CJP became, the more questions emerged about who was really behind it. Claims circulated that some followers originated from Pakistani IP addresses or bot networks. Dipke denied those allegations vehemently. Meanwhile, opposition politicians from parties like Congress, AAP and Trinamool Congress began openly supporting the CJP trend. Karnataka Youth Congress workers even distributed “I am a cockroach” T-shirts. That created another problem for CJP. The movement initially positioned itself as anti-establishment and critical of the entire political class. But once mainstream parties started embracing it, CJP risked becoming another political tool for them. As has happened in the past, another youth movement could be hijacked and co-opted by mainstream political parties. Questions around Dipke’s own political past added to the scepticism. Was CJP truly organic? Or was it simply smart political branding disguised as rebellion? Is it possible for a single person to suddenly populate the internet with well-designed websites, logos, videos and multiple social media handles? Is Dipke really acting alone? Also read: 'India’s students deserve better': Cockroach Janata Party revives petition targeting Edu Minister Dharmendra Pradhan Can memes become a movement? This is where the hype meets reality. CJP has dominated social media timelines, but not the streets. Yes, there are online petitions and viral campaigns. But there are no major rallies nationwide or visible offline structures. No organisation. No leadership network. No policy framework. No electoral roadmap. No ideology. Just some obviously unachievable manifesto items. That is the weakness of many internet movements. Going viral is easy. Building institutions is not. Memes can amplify anger. But they cannot automatically solve unemployment, reform education systems, generate economic growth or reduce the cost of living. Satire can expose frustration. It cannot replace governance. CJP itself embraces irony by calling itself the “Voice of the Lazy & Unemployed”. That branding works online because self-deprecating humour resonates with digital culture. But politics in the real world demands organisation, negotiation and long-term strategy. Definitely not a place for the lazy. The internet rewards outrage and performance. Real politics rewards endurance. CJP is a symptom, not a solution CJP is best understood as a symptom of underlying maladies. It reflects the frustrations of a generation dealing with economic uncertainty, hyper-competition in a tech-mediated world, and distrust in institutions. It also reflects the changing nature of protest itself. Young people increasingly express political anger through reels and Reddit rather than traditional street movements. But frustration alone does not create political change. Many anti-establishment youth movements around the world generated massive online excitement before fading once the hashtag trend cycle ended. Without structure, leadership and offline infrastructure, momentum disappears quickly. That does not make CJP meaningless. In fact, its success is a warning sign for mainstream politics, across all parties. Millions of young Indians clearly feel unheard. They are willing to rally around satire because conventional political language no longer connects with them. CJP may not become a real political party. It may never contest elections or build a ground network. But it has already succeeded at one thing: forcing India’s political ecosystem to notice a generation that increasingly communicates from the easy confines of mobile screens. Entertainment or early warning system? For now, Cockroach Janata Party remains more internet spectacle than political revolution. It is loud, viral, chaotic and culturally effective. But whether it can survive outside social media feeds is another question. Can the self-identified “cockroaches” organise beyond their device screens? That answer will decide whether CJP becomes a historical footnote — or the first sign of a new kind of political and social unrest. 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.

Cockroach Janata Party became a viral online movement after remarks by Chief Justice Surya Kant sparked memes, satire and youth anger over unemployment, exam scandals and distrust in institutions. But can it really transform into a political movement?

Cockroach Janata Party is a fever. Time to prevent the epidemic

It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind.&nbsp;While India’s economy is facing what looks like multiple challenges, what I thought of this week was chemistry, not economics. With good reason. In my high school chemistry, I learnt about how German chemist August Kekule discovered the structure of benzene, which has six carbon atoms arranged in a cyclical form. The legend goes that he solved the puzzle of the benzene molecule while dozing by the fire where he had a daydream about a snake twisting and biting its own tail, inspiring a closed ring.&nbsp;As Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman spoke this week about three Fs being India’s challenge, I was wondering if we need to understand the cyclical structure of some key factors affecting the country’s economy to get a hang of what is going on. Ms Sitharaman mentioned fuel, fertiliser and foreign exchange reserves as the top challenges. Her speech’s alliterative charm aside, it all may have to do with some other letters, such as H for Hormuz or H1B, IT for information technology and AI for artificial intelligence. There are those who might expand her third F to include FDI and FPI – foreign direct investment and foreign portfolio investments.&nbsp;It seems this is a season for blame-games and casual diagnostics as economists dig up their own reason to explain what went wrong as the Indian rupee touched Rs 96 to the US dollar with oil prices surging and the crisis around the Strait of Hormuz blocked India’s easy access to vital fuel and fertiiser links with West Asia.&nbsp;One economist mentioned a lack of fresh reform as the reason for FDI stalling for the past couple of years or so. Another, with a similar fund-management orientation, spoke of how India is a laggard in the AI game, and thereby unattractive to foreign portfolio investors who have pulled out an estimated $40 billion out of the Indian markets over the past year.&nbsp;Yet another economist murmured about how Supreme Court cases linked to investments discouraged investors. One more pointed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP rule having a deleterious effect on social harmony through its Hindutva ideology that in turn affected investor mood. It seems like “The Blind Men And the Elephant” in the poem with that title, economists have their own favourite way to describe a downturn in the economy.&nbsp;&nbsp;Strangely enough, they remind me of the six carbon atoms of the benzene molecule – each one partly right as they blindly grope a giant economy to describe its shape, much like the blind men who felt various parts of the elephant in the poem by John Godfrey Saxe seven years after Kekule dreamt of that benzene snake.&nbsp;I would like instead to point out to some strange phenomena that we often overlook. India survived the balance of payments crisis of 1991 with a structural adjustment loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and then survived three more shocks in the decade that followed: the Asian financial crisis of 1997 that saw the region’s currencies battered by capital flight and the US sanctions linked to nuclear tests staged in 1998 by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s BJP-led government and the Internet “dotcom” crash circa 2000.&nbsp;Having been there and seen all that, the problem seems hardly like a crisis to me, but what strikes me is the way Indians take much for granted, including the grand assumption that imported cooking gas is a birthright. Unlike the 1990s. Indians can now easily invest abroad, gorge on imported chocolates and olives, take overseas holidays and get their teenagers educated abroad – all aided by IT and IT-enabled services exports and inward remittances from overseas Indians many of whom are able to send money back home to Bharat because of their IT connection. From $4 billion circa 1998 to $246 billion in 2025/26, software and allied exports have actually helped stabilise foreign exchange reserves in India at high levels, dramatically lowering the external threats to the economy.&nbsp;&nbsp;As the world’s largest recipient of remittances, India’s forex inflows on that account grew from $10 billion in 1998 to a record $135 billion in 2024/25. Total reserves have fallen from $728 billion in late February to $ 689 billion in mid-May triggering a forex crunch. Look hard, and most of it can be blamed on the US-Iran war and the oil shock that it triggered. No doubt, the government was not fully prepared for this. But the elephant in the room (there we go again with that elephant metaphor) is the Hormuz crisis and India’s blow-hot-blow-cold relations with the US, which last August imposed hefty 25% and later 50% tariffs on Indian imports months before its Operation Epic Fury that hit Iran in late February.&nbsp;The real issue for India now is how to deal with the Trump administration in the US, which has now tightened restrictions on Green Card applications and H1B visas that hurt Indians most. This may hinder or stymie remittances as well as IT exports, apart from the AI threat that is off-putting both stock market investors and cautious IT watchers.&nbsp;The core issue are not Supreme Court cases or other issues cited by some economists.&nbsp;Take a look at the numbers. India’s fertiliser imports totalled about $27.2 billion in 2025/26 and crude imports cost $137.6 billion. But in the very first month of the new fiscal year that started in April, oil imports have shot up by about 60% from the year-ago period, mainly on account of surging crude prices. As recently as last year, the total of about $165 billion spent on fuel and fertilisers was significantly below the software industry’s exports.&nbsp;&nbsp;What India is witnessing thus is a mini version of what Asian economies witnessed in 1998. India’s smart economists were then clear that India should not be in a hurry to liberalise the rupee on the capital account.India has seen FPI outflows of about $40 billion in the past year, more than half of it in the past three months. It does not take a rocket scientist to link it to the whimsical ways of the US and its impact on the oil economy.&nbsp;The implications are clear. While a lot can and should be done to fix the Indian economy, roundabout long-shot tales by half-blind economists is not it. With the wisdom of smart policies that helped India in the 1990s, a lot more can be done.But the focus should be on the trade deal with the US in suspended animation. With everything from AI to visas messing up the backbone of India’s foreign exchange reserves, the Modi government needs to get the trade deal right. Everything else seems like a distraction, though not irrelevant.

As the world’s largest recipient of remittances, India’s forex inflows on that account grew from $10 billion in 1998 to a record $135 billion in 2024/25. Total reserves have fallen from $728 billion in late February to $ 689 billion in mid-May triggering a forex crunch.

It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. While India’s economy is facing what looks like multiple challenges, what I thought of this week was chemistry, not economics. With good reason. In my high school chemistry, I learnt about how German chemist August Kekule discovered the structure of benzene, which has six carbon atoms arranged in a cyclical form. The legend goes that he solved the puzzle of the benzene molecule while dozing by the fire where he had a daydream about a snake twisting and biting its own tail, inspiring a closed ring. As Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman spoke this week about three Fs being India’s challenge, I was wondering if we need to understand the cyclical structure of some key factors affecting the country’s economy to get a hang of what is going on. Ms Sitharaman mentioned fuel, fertiliser and foreign exchange reserves as the top challenges. Her speech’s alliterative charm aside, it all may have to do with some other letters, such as H for Hormuz or H1B, IT for information technology and AI for artificial intelligence. There are those who might expand her third F to include FDI and FPI – foreign direct investment and foreign portfolio investments. It seems this is a season for blame-games and casual diagnostics as economists dig up their own reason to explain what went wrong as the Indian rupee touched Rs 96 to the US dollar with oil prices surging and the crisis around the Strait of Hormuz blocked India’s easy access to vital fuel and fertiiser links with West Asia. One economist mentioned a lack of fresh reform as the reason for FDI stalling for the past couple of years or so. Another, with a similar fund-management orientation, spoke of how India is a laggard in the AI game, and thereby unattractive to foreign portfolio investors who have pulled out an estimated $40 billion out of the Indian markets over the past year. Yet another economist murmured about how Supreme Court cases linked to investments discouraged investors. One more pointed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP rule having a deleterious effect on social harmony through its Hindutva ideology that in turn affected investor mood. It seems like “The Blind Men And the Elephant” in the poem with that title, economists have their own favourite way to describe a downturn in the economy. Strangely enough, they remind me of the six carbon atoms of the benzene molecule – each one partly right as they blindly grope a giant economy to describe its shape, much like the blind men who felt various parts of the elephant in the poem by John Godfrey Saxe seven years after Kekule dreamt of that benzene snake. I would like instead to point out to some strange phenomena that we often overlook. India survived the balance of payments crisis of 1991 with a structural adjustment loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and then survived three more shocks in the decade that followed: the Asian financial crisis of 1997 that saw the region’s currencies battered by capital flight and the US sanctions linked to nuclear tests staged in 1998 by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s BJP-led government and the Internet “dotcom” crash circa 2000. Having been there and seen all that, the problem seems hardly like a crisis to me, but what strikes me is the way Indians take much for granted, including the grand assumption that imported cooking gas is a birthright. Unlike the 1990s. Indians can now easily invest abroad, gorge on imported chocolates and olives, take overseas holidays and get their teenagers educated abroad – all aided by IT and IT-enabled services exports and inward remittances from overseas Indians many of whom are able to send money back home to Bharat because of their IT connection. From $4 billion circa 1998 to $246 billion in 2025/26, software and allied exports have actually helped stabilise foreign exchange reserves in India at high levels, dramatically lowering the external threats to the economy. As the world’s largest recipient of remittances, India’s forex inflows on that account grew from $10 billion in 1998 to a record $135 billion in 2024/25. Total reserves have fallen from $728 billion in late February to $ 689 billion in mid-May triggering a forex crunch. Look hard, and most of it can be blamed on the US-Iran war and the oil shock that it triggered. No doubt, the government was not fully prepared for this. But the elephant in the room (there we go again with that elephant metaphor) is the Hormuz crisis and India’s blow-hot-blow-cold relations with the US, which last August imposed hefty 25% and later 50% tariffs on Indian imports months before its Operation Epic Fury that hit Iran in late February. The real issue for India now is how to deal with the Trump administration in the US, which has now tightened restrictions on Green Card applications and H1B visas that hurt Indians most. This may hinder or stymie remittances as well as IT exports, apart from the AI threat that is off-putting both stock market investors and cautious IT watchers. The core issue are not Supreme Court cases or other issues cited by some economists. Take a look at the numbers. India’s fertiliser imports totalled about $27.2 billion in 2025/26 and crude imports cost $137.6 billion. But in the very first month of the new fiscal year that started in April, oil imports have shot up by about 60% from the year-ago period, mainly on account of surging crude prices. As recently as last year, the total of about $165 billion spent on fuel and fertilisers was significantly below the software industry’s exports. What India is witnessing thus is a mini version of what Asian economies witnessed in 1998. India’s smart economists were then clear that India should not be in a hurry to liberalise the rupee on the capital account. India has seen FPI outflows of about $40 billion in the past year, more than half of it in the past three months. It does not take a rocket scientist to link it to the whimsical ways of the US and its impact on the oil economy. The implications are clear. While a lot can and should be done to fix the Indian economy, roundabout long-shot tales by half-blind economists is not it. With the wisdom of smart policies that helped India in the 1990s, a lot more can be done. But the focus should be on the trade deal with the US in suspended animation. With everything from AI to visas messing up the backbone of India’s foreign exchange reserves, the Modi government needs to get the trade deal right. Everything else seems like a distraction, though not irrelevant.

As the world’s largest recipient of remittances, India’s forex inflows on that account grew from $10 billion in 1998 to a record $135 billion in 2024/25. Total reserves have fallen from $728 billion in late February to $689 billion in mid-May, triggering a forex crunch.

India’s 3F problem is not a crisis: Whimsical US is the elephant in the room

India and Sri Lanka are separated by a narrow strait, but connected by a far deeper civilizational continuum that is still not fully appreciated on either side of the Palk Strait. While Sri Lanka has its own distinct identity and historical evolution, its cultural, religious, linguistic, and mythological foundations are deeply interwoven with India. These connections span both North and South India and are reflected across both of Sri Lanka’s principal communities—the Sinhalese and the Tamils. The Tamil Hindu civilizational links with South India are widely recognised and remain visibly alive through language, temple traditions, pilgrimage routes, and shared cultural practice. What is less appreciated—but equally significant—is the civilizational relationship between the Sinhalese and North India. The majority of Sri Lankans are Sinhalese, and most Sinhalese are Buddhists. The arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka in the 3rd century BCE marked a defining transformation of the island’s history. Emperor Ashoka, arguably the most consequential ruler of ancient India, sent his son Mahinda and daughter Sanghamitta to Sri Lanka to transmit the teachings of the Buddha. This was not a routine act of diplomacy. It reflected a civilizational relationship of exceptional depth and trust, one that would fundamentally shape Sri Lanka’s identity, state formation, and worldview. This civilizational connection is not confined to history. It continues to find expression in living traditions observed across both countries. In May, India observed Buddha Purnima on 1 May, while Sri Lanka will observe Vesak on 30 May—both anchored to the full moon calendar that has traditionally shaped Buddhist observances across the region. Both observances reflect a shared civilizational memory of the Buddha’s life and teachings, expressed through distinct but parallel traditions. Buddhists in Sri Lanka have long regarded pilgrimage to the sacred sites of Buddhism—most of which are located in India—as an important spiritual practice. Chief among them is Bodh Gaya in Bihar, where the Buddha attained enlightenment, along with Sarnath, Kushinagar, and Lumbini, which together form the core geography of the Buddha’s life and teachings. These sites remain central to Sri Lankan Buddhist devotion and cultural memory. Sri Lanka’s great chronicle, the Mahavamsa, written in the 5th century CE by the monk Mahanama, remains both a foundational text of Sinhala historical consciousness and an important source for reconstructing aspects of Mauryan-era India. In this sense, Sri Lankan and Indian historical traditions illuminate each other. The Sinhala language itself carries this inheritance, drawing heavily from Pali and Sanskrit. For centuries, Sri Lanka’s Buddhist monastic institutions have preserved and transmitted Pali canonical texts that remain central to Theravada Buddhism across Asia. Sri Lankan origin traditions trace the Sinhalese to Prince Vijaya, believed to have arrived from regions of ancient India such as present-day West Bengal or Gujarat. Over time, Sri Lanka also became closely linked with Buddhist centres of learning in Bihar and Odisha—civilizational ties that are now largely under-recognised in contemporary discourse.Sri Lanka also occupies a central place in India’s epic imagination. The Ramayana situates its climactic narrative on the island. While Ravana is widely remembered as the antagonist, many traditions also portray him as a learned and capable ruler—one who is credited in several accounts with dignity and restraint. Taken together, these layers of history, myth, language, and religion point to something larger than proximity. They reflect a shared civilizational field that has evolved through interaction, convergence, and exchange over millennia. Yet in contemporary understanding, this shared inheritance is often unevenly recognised. The Tamil–Hindu link between Sri Lanka and South India is widely acknowledged. The Sinhalese–Buddhist–North Indian continuum is far less present in public consciousness, both in India and Sri Lanka. Correcting this imbalance is not an academic exercise alone. It has direct relevance for the future of India–Sri Lanka relations. A fuller appreciation of shared civilizational roots can deepen mutual understanding, reduce misperceptions, and strengthen the emotional and cultural foundations of bilateral ties. In practical terms, this calls for greater investment in people-to-people connectivity: expanded Buddhist pilgrimage circuits linking Bihar, Odisha, and Sri Lanka; Ramayana cultural routes; and the Ramayana Trail, together with the Shiva–Shakti and Murugan pilgrimage circuits, also represent enduring Hindu civilizational linkages that merit further development and strengthening. In an increasingly complex Indo-Pacific, civilizational awareness is not a soft concept—it is strategic infrastructure. It shapes perception, trust, and long-term alignment between neighbours. India and Sri Lanka are not merely neighbouring states. They are civilizational partners whose histories have been continuously intertwined. Rediscovering that shared inheritance is not about revisiting the past. It is about strengthening the foundation for a more stable and connected 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.

The Tamil Hindu civilizational links with South India are widely recognised and remain visibly alive through language, temple traditions, pilgrimage routes, and shared cultural practice.

India and Sri Lanka are separated by a narrow strait, but connected by a far deeper civilizational continuum that is still not fully appreciated on either side of the Palk Strait. While Sri Lanka has its own distinct identity and historical evolution, its cultural, religious, linguistic, and mythological foundations are deeply interwoven with India. These connections span both North and South India and are reflected across both of Sri Lanka’s principal communities—the Sinhalese and the Tamils. The Tamil Hindu civilizational links with South India are widely recognised and remain visibly alive through language, temple traditions, pilgrimage routes, and shared cultural practice. What is less appreciated—but equally significant—is the civilizational relationship between the Sinhalese and North India. The majority of Sri Lankans are Sinhalese, and most Sinhalese are Buddhists. The arrival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka in the 3rd century BCE marked a defining transformation of the island’s history. Emperor Ashoka, arguably the most consequential ruler of ancient India, sent his son Mahinda and daughter Sanghamitta to Sri Lanka to transmit the teachings of the Buddha. This was not a routine act of diplomacy. It reflected a civilizational relationship of exceptional depth and trust, one that would fundamentally shape Sri Lanka’s identity, state formation, and worldview. This civilizational connection is not confined to history. It continues to find expression in living traditions observed across both countries. In May, India observed Buddha Purnima on 1 May, while Sri Lanka will observe Vesak on 30 May—both anchored to the full moon calendar that has traditionally shaped Buddhist observances across the region. Both observances reflect a shared civilizational memory of the Buddha’s life and teachings, expressed through distinct but parallel traditions. Buddhists in Sri Lanka have long regarded pilgrimage to the sacred sites of Buddhism—most of which are located in India—as an important spiritual practice. Chief among them is Bodh Gaya in Bihar, where the Buddha attained enlightenment, along with Sarnath, Kushinagar, and Lumbini, which together form the core geography of the Buddha’s life and teachings. These sites remain central to Sri Lankan Buddhist devotion and cultural memory. Sri Lanka’s great chronicle, the Mahavamsa, written in the 5th century CE by the monk Mahanama, remains both a foundational text of Sinhala historical consciousness and an important source for reconstructing aspects of Mauryan-era India. In this sense, Sri Lankan and Indian historical traditions illuminate each other. The Sinhala language itself carries this inheritance, drawing heavily from Pali and Sanskrit. For centuries, Sri Lanka’s Buddhist monastic institutions have preserved and transmitted Pali canonical texts that remain central to Theravada Buddhism across Asia. Sri Lankan origin traditions trace the Sinhalese to Prince Vijaya, believed to have arrived from regions of ancient India such as present-day West Bengal or Gujarat. Over time, Sri Lanka also became closely linked with Buddhist centres of learning in Bihar and Odisha—civilizational ties that are now largely under-recognised in contemporary discourse. Sri Lanka also occupies a central place in India’s epic imagination. The Ramayana situates its climactic narrative on the island. While Ravana is widely remembered as the antagonist, many traditions also portray him as a learned and capable ruler—one who is credited in several accounts with dignity and restraint. Taken together, these layers of history, myth, language, and religion point to something larger than proximity. They reflect a shared civilizational field that has evolved through interaction, convergence, and exchange over millennia. Yet in contemporary understanding, this shared inheritance is often unevenly recognised. The Tamil–Hindu link between Sri Lanka and South India is widely acknowledged. The Sinhalese–Buddhist–North Indian continuum is far less present in public consciousness, both in India and Sri Lanka. Correcting this imbalance is not an academic exercise alone. It has direct relevance for the future of India–Sri Lanka relations. A fuller appreciation of shared civilizational roots can deepen mutual understanding, reduce misperceptions, and strengthen the emotional and cultural foundations of bilateral ties. In practical terms, this calls for greater investment in people-to-people connectivity: expanded Buddhist pilgrimage circuits linking Bihar, Odisha, and Sri Lanka; Ramayana cultural routes; and the Ramayana Trail, together with the Shiva–Shakti and Murugan pilgrimage circuits, also represent enduring Hindu civilizational linkages that merit further development and strengthening. In an increasingly complex Indo-Pacific, civilizational awareness is not a soft concept—it is strategic infrastructure. It shapes perception, trust, and long-term alignment between neighbours. India and Sri Lanka are not merely neighbouring states. They are civilizational partners whose histories have been continuously intertwined. Rediscovering that shared inheritance is not about revisiting the past. It is about strengthening the foundation for a more stable and connected 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.

The Tamil Hindu civilizational links with South India are widely recognised and remain visibly alive through language, temple traditions, pilgrimage routes, and shared cultural practice.

India and Sri Lanka: A Shared Civilizational Continuum Not Fully Appreciated

India’s relationship with Western media has often been uneasy. The latest controversy involving Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a Norwegian journalist once again exposed how quickly debates around democracy, press freedom and political perception can dominate international headlines. During PM Modi’s visit to Norway, journalist Helle Lyng publicly asked why he does not take questions “from the freest press in the world.” The moment instantly went viral. Opposition leaders in India cited it as evidence of discomfort with scrutiny, while supporters of the government saw it as another example of Western media arrogance toward India. But the incident was never just about one question or one press interaction.&nbsp;India, as the world’s largest democracy, naturally attracts global attention. Every major democracy faces criticism, media scrutiny, and political debate. That is neither unusual nor unhealthy. Democracies are strengthened by disagreement and public accountability. However, the way some Western institutions frame India creates the impression that democratic values are measured differently depending on geography. For many Indians, this frustration is not entirely without basis.&nbsp;Countries in Europe and North America frequently position themselves as global referees of democracy and free speech. Yet their own records are far from perfect. In recent years, Western nations have witnessed growing debates around surveillance laws, censorship on digital platforms, crackdowns on protests, media monopolies, and the treatment of whistleblowers. &nbsp;This does not mean India should reject criticism simply because the West is imperfect.&nbsp;

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">Primeminister of India, Narendra Modi, would not take my question, I was not expecting him to. Norway has the number one spot on the World Press Freedom Index, India is at 157th, competing with Palestine, Emirates &amp; Cuba. It is our job to question the powers we cooperate… <a href="https://t.co/vZHYZnAvev">pic.twitter.com/vZHYZnAvev</a>&mdash; Helle Lyng (@HelleLyngSvends) <a href="https://twitter.com/HelleLyngSvends/status/2056349011213181063?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/watch-that-would-be-breaking-news-starmer-s-slip-of-the-tongue-on-north-korea-goes-viral-leaves-commons-in-stitches-1779328646159">WATCH | 'That would be breaking news': Starmer's 'slip of the tongue' on North Korea goes viral, leaves Commons in stitches</a>&nbsp;No democracy is flawless, including India. Concerns around media concentration, online hostility, political polarisation, and institutional independence deserve discussion in any democratic society. Mature democracies do not become weaker by addressing criticism; they become stronger. At the same time, there is a difference between scrutiny and moral superiority. Too often, Western commentary on India carries an undertone that suggests democratic legitimacy flows primarily through Western approval. India’s political and social reality, however, is far more layered than the simplistic binaries often presented in global discourse.&nbsp;A confident democracy should not appear uncomfortable with difficult questions. Prime Minister Modi is among the most influential political leaders globally, and global influence naturally comes with intense scrutiny. International journalists asking tough questions is not extraordinary; it is part of modern political life. In that sense, the conversation should not become about whether journalists are allowed&nbsp;to ask questions. They are. Nor should criticism automatically be dismissed as anti-India. Democracies benefit when governments, media institutions, and citizens engage each other with confidence instead of suspicion.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WATCH?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WATCH</a> | Oslo, Norway | MEA Secretary (West) Sibi George responds to question by reporters from Norway - &quot;Why should we trust you?&quot; &quot; Will the PM take critical questions from the Indian Press?&quot; <a href="https://t.co/iaEGIlVG08">pic.twitter.com/iaEGIlVG08</a>&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/2056498005424078977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 2026</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-russia-ties-how-did-xi-treat-trump-putin-in-a-week-1779299153138/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-russia-ties-how-did-xi-treat-trump-putin-in-a-week-1779299153138/embed</a>&nbsp;That balance is important. The Modi-Norway controversy will eventually fade from public attention, like most viral political moments do. But the broader questions it raised will remain relevant. Who defines democratic values globally? Why are some nations judged more harshly than others? Can the West still claim moral authority on free speech while facing its own internal contradictions? And how should India respond to criticism without becoming defensive?&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 PM Modi-Norway journalist controversy has reignited debate over democracy, free speech, media scrutiny and Western double standards toward India

India’s relationship with Western media has often been uneasy. The latest controversy involving Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a Norwegian journalist once again exposed how quickly debates around democracy, press freedom and political perception can dominate international headlines. During PM Modi’s visit to Norway, journalist Helle Lyng publicly asked why he does not take questions “from the freest press in the world.” The moment instantly went viral. Opposition leaders in India cited it as evidence of discomfort with scrutiny, while supporters of the government saw it as another example of Western media arrogance toward India. But the incident was never just about one question or one press interaction. India, as the world’s largest democracy, naturally attracts global attention. Every major democracy faces criticism, media scrutiny, and political debate. That is neither unusual nor unhealthy. Democracies are strengthened by disagreement and public accountability. However, the way some Western institutions frame India creates the impression that democratic values are measured differently depending on geography. For many Indians, this frustration is not entirely without basis. Countries in Europe and North America frequently position themselves as global referees of democracy and free speech. Yet their own records are far from perfect. In recent years, Western nations have witnessed growing debates around surveillance laws, censorship on digital platforms, crackdowns on protests, media monopolies, and the treatment of whistleblowers. This does not mean India should reject criticism simply because the West is imperfect.

The Modi-Norway journalist ‘controversy’ revealed a deeper global debate about democracy, media scrutiny and the West’s selective view of free speech

The Norwegian journalist asked a question. The West missed the bigger one

“From a strategic perspective, the Strait of Hormuz is a geopolitical weapon that can affect the future balance of power, international markets, and the outcome of conflicts”&nbsp;The Strait of Hormuz is no longer merely a maritime passage connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea. It has evolved into the strategic fulcrum of global geopolitics — a narrow corridor where military power, energy security, economics, diplomacy, and great-power rivalry converge with dangerous intensity.&nbsp;The fact that in every phase of the US–Iran confrontation, President Trump threatened a ground attack there and then repeatedly postponed it by managing a request from some compliant state to do so indicates the complexity of the military operations there. From sanctions and proxy warfare to naval brinkmanship and drone attacks, one reality has remained constant: whoever influences Hormuz influences the global economy. That is why the Strait has emerged as the decisive factor in any potential US–Iran war.&nbsp;For decades, the United States maintained overwhelming conventional military superiority in the Gulf. Yet Iran, despite sanctions, technological limitations, and economic strain, continues to hold strategic leverage. The reason lies not in comparative firepower but in geography. In strategic affairs, geography often neutralises military asymmetry, and nowhere is this more evident than in the Strait of Hormuz.<h2>Geography That Redefined Power</h2>The Strait of Hormuz lies between Iran and Oman and serves as the only maritime outlet for most Gulf oil exporters. At its narrowest point, the Strait is barely 33 kilometres wide, while designated shipping lanes are much narrower. Massive oil tankers carrying a substantial percentage of the world’s crude and LNG are forced into confined transit corridors lying dangerously close to the Iranian coastline.&nbsp;Narrow waterways undermine many of the benefits of huge naval fleets, in contrast to open-ocean warfare. Predictable movement patterns and restricted manoeuvre space limit aircraft carriers, destroyers, and sophisticated surveillance systems. In the meantime, swarm tactics, drones, mines, and missiles provide coastal powers a disproportionate edge.&nbsp;This logic has been grasped by Iran. Tehran is aware that it cannot defeat the US Navy in a traditional manner. Instead, its policy concentrates on making marine activities politically dangerous, economically costly, and strategically unclear. Iran's relative inferiority is turned into leverage over much stronger states by the Strait.&nbsp;<figure class="image"><img src="https://cdn1.wionews.com/prod/wion/images/2026/20260521/image-1779347807678.png"></figure>This is the core of asymmetric warfare: limiting the enemy strategic freedom rather than completely defeating him.<h2>Iran’s “Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD)” Strategy</h2>The foundation of Iran's military strategy in Hormuz is the A2/AD doctrine. Tehran wants to cause disruption and deterrence rather than full maritime control in and around Hormuz.Its instruments are purposefully low-cost but strategically useful:<ul><li>· Naval mines that have the ability to stop shipping.</li><li>· Anti-ship missile systems stationed on land that are concealed by mountains.</li><li>· Swift attack crafts intended for swarm attacks.</li><li>· Armed drones and loitering munitions.</li><li>· Small submarines optimised for shallow-water operations.</li></ul>In narrow maritime corridors, these systems become force multipliers. Even a limited attack on one tanker or escort vessel can trigger cascading consequences — rising insurance premiums, panic amongst crews, suspension of shipping traffic, panic in energy markets, and diplomatic escalation. Iran does not need to “close” the Strait physically. It merely needs to create sufficient deterrence to make global commerce hesitate.&nbsp;That distinction is strategically critical. The global economy runs on confidence as much as on oil supply itself. Therefore, perception becomes a weapon.<h2>The Limits Imposed on American Power</h2>The United States unquestionably retains the ability to destroy Iranian naval assets over time. However, military capability alone does not guarantee strategic success. Hormuz imposes serious operational and political limitations on Washington.&nbsp;First, mine-clearing operations in narrow and contested waters are slow, dangerous, and resource-intensive. Even the most advanced navy cannot instantly secure commercial navigation once mines, drones, and missile threats are active simultaneously.&nbsp;Second, US naval superiority becomes diluted in constrained waters where Iranian coastal batteries enjoy geographical proximity and concealment. American vessels operating in the Gulf remain under persistent surveillance and within missile range from multiple directions. The larger vessels have to pass through a constricted passage where they are extremely vulnerable.&nbsp;Third, every escalation risks wider regional instability. US military planners must account not only for naval operations but also for retaliation against Gulf bases, energy infrastructure, partner nations, and commercial shipping. Iran’s network of regional proxies further complicates escalation management.&nbsp;The most important limitation, however, is political rather than military. The American public and Western allies show limited appetite for another prolonged Middle East conflict. Any extended maritime campaign involving casualties, energy shocks, and rising oil prices would generate domestic political pressure within the United States itself.&nbsp;The most important limitation, however, is political rather than military. The American public and Western allies show limited appetite for another prolonged Middle East conflict. Thus, Hormuz exposes a paradox of modern warfare: a superpower may possess overwhelming firepower yet remain strategically constrained by economics, public opinion, and geopolitical consequences.<h2>The World's Energy Lifeline</h2>The Strait of Hormuz is traversed by almost one-fifth of the world's petroleum trade. Uninterrupted travel across this tight corridor is crucial for oil shipments from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran. This makes the Strait extremely important on a global scale. A disturbance in Hormuz is no longer a local problem. It turns into a global economic disaster right away.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-extends-sanctions-waiver-for-russian-oil-purchases-by-30-days-amid-hormuz-tensions-1779126312212">US extends sanctions waiver for Russian oil purchases by 30 days amid Hormuz tensions</a>&nbsp;Oil prices surge sharply even during periods of tension without actual closure. Insurance rates for tankers rise dramatically. Freight markets have become erratic. Supplies of LNG are disrupted. Both rich and developing economies are experiencing inflationary pressures. Asia is especially at risk. South Korea, China, Japan, and India all heavily depend on Gulf energy imports. The Strait is a strategic vulnerability as well as an economic one for India. Fuel prices, transportation expenses, budgetary balances, and energy security planning are all directly impacted by any protracted volatility.&nbsp;Due to China's comparable exposure, Hormuz is becoming more closely associated with the larger strategic rivalry between the US and China. Beijing’s growing engagement with Iran reflects not merely diplomatic alignment but also energy security calculations. Beijing’s relative silence stems from the fact that the resilience of President Trump will run out much earlier than they can resolve it.&nbsp;Consequently, Hormuz has become a global geopolitical pressure point rather than merely a regional maritime passage.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/global-internet-at-risk-iran-targets-subsea-fiber-optic-cables-running-under-strait-of-hormuz-1779105179404">Global internet at risk? Iran targets subsea fiber-optic cables running under Strait of Hormuz</a><h2>Why Hormuz Became the War’s Centre of Gravity</h2>In military theory, the “centre of gravity” is the source of power whose disruption decisively affects the conflict. Hormuz fits that definition perfectly.&nbsp;For Iran, the Strait provides strategic deterrence. It signals that any attempt to militarily isolate or economically suffocate Tehran will impose costs upon the entire world economy.For the United States, maintaining freedom of navigation in Hormuz is essential to preserving credibility, alliance assurance, and stability in global energy markets.&nbsp;This creates a dangerous strategic equilibrium. Iran cannot win a conventional war against the United States. Equally, the United States cannot secure a clean and politically inexpensive victory if Hormuz remains contested.&nbsp;Therefore, the conflict evolves into a contest of endurance, signalling, and economic coercion rather than traditional battlefield dominance.&nbsp;In effect, Hormuz compresses strategy, economics, military operations, diplomacy, and psychology into one narrow stretch of water.Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-uae-oil-pipeline-circumventing-hormuz-50-complete-says-ceo-sultan-al-jaber-1779308017813">New UAE oil pipeline circumventing Hormuz 50% complete, says CEO Sultan Al Jaber</a><h2>The Broader Global Consequences</h2>The consequences go much beyond the Gulf. A protracted Hormuz crisis would hasten changes in the global system that are already apparent:<ul><li>· Diversification of the routes used to supply energy.</li><li>· Strategic oil reserves are being expanded.</li><li>· More funding for pipelines that avoid the Gulf.</li><li>· Increased naval presence in the Indian Ocean by foreign powers.</li><li>· Increased rivalry for maritime choke points among key powers.</li></ul>Additionally, by pushing nations to lessen their reliance on weak energy transit lines, it would exacerbate the fragmentation of the global economic order.&nbsp;Most importantly, Hormuz demonstrates how regional conflicts now possess immediate global consequences in an interconnected world. It is controlled by Iran, and the resultant blockade by the USA represents a dangerous precedent violating UNCLOS over natural water and the global commons.A drone strike in the Gulf can trigger inflation in Europe, stock volatility in Asia, and political debates in Washington within hours. That is the strategic reality of twenty-first-century geopolitics.&nbsp;https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-costs-companies-25bn-globally-1779185761495/embed<h2>Conclusion: Geography as Strategic Destiny</h2>The Strait of Hormuz has become the decisive factor in any US–Iran war because geography has transformed it into both Iran’s shield and the world’s vulnerability.Iran derives leverage not from parity with the United States, but from its ability to threaten disruption at the world’s most critical energy chokepoint. The United States, despite unmatched military strength, remains constrained by political costs, escalation risks, and global economic repercussions.Hormuz is therefore much more than just a shipping channel. Asymmetric warfare threatens conventional superiority, economics impacts military strategy, and geography restricts power.From a strategic perspective, the Strait of Hormuz is no longer only a waterway. It is now a geopolitical weapon that can affect the future balance of power, international markets, and the outcome of conflicts.&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.&nbsp;

Why has the Strait of Hormuz become the decisive theatre in the US–Iran conflict?  Tehran wants to cause disruption and deterrence rather than full maritime control in and around Hormuz. Oil prices surge sharply even during periods of tension without actual closure. 

“From a strategic perspective, the Strait of Hormuz is a geopolitical weapon that can affect the future balance of power, international markets, and the outcome of conflicts” The Strait of Hormuz is no longer merely a maritime passage connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea. It has evolved into the strategic fulcrum of global geopolitics — a narrow corridor where military power, energy security, economics, diplomacy, and great-power rivalry converge with dangerous intensity. The fact that in every phase of the US–Iran confrontation, President Trump threatened a ground attack there and then repeatedly postponed it by managing a request from some compliant state to do so indicates the complexity of the military operations there. From sanctions and proxy warfare to naval brinkmanship and drone attacks, one reality has remained constant: whoever influences Hormuz influences the global economy. That is why the Strait has emerged as the decisive factor in any potential US–Iran war. For decades, the United States maintained overwhelming conventional military superiority in the Gulf. Yet Iran, despite sanctions, technological limitations, and economic strain, continues to hold strategic leverage. The reason lies not in comparative firepower but in geography. In strategic affairs, geography often neutralises military asymmetry, and nowhere is this more evident than in the Strait of Hormuz. Geography That Redefined Power The Strait of Hormuz lies between Iran and Oman and serves as the only maritime outlet for most Gulf oil exporters. At its narrowest point, the Strait is barely 33 kilometres wide, while designated shipping lanes are much narrower. Massive oil tankers carrying a substantial percentage of the world’s crude and LNG are forced into confined transit corridors lying dangerously close to the Iranian coastline. Narrow waterways undermine many of the benefits of huge naval fleets, in contrast to open-ocean warfare. Predictable movement patterns and restricted manoeuvre space limit aircraft carriers, destroyers, and sophisticated surveillance systems. In the meantime, swarm tactics, drones, mines, and missiles provide coastal powers a disproportionate edge. This logic has been grasped by Iran. Tehran is aware that it cannot defeat the US Navy in a traditional manner. Instead, its policy concentrates on making marine activities politically dangerous, economically costly, and strategically unclear. Iran's relative inferiority is turned into leverage over much stronger states by the Strait. This is the core of asymmetric warfare: limiting the enemy strategic freedom rather than completely defeating him. Iran’s “Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD)” Strategy The foundation of Iran's military strategy in Hormuz is the A2/AD doctrine. Tehran wants to cause disruption and deterrence rather than full maritime control in and around Hormuz. Its instruments are purposefully low-cost but strategically useful: · Naval mines that have the ability to stop shipping. · Anti-ship missile systems stationed on land that are concealed by mountains. · Swift attack crafts intended for swarm attacks. · Armed drones and loitering munitions. · Small submarines optimised for shallow-water operations. In narrow maritime corridors, these systems become force multipliers. Even a limited attack on one tanker or escort vessel can trigger cascading consequences — rising insurance premiums, panic amongst crews, suspension of shipping traffic, panic in energy markets, and diplomatic escalation. Iran does not need to “close” the Strait physically. It merely needs to create sufficient deterrence to make global commerce hesitate. That distinction is strategically critical. The global economy runs on confidence as much as on oil supply itself. Therefore, perception becomes a weapon. The Limits Imposed on American Power The United States unquestionably retains the ability to destroy Iranian naval assets over time. However, military capability alone does not guarantee strategic success. Hormuz imposes serious operational and political limitations on Washington. First, mine-clearing operations in narrow and contested waters are slow, dangerous, and resource-intensive. Even the most advanced navy cannot instantly secure commercial navigation once mines, drones, and missile threats are active simultaneously. Second, US naval superiority becomes diluted in constrained waters where Iranian coastal batteries enjoy geographical proximity and concealment. American vessels operating in the Gulf remain under persistent surveillance and within missile range from multiple directions. The larger vessels have to pass through a constricted passage where they are extremely vulnerable. Third, every escalation risks wider regional instability. US military planners must account not only for naval operations but also for retaliation against Gulf bases, energy infrastructure, partner nations, and commercial shipping. Iran’s network of regional proxies further complicates escalation management. The most important limitation, however, is political rather than military. The American public and Western allies show limited appetite for another prolonged Middle East conflict. Any extended maritime campaign involving casualties, energy shocks, and rising oil prices would generate domestic political pressure within the United States itself. The most important limitation, however, is political rather than military. The American public and Western allies show limited appetite for another prolonged Middle East conflict. Thus, Hormuz exposes a paradox of modern warfare: a superpower may possess overwhelming firepower yet remain strategically constrained by economics, public opinion, and geopolitical consequences. The World's Energy Lifeline The Strait of Hormuz is traversed by almost one-fifth of the world's petroleum trade. Uninterrupted travel across this tight corridor is crucial for oil shipments from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran. This makes the Strait extremely important on a global scale. A disturbance in Hormuz is no longer a local problem. It turns into a global economic disaster right away. Also Read: US extends sanctions waiver for Russian oil purchases by 30 days amid Hormuz tensions Oil prices surge sharply even during periods of tension without actual closure. Insurance rates for tankers rise dramatically. Freight markets have become erratic. Supplies of LNG are disrupted. Both rich and developing economies are experiencing inflationary pressures. Asia is especially at risk. South Korea, China, Japan, and India all heavily depend on Gulf energy imports. The Strait is a strategic vulnerability as well as an economic one for India. Fuel prices, transportation expenses, budgetary balances, and energy security planning are all directly impacted by any protracted volatility. Due to China's comparable exposure, Hormuz is becoming more closely associated with the larger strategic rivalry between the US and China. Beijing’s growing engagement with Iran reflects not merely diplomatic alignment but also energy security calculations. Beijing’s relative silence stems from the fact that the resilience of President Trump will run out much earlier than they can resolve it. Consequently, Hormuz has become a global geopolitical pressure point rather than merely a regional maritime passage. Also Read: Global internet at risk? Iran targets subsea fiber-optic cables running under Strait of Hormuz Why Hormuz Became the War’s Centre of Gravity In military theory, the “centre of gravity” is the source of power whose disruption decisively affects the conflict. Hormuz fits that definition perfectly. For Iran, the Strait provides strategic deterrence. It signals that any attempt to militarily isolate or economically suffocate Tehran will impose costs upon the entire world economy. For the United States, maintaining freedom of navigation in Hormuz is essential to preserving credibility, alliance assurance, and stability in global energy markets. This creates a dangerous strategic equilibrium. Iran cannot win a conventional war against the United States. Equally, the United States cannot secure a clean and politically inexpensive victory if Hormuz remains contested. Therefore, the conflict evolves into a contest of endurance, signalling, and economic coercion rather than traditional battlefield dominance. In effect, Hormuz compresses strategy, economics, military operations, diplomacy, and psychology into one narrow stretch of water. Also Read: New UAE oil pipeline circumventing Hormuz 50% complete, says CEO Sultan Al Jaber The Broader Global Consequences The consequences go much beyond the Gulf. A protracted Hormuz crisis would hasten changes in the global system that are already apparent: · Diversification of the routes used to supply energy. · Strategic oil reserves are being expanded. · More funding for pipelines that avoid the Gulf. · Increased naval presence in the Indian Ocean by foreign powers. · Increased rivalry for maritime choke points among key powers. Additionally, by pushing nations to lessen their reliance on weak energy transit lines, it would exacerbate the fragmentation of the global economic order. Most importantly, Hormuz demonstrates how regional conflicts now possess immediate global consequences in an interconnected world. It is controlled by Iran, and the resultant blockade by the USA represents a dangerous precedent violating UNCLOS over natural water and the global commons. A drone strike in the Gulf can trigger inflation in Europe, stock volatility in Asia, and political debates in Washington within hours. That is the strategic reality of twenty-first-century geopolitics. https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-war-costs-companies-25bn-globally-1779185761495/embed Conclusion: Geography as Strategic Destiny The Strait of Hormuz has become the decisive factor in any US–Iran war because geography has transformed it into both Iran’s shield and the world’s vulnerability. Iran derives leverage not from parity with the United States, but from its ability to threaten disruption at the world’s most critical energy chokepoint. The United States, despite unmatched military strength, remains constrained by political costs, escalation risks, and global economic repercussions. Hormuz is therefore much more than just a shipping channel. Asymmetric warfare threatens conventional superiority, economics impacts military strategy, and geography restricts power. From a strategic perspective, the Strait of Hormuz is no longer only a waterway. It is now a geopolitical weapon that can affect the future balance of power, international markets, and the outcome of conflicts. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

Why has the Strait of Hormuz become the decisive theatre in the US–Iran conflict? &nbsp;Tehran wants to cause disruption and deterrence rather than full maritime control in and around Hormuz. Oil prices surge sharply even during periods of tension without actual closure.&nbsp;

Hormuz: The narrow waterway holding the world hostage

Women in India are increasingly choosing to remain single. The reasons themselves are not shocking, but surely present a picture of the society we live in. Data shows that India today has an estimated 73 to 74 million single women - comprising never married, divorced, separated or widowed. Marriages in India come with certain expectations, largely from women. For decades, they have played this role while compromising with themselves. However, today, most women are largely independent, not just financially, and they refuse to bow down to societal norms. But since families are still not ready for this change, there is an imbalance. So while men have largely remained in the same place, women have quietly decided to change paths. For them, marriage is no longer a check box that must be ticked. They no longer feel the need to be married to earn the respect of society. &nbsp;Most of them simply don't care since "what would people say" is a fear that is long dead to them. What is causing this profound shift in perspective among young women? WION Decodes.<h2>The Mixed Messages of Modern Upbringing</h2>Until a few decades ago, girls came after the boys of the families. They served them food, ate after them, and sometimes even compromised on their education for the sake of their brothers. But somewhere things changed, and parents stopped differentiating between their sons and daughters. They were afforded every opportunity, be it in education or at home. People started raising their daughters mindfully, telling them they were not less than boys and could achieve anything they put their minds to. Now that this particular group is all grown up, and their upbringing has ensured that they do not rely on a man for anything, here is where the problem begins. "On one side, they are being told they are self-sufficient, independent and can do anything that a man can do. But on the other end, they are being told that their life will not have any meaning if they are not married. That is where the fear of marriage stems, because it puts a question mark on their entire identity," says Navashree.&nbsp;<figure class="image"><img src="https://cdn1.wionews.com/prod/wion/images/2026/20260521/image-1779343930168.png"></figure><h2>How Witnessing Generational Sacrifices Fuels the Fear of Losing Identity</h2>"Being single was never a dramatic declaration or a conscious rebellion for me. It simply made more sense with time than sacrificing my peace, compromising my values, or reshaping my identity to fit into a relationship that did not feel right," says Lahari Basu, who works as a Consultant. What she said is not limited to her. Entering a marriage should not mean having to live your life on someone else's terms, be it the husband or in-laws. Where Indian women lose out the most is when they are expected to change themselves to fit into a pre-existing family where everything remains the same for everyone else.&nbsp;"It all sounds beautiful, the love, the commitment, the forever, until you see how quickly it can strip away the identity she has spent years building. All she is asking for is a marriage that adds to her life rather than dismantling everything she has built for herself," says Snigdha.&nbsp;When rules and practices are shoved down their throat in the name of tradition, it leaves them questioning if their thoughts and opinions even matter. They lose the sense of self and are merely viewed as an intrusive species who dare not speak their mind. For years, women have seen their mothers, grandmothers and others in their families go through it all. "During festivals, my mother is cooking while everyone else is enjoying. Maybe she is doing it out of love, but that likely also happened because of a certain conditioning. But I don't want that for myself," says Navashree.&nbsp;<figure class="image"><img src="https://cdn1.wionews.com/prod/wion/images/2026/20260521/image-1779344162047.png"></figure><h2>Schooled in Independence, Pressured to Comply</h2>As mentioned in the first point, these women were told as young girls that they are important, they matter, they are winners and can do just about anything. This thinking itself is a huge shift from previous generations; it is a massive leap in most families. Today, girls in several families can't even fathom the idea that they are different from boys and that there was a time when the two genders were treated differently. But one thing that hasn't changed is marriage being a compulsion. So now, when the same people tell them they should get married without logical reasoning, it leaves the girls questioning everything they were told.&nbsp;&nbsp;"I have always been told you can do everything alone. I have lived on my own and been away from home for education. But now I am being told I must get married because everyone does it," Navashree says. She says, to her it comes across as something she has to do just because "society wants to see her do it," and not because of "companionship or love." Telling women to do something just to please society also instils fear in them about the institution.&nbsp;Lahari says, “Marriage is a life-altering decision and should be made in one’s best interest — not at the insistence of family, society, or timelines imposed by others. I believe women should marry only when it genuinely feels right to them — and if it never does, that is perfectly valid too.”<h2>Seeking Permission vs. Living on Own Terms: The Fear of Voluntary Compromise</h2>When women think of marriage, they instantly think of compromise, adjustment and loss of freedom. Navashree admits the question of "will it curb my freedom" flashes across her mind the moment someone says marriage. "But if I have been doing everything on my own all my life, if I know that marriage comes at a cost, why would I want to get into it?"The truth is, women unwittingly start to compromise. They start losing friends because they don't have time. And even then, they are constantly left seeking permission. Namita says, "I like living life on my own terms. I want to take care of my parents and enjoy my freedom. It can be challenging at times, but at the end of the day, I’m happy with my decision. I take pride in managing my finances, my health, and being there for my family."&nbsp;Besides, the mental toll of marriage is exhausting and is another way in which the freedom element gets killed. "When men work (job), they just work. But for women, 10 different things are going on in their heads. They have all these decisions to make," says Malvika, a married professional. "Stepping into the house after a long day at work and remembering that you forgot the groceries. Reminding the husband about the PTM at school 20 times so they adjust their schedule. Planning and tracking meals, it's raining, bring in the clothes, it is sunny, put them out, etc., etc. All this never-ending tracking and planning falls on women," she says, adding that “you cannot get away from them.”&nbsp;<figure class="image"><img src="https://cdn1.wionews.com/prod/wion/images/2026/20260521/image-1779344415480.png"></figure><h2>"Just Like My Mother": The Root of Male Privilege in the Modern Household</h2>Male privilege is deeply embedded in men because of their upbringing. While women saw their mothers and said - "Not me", the takeaway for men was - "Just like my mother". They glorified their mothers' sacrifices and struggles and said, "Wow! What a superwoman." Then they applied it to every woman out there, cooking a storm that would one day hit them. Some women try to live up to the expectations, some strongly believe it is their duty, and others see the inherent problem early on and refuse to give in. All of them end up emotionally exhausted.&nbsp;"I have seen far too many women merely survive unhappy marriages. And even those who manage to leave often walk away emotionally bruised, having sacrificed years of their lives, their independence, and sometimes even their sense of self just to escape environments that were never safe or loving to begin with," says Lahari. “What is even more exhausting is the entitlement some men feel simply for being born male.”<h2>The Convenience of Patriarchy: Rejection of a Rigged System</h2>A basic societal structure where the woman ran the house, and the man brought in the money, was presented as justification till a few decades ago. But education has led women into the workforce, where they are spending as much time as men. But in most Indian homes, this is seen as "their choice", which they have to fit in with other things that are non-negotiable. So you do your job, and everything else expected of you as a wife and daughter-in-law. If you can't, that is your problem alone.&nbsp;The inherent exploitation in the system has now become visible to women, but sadly, men still don't see it for what it is. Patriarchy suits them; it gives them hot meals, clean clothes, and a good nap, which leads to a confirmation bias. This is why the dowry system still exists, as it enforces a false sense of superiority in men. Now that the women know that the system is clearly set up against them, why would they knowingly accept an undesirable situation? "I see no reason to romanticise marriage for the sake of appearances or hypothetical 'what ifs.' Love, for me, must grow from friendship, shared values, mutual respect, emotional safety, and genuine companionship — not from pressure, fear, or fantasy," Lahari concluded.<h2>What needs to change</h2>The powerful testimonies of these single women, underscored by the heartbreaking losses of Twisha Sharma and Deepika Nagar, should serve as an urgent wake-up call. It is time for society to radically re-examine how it treats its daughters under the guise of tradition. It is not enough for women to conquer the professional world; they deserve a life where their peace is non-negotiable, and a safe harbour where they can dream and grow without fear.

No one heard them; they refused to alter the system, and so Indian women took their own step. Women in India are increasingly choosing to remain single. I talked to some women to understand the reason behind this profound cultural shift in a society where marriage is non-negotiable.

Women in India are increasingly choosing to remain single. The reasons themselves are not shocking, but surely present a picture of the society we live in. Data shows that India today has an estimated 73 to 74 million single women - comprising never married, divorced, separated or widowed. Marriages in India come with certain expectations, largely from women. For decades, they have played this role while compromising with themselves. However, today, most women are largely independent, not just financially, and they refuse to bow down to societal norms. But since families are still not ready for this change, there is an imbalance. So while men have largely remained in the same place, women have quietly decided to change paths. For them, marriage is no longer a check box that must be ticked. They no longer feel the need to be married to earn the respect of society. Most of them simply don't care since "what would people say" is a fear that is long dead to them. What is causing this profound shift in perspective among young women? WION Decodes. The Mixed Messages of Modern Upbringing Until a few decades ago, girls came after the boys of the families. They served them food, ate after them, and sometimes even compromised on their education for the sake of their brothers. But somewhere things changed, and parents stopped differentiating between their sons and daughters. They were afforded every opportunity, be it in education or at home. People started raising their daughters mindfully, telling them they were not less than boys and could achieve anything they put their minds to. Now that this particular group is all grown up, and their upbringing has ensured that they do not rely on a man for anything, here is where the problem begins. "On one side, they are being told they are self-sufficient, independent and can do anything that a man can do. But on the other end, they are being told that their life will not have any meaning if they are not married. That is where the fear of marriage stems, because it puts a question mark on their entire identity," says Navashree. How Witnessing Generational Sacrifices Fuels the Fear of Losing Identity "Being single was never a dramatic declaration or a conscious rebellion for me. It simply made more sense with time than sacrificing my peace, compromising my values, or reshaping my identity to fit into a relationship that did not feel right," says Lahari Basu, who works as a Consultant. What she said is not limited to her. Entering a marriage should not mean having to live your life on someone else's terms, be it the husband or in-laws. Where Indian women lose out the most is when they are expected to change themselves to fit into a pre-existing family where everything remains the same for everyone else. "It all sounds beautiful, the love, the commitment, the forever, until you see how quickly it can strip away the identity she has spent years building. All she is asking for is a marriage that adds to her life rather than dismantling everything she has built for herself," says Snigdha. When rules and practices are shoved down their throat in the name of tradition, it leaves them questioning if their thoughts and opinions even matter. They lose the sense of self and are merely viewed as an intrusive species who dare not speak their mind. For years, women have seen their mothers, grandmothers and others in their families go through it all. "During festivals, my mother is cooking while everyone else is enjoying. Maybe she is doing it out of love, but that likely also happened because of a certain conditioning. But I don't want that for myself," says Navashree. Schooled in Independence, Pressured to Comply As mentioned in the first point, these women were told as young girls that they are important, they matter, they are winners and can do just about anything. This thinking itself is a huge shift from previous generations; it is a massive leap in most families. Today, girls in several families can't even fathom the idea that they are different from boys and that there was a time when the two genders were treated differently. But one thing that hasn't changed is marriage being a compulsion. So now, when the same people tell them they should get married without logical reasoning, it leaves the girls questioning everything they were told. "I have always been told you can do everything alone. I have lived on my own and been away from home for education. But now I am being told I must get married because everyone does it," Navashree says. She says, to her it comes across as something she has to do just because "society wants to see her do it," and not because of "companionship or love." Telling women to do something just to please society also instils fear in them about the institution. Lahari says, “Marriage is a life-altering decision and should be made in one’s best interest — not at the insistence of family, society, or timelines imposed by others. I believe women should marry only when it genuinely feels right to them — and if it never does, that is perfectly valid too.” Seeking Permission vs. Living on Own Terms: The Fear of Voluntary Compromise When women think of marriage, they instantly think of compromise, adjustment and loss of freedom. Navashree admits the question of "will it curb my freedom" flashes across her mind the moment someone says marriage. "But if I have been doing everything on my own all my life, if I know that marriage comes at a cost, why would I want to get into it?" The truth is, women unwittingly start to compromise. They start losing friends because they don't have time. And even then, they are constantly left seeking permission. Namita says, "I like living life on my own terms. I want to take care of my parents and enjoy my freedom. It can be challenging at times, but at the end of the day, I’m happy with my decision. I take pride in managing my finances, my health, and being there for my family." Besides, the mental toll of marriage is exhausting and is another way in which the freedom element gets killed. "When men work (job), they just work. But for women, 10 different things are going on in their heads. They have all these decisions to make," says Malvika, a married professional. "Stepping into the house after a long day at work and remembering that you forgot the groceries. Reminding the husband about the PTM at school 20 times so they adjust their schedule. Planning and tracking meals, it's raining, bring in the clothes, it is sunny, put them out, etc., etc. All this never-ending tracking and planning falls on women," she says, adding that “you cannot get away from them.” "Just Like My Mother": The Root of Male Privilege in the Modern Household Male privilege is deeply embedded in men because of their upbringing. While women saw their mothers and said - "Not me", the takeaway for men was - "Just like my mother". They glorified their mothers' sacrifices and struggles and said, "Wow! What a superwoman." Then they applied it to every woman out there, cooking a storm that would one day hit them. Some women try to live up to the expectations, some strongly believe it is their duty, and others see the inherent problem early on and refuse to give in. All of them end up emotionally exhausted. "I have seen far too many women merely survive unhappy marriages. And even those who manage to leave often walk away emotionally bruised, having sacrificed years of their lives, their independence, and sometimes even their sense of self just to escape environments that were never safe or loving to begin with," says Lahari. “What is even more exhausting is the entitlement some men feel simply for being born male.” The Convenience of Patriarchy: Rejection of a Rigged System A basic societal structure where the woman ran the house, and the man brought in the money, was presented as justification till a few decades ago. But education has led women into the workforce, where they are spending as much time as men. But in most Indian homes, this is seen as "their choice", which they have to fit in with other things that are non-negotiable. So you do your job, and everything else expected of you as a wife and daughter-in-law. If you can't, that is your problem alone. The inherent exploitation in the system has now become visible to women, but sadly, men still don't see it for what it is. Patriarchy suits them; it gives them hot meals, clean clothes, and a good nap, which leads to a confirmation bias. This is why the dowry system still exists, as it enforces a false sense of superiority in men. Now that the women know that the system is clearly set up against them, why would they knowingly accept an undesirable situation? "I see no reason to romanticise marriage for the sake of appearances or hypothetical 'what ifs.' Love, for me, must grow from friendship, shared values, mutual respect, emotional safety, and genuine companionship — not from pressure, fear, or fantasy," Lahari concluded. What needs to change The powerful testimonies of these single women, underscored by the heartbreaking losses of Twisha Sharma and Deepika Nagar, should serve as an urgent wake-up call. It is time for society to radically re-examine how it treats its daughters under the guise of tradition. It is not enough for women to conquer the professional world; they deserve a life where their peace is non-negotiable, and a safe harbour where they can dream and grow without fear.

No one heard them; they refused to alter the system, and so Indian women took their own step. Women in India are increasingly choosing to remain single. I talked to some women to understand the reason behind this profound cultural shift in a society where marriage is non-negotiable.

Better single than sorry: Why marriage has fallen off the list of priorities of many Indian women

“If we helped your dream and your life a bit by our existence, our music, our performance, our pictures or videos, even if it's not big, if we could reduce your pain from 100 to 99, 98 or 97, that makes our existence worth it.” — RM, Wings Tour Final, December 2017&nbsp;It has been more than a decade since the quiet ambition of seven members grew into something the world still can't get enough of. The journey of K-pop boy band BTS has resonated with thousands of fans worldwide who proudly call themselves the ARMY. The band's journey, their achievements, and their global stardom – it has always felt personal to fans worldwide, including me. And honestly, it is long overdue that I say so.&nbsp;It was one fine sunny morning in 2014, with nothing particularly important going on, that I found BTS on YouTube- my go-to platform for music. The first song to catch my attention was 'We Are Bulletproof Pt. 2', along with the band's dance steps, in a language which I couldn't understand and which was totally alien to me. I had to Google and search for it. Being more curious and listening to more songs of the band, including ‘No More Dream’ and ‘Boy in Luv’, gave me the chance to learn something new. I didn't know then that I was signing up to be part of their fandom forever.&nbsp;Although there are several BTS songs in my playlist, Magic Shop is the one I always go back to. On days when self-doubt and loneliness creep in, or when heartbreak makes everything feel heavy, Magic Shop never fails to lift my mood. There are portions of the lyrics that hit hard every single time — “I want to take away your sadness, your pain. On days when you hate that you are you, on days when you want to disappear forever — let's make a door in your heart.” Open the door and this place will be waiting for you. It is okay to believe; it will comfort you, this Magic Shop." That feeling of BTS sitting with you and listening, healing your troubles at the same time all through a song, is something only an ARMY would truly understand.<h2>The isolation of being an Indian ARMY in 2014</h2>Let me give you a teeny tiny bit of context. In 2014, with me beginning to like BTS's music, no one around me knew what I was even talking about. Although friends would be curious, with most asking, ‘Which language is this?’ 'What are you listening to?' They just didn't get it, despite the viral song Gangnam Style by PSY (which was released in 2012). There was no judgment, just genuine confusion. Korean music, why? But I only ever had one answer: ‘I like listening to them.’ It gives me peace.'&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/world-cup-final-half-time-show-madonna-bts-and-shakira-to-perform-during-a-15-min-break-1778739407211">FIFA World Cup Final Half-Time Show: Madonna, BTS and Shakira to perform during a 15-min break</a><h2>One year in and ‘The Most Beautiful Moment’ happened!</h2>2015 came with BTS, and so did The Most Beautiful Moment in Life, an album that hit me differently from anything before it. Emotional, but happy at the same time. Still in college and still figuring out what I was trying to do in life and who I was, their music helped me understand a bit more about myself and to strive for more. Then came 2016, and with it Wings — in which each member had their own solo track. Lie by Jimin, Stigma by V, Begin by Jungkook, Awake by Jin, First Love by Suga, Reflection by RM, and Mama by J-Hope. Oh yes — not to forget Intro: Boy Meets Evil as the introductory track. Within two years, I saw the fandom growing and the world slowly starting to pay attention. That particular feeling of them finally being acknowledged and receiving the love they deserved is something I will never forget, even today.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bts-mexico-concert-draws-40-000-armys-outside-the-stadium-watch-1778489797570">BTS’ Mexico concert draws 40,000 ARMYs outside the stadium| Watch</a>&nbsp;As mentioned at the beginning, what RM said during the 2017 Wings Tour final stayed with me long after I watched and listened to it on YouTube. I pondered over it and sat with it for a long time. The statement made ARMY realise how their songs have actually helped them in many ways.&nbsp;&nbsp;At the UN General Assembly in 2018, all seven members stood in a room full of world leaders, and RM said, "Speak yourself.” I watched it on my laptop, alone, and became an emotional wreck. Because nobody around me could understand what this moment meant to me, what the journey had been, and how far this was from a dance video on YouTube in 2014. The excitement, the pride, the "do you understand what just happened?" feeling. The concert livestreams were watched at odd hours because of time zones. Trying to explain to people why you were emotional about a Korean pop group standing at the United Nations. Most people around me were curious but still didn't quite get it, and that was okay.&nbsp;&nbsp;Their success has never felt distant to me. Not the Billboard, not Wembley, none of it, because I wasn't watching from outside. I had been on this journey even before it became a journey worth talking about. I had watched every live performance on a screen, stayed up for comeback announcements, and cared about these seven people with a consistency that had outlasted almost everything else from that period of my life.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/football-world-cup-2026-fans-slam-americanified-halftime-show-featuring-bts-shakira-and-madonna-1778822321474">Football World Cup 2026: Fans slam 'Americanified' halftime show featuring BTS, Shakira and Madonna</a>&nbsp;After the release of Proof in 2022, a deep silence and emptiness set in as all seven left for military service. The whole world waited. I waited!&nbsp;&nbsp;After four long years, BTS made a comeback with a bang, releasing their album Arirang, and it has been on loop ever since, be it 'Aliens', 'Normal', 'Into the Sun' or 'One More Night'. All are my favourites.&nbsp;I still have not had the opportunity to witness their live performance. Every concert, so far, has been on a screen. But that made my feelings for the band more intense. Their livestreams, their stadium tours, the award show performances, there is something about experiencing that kind of joy through a screen that never gets old. Every single time felt like the first time.&nbsp;Also Read: &nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/bts-jungkook-among-other-celebrities-targeted-in-fraud-attempt-by-international-hacking-ring-alleged-scammer-extradited-1778735791656">BTS Jungkook among other celebrities targeted in fraud attempt by international hacking ring; alleged scammer extradited</a>&nbsp;Since 2014! More than a decade and still counting. Still watching every live concert video I can find. Still feeling their wins like my own. Still an ARMY. And not for a single moment have I regretted it.

From first discovering BTS on YouTube in 2014 to a decade of eagerly waiting for their every livestream, reality show, concert and comeback- here is why BTS's journey has always felt personal.

“If we helped your dream and your life a bit by our existence, our music, our performance, our pictures or videos, even if it's not big, if we could reduce your pain from 100 to 99, 98 or 97, that makes our existence worth it.” — RM, Wings Tour Final, December 2017 It has been more than a decade since the quiet ambition of seven members grew into something the world still can't get enough of. The journey of K-pop boy band BTS has resonated with thousands of fans worldwide who proudly call themselves the ARMY. The band's journey, their achievements, and their global stardom – it has always felt personal to fans worldwide, including me. And honestly, it is long overdue that I say so. It was one fine sunny morning in 2014, with nothing particularly important going on, that I found BTS on YouTube- my go-to platform for music. The first song to catch my attention was 'We Are Bulletproof Pt. 2', along with the band's dance steps, in a language which I couldn't understand and which was totally alien to me. I had to Google and search for it. Being more curious and listening to more songs of the band, including ‘No More Dream’ and ‘Boy in Luv’, gave me the chance to learn something new. I didn't know then that I was signing up to be part of their fandom forever. Although there are several BTS songs in my playlist, Magic Shop is the one I always go back to. On days when self-doubt and loneliness creep in, or when heartbreak makes everything feel heavy, Magic Shop never fails to lift my mood. There are portions of the lyrics that hit hard every single time — “I want to take away your sadness, your pain. On days when you hate that you are you, on days when you want to disappear forever — let's make a door in your heart.” Open the door and this place will be waiting for you. It is okay to believe; it will comfort you, this Magic Shop." That feeling of BTS sitting with you and listening, healing your troubles at the same time all through a song, is something only an ARMY would truly understand. The isolation of being an Indian ARMY in 2014 Let me give you a teeny tiny bit of context. In 2014, with me beginning to like BTS's music, no one around me knew what I was even talking about. Although friends would be curious, with most asking, ‘Which language is this?’ 'What are you listening to?' They just didn't get it, despite the viral song Gangnam Style by PSY (which was released in 2012). There was no judgment, just genuine confusion. Korean music, why? But I only ever had one answer: ‘I like listening to them.’ It gives me peace.' Also Read: FIFA World Cup Final Half-Time Show: Madonna, BTS and Shakira to perform during a 15-min break One year in and ‘The Most Beautiful Moment’ happened! 2015 came with BTS, and so did The Most Beautiful Moment in Life, an album that hit me differently from anything before it. Emotional, but happy at the same time. Still in college and still figuring out what I was trying to do in life and who I was, their music helped me understand a bit more about myself and to strive for more. Then came 2016, and with it Wings — in which each member had their own solo track. Lie by Jimin, Stigma by V, Begin by Jungkook, Awake by Jin, First Love by Suga, Reflection by RM, and Mama by J-Hope. Oh yes — not to forget Intro: Boy Meets Evil as the introductory track. Within two years, I saw the fandom growing and the world slowly starting to pay attention. That particular feeling of them finally being acknowledged and receiving the love they deserved is something I will never forget, even today. Also Read: BTS’ Mexico concert draws 40,000 ARMYs outside the stadium| Watch As mentioned at the beginning, what RM said during the 2017 Wings Tour final stayed with me long after I watched and listened to it on YouTube. I pondered over it and sat with it for a long time. The statement made ARMY realise how their songs have actually helped them in many ways. At the UN General Assembly in 2018, all seven members stood in a room full of world leaders, and RM said, "Speak yourself.” I watched it on my laptop, alone, and became an emotional wreck. Because nobody around me could understand what this moment meant to me, what the journey had been, and how far this was from a dance video on YouTube in 2014. The excitement, the pride, the "do you understand what just happened?" feeling. The concert livestreams were watched at odd hours because of time zones. Trying to explain to people why you were emotional about a Korean pop group standing at the United Nations. Most people around me were curious but still didn't quite get it, and that was okay. Their success has never felt distant to me. Not the Billboard, not Wembley, none of it, because I wasn't watching from outside. I had been on this journey even before it became a journey worth talking about. I had watched every live performance on a screen, stayed up for comeback announcements, and cared about these seven people with a consistency that had outlasted almost everything else from that period of my life. Also Read: Football World Cup 2026: Fans slam 'Americanified' halftime show featuring BTS, Shakira and Madonna After the release of Proof in 2022, a deep silence and emptiness set in as all seven left for military service. The whole world waited. I waited! After four long years, BTS made a comeback with a bang, releasing their album Arirang, and it has been on loop ever since, be it 'Aliens', 'Normal', 'Into the Sun' or 'One More Night'. All are my favourites. I still have not had the opportunity to witness their live performance. Every concert, so far, has been on a screen. But that made my feelings for the band more intense. Their livestreams, their stadium tours, the award show performances, there is something about experiencing that kind of joy through a screen that never gets old. Every single time felt like the first time. Also Read: BTS Jungkook among other celebrities targeted in fraud attempt by international hacking ring; alleged scammer extradited Since 2014! More than a decade and still counting. Still watching every live concert video I can find. Still feeling their wins like my own. Still an ARMY. And not for a single moment have I regretted it.

From first discovering BTS on YouTube in 2014 to a decade of eagerly waiting for their every livestream, reality show, concert and comeback- here is why BTS' journey has always felt personal.

A decade of BTS: Why every ARMY takes the K-pop boy band's success personally

A crisis is not limited only to an economic slowdown or a shortage of revenue. A crisis means increasing pressure on resources, growing needs of the population, additional burden on infrastructure, and uncertainty in global conditions. In such times, the biggest test before governance is not of its policies, but of its restraint. Because when resources are limited and expectations are limitless, balance itself becomes the biggest proof of good governance. There is no alternative to the prudent use of resources.&nbsp;In any democratic system, a government does not merely formulate policies; it also sets an example. When the top leadership itself demonstrates frugality in its conduct, its impact spreads from the administrative structure to the behaviour of common citizens.Considering the current global crisis arising from the prolonged war in the Middle East, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, inspired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has decided to take steps such as reducing the government fleet, controlling unnecessary travel, and maximising the use of digital media, thereby presenting such an example of financial discipline that will become a model for other states to emulate. Such decisions do not remain merely technical or administrative reforms, but become a cultural message that the state itself is practising restraint.&nbsp;Every single penny of the state treasury accumulated from the hard-earned money of the people is a public asset. Today, when the slowing pace of the world economy and inflation due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East have made a shortage of resources a real challenge for state governments, a reduction in government expenditure is not merely an administrative decision, but a deep moral responsibility.&nbsp;In Uttar Pradesh, the 50 per cent reduction in the fleet of the Chief Minister and ministers, encouragement of the work-from-home culture, discouraging unnecessary purchase of gold, emphasis on the use of PNG, Metro, and public transport, and the initiative to organise government meetings, conferences, and seminars through virtual mediums reflect this moral outlook.&nbsp;This is not merely an exercise in saving money; it is also a new work culture. When the Chief Minister himself conducts conferences virtually, every officer and employee automatically understands that today’s era is digital, and in this era, minimising expenditure on travel, events, and display is not only possible, but necessary as well. This proper use of technology serves multiple objectives simultaneously, saving time and resources and reducing pressure on the environment.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-health-secretary-wes-streeting-resigns-says-he-has-lost-confidence-in-pm-s-leadership-1778761653192">UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting resigns, says he has ‘lost confidence’ in PM’s leadership</a>&nbsp;It would be wrong to think that these measures are only economic. They also have a deep social and psychological dimension. When a common citizen sees that his leader talks about public transport, he begins to view his everyday difficulties differently. When he knows that the hands steering the governance machinery also follow the same principles expected from ordinary citizens, a sense of trust towards the government develops in his mind.&nbsp;That trust is the real strength of democracy. When frugality begins from the top, it naturally flows downward. This is the difference between imposed austerity and austerity adopted voluntarily.&nbsp;During times of crisis, both society and governance are tested. If one turns the pages of history, it becomes evident that the nations which displayed patience, restraint, and collective discipline during adverse circumstances became prosperous and strong in the long run. Whether it is the story of Japan’s recovery or Singapore’s rise, all of them share a common thread.&nbsp;During crises, the government first disciplined itself and only then expected sacrifice from the people. The decisions taken by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath belong to the same tradition. What the Chief Minister has done carries a deep practical impact. The funds saved through a 50 per cent reduction in vehicles can be utilised for the education of a poor child, a village road, or medicines in a hospital.&nbsp;The time and money saved through virtual meetings can be invested in policy-making and implementation. This is not merely a reduction in expenditure; it is a redefinition of priorities. During the COVID period, Uttar Pradesh followed its priorities with patience, and there is no doubt that the state can continue to do so even now.&nbsp;Today, when the younger generation seeks ideals in its leaders, and when the public demands transparency and accountability, such decisions send a positive message. It proves that self-discipline is possible even in politics. In a financial crisis, a responsible government does what a responsible family does: first reduce expenses, then think of ways to increase income.&nbsp;However, it is also a bitter truth that the success of the Chief Minister’s decisions will now depend on how deeply this sentiment permeates the entire administrative machinery. From ministers to clerks, from the Secretariat to the tehsil level, if this resolve of frugality takes the form of a mass movement, then its outcomes will not only be fiscal, but social as well. Such a state will not only become economically stronger, but will also earn the trust of its citizens.&nbsp;It would not be an exaggeration to say that this decision of frugality is not merely an administrative measure; it is a philosophy, a value system. Restraint during crisis, wisdom during adversity, and the resolve to provide limitless service with limited resources.... This is the foundation upon which trustworthy governance stands.&nbsp;When the public sees that its leader first implements tough decisions on himself and only then expects others to follow, people themselves become willing to join that journey.This is the true strength of democracy and also the greatest need of the present time.&nbsp;There is an old saying that the boat which understands its own burden remains steady even during storms. A state, too, is a vast system, and its stability depends upon its balance. If expenditure becomes uncontrolled, it turns into a burden on the system, but if it is controlled and purpose-oriented, it becomes the basis of development, and this is exactly what Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is trying to achieve.&nbsp;(Author Dr Shirish Mishra is a Professor in the Department of Commerce at Central University, Motihari.)&nbsp;------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of WION.

That trust is the real strength of democracy. When frugality begins from the top, it naturally flows downward. This is the difference between imposed austerity and austerity adopted voluntarily.

A crisis is not limited only to an economic slowdown or a shortage of revenue. A crisis means increasing pressure on resources, growing needs of the population, additional burden on infrastructure, and uncertainty in global conditions. In such times, the biggest test before governance is not of its policies, but of its restraint. Because when resources are limited and expectations are limitless, balance itself becomes the biggest proof of good governance. There is no alternative to the prudent use of resources. In any democratic system, a government does not merely formulate policies; it also sets an example. When the top leadership itself demonstrates frugality in its conduct, its impact spreads from the administrative structure to the behaviour of common citizens. Considering the current global crisis arising from the prolonged war in the Middle East, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, inspired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has decided to take steps such as reducing the government fleet, controlling unnecessary travel, and maximising the use of digital media, thereby presenting such an example of financial discipline that will become a model for other states to emulate. Such decisions do not remain merely technical or administrative reforms, but become a cultural message that the state itself is practising restraint. Every single penny of the state treasury accumulated from the hard-earned money of the people is a public asset. Today, when the slowing pace of the world economy and inflation due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East have made a shortage of resources a real challenge for state governments, a reduction in government expenditure is not merely an administrative decision, but a deep moral responsibility. In Uttar Pradesh, the 50 per cent reduction in the fleet of the Chief Minister and ministers, encouragement of the work-from-home culture, discouraging unnecessary purchase of gold, emphasis on the use of PNG, Metro, and public transport, and the initiative to organise government meetings, conferences, and seminars through virtual mediums reflect this moral outlook. This is not merely an exercise in saving money; it is also a new work culture. When the Chief Minister himself conducts conferences virtually, every officer and employee automatically understands that today’s era is digital, and in this era, minimising expenditure on travel, events, and display is not only possible, but necessary as well. This proper use of technology serves multiple objectives simultaneously, saving time and resources and reducing pressure on the environment. Also Read: UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting resigns, says he has ‘lost confidence’ in PM’s leadership It would be wrong to think that these measures are only economic. They also have a deep social and psychological dimension. When a common citizen sees that his leader talks about public transport, he begins to view his everyday difficulties differently. When he knows that the hands steering the governance machinery also follow the same principles expected from ordinary citizens, a sense of trust towards the government develops in his mind. That trust is the real strength of democracy. When frugality begins from the top, it naturally flows downward. This is the difference between imposed austerity and austerity adopted voluntarily. During times of crisis, both society and governance are tested. If one turns the pages of history, it becomes evident that the nations which displayed patience, restraint, and collective discipline during adverse circumstances became prosperous and strong in the long run. Whether it is the story of Japan’s recovery or Singapore’s rise, all of them share a common thread. During crises, the government first disciplined itself and only then expected sacrifice from the people. The decisions taken by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath belong to the same tradition. What the Chief Minister has done carries a deep practical impact. The funds saved through a 50 per cent reduction in vehicles can be utilised for the education of a poor child, a village road, or medicines in a hospital. The time and money saved through virtual meetings can be invested in policy-making and implementation. This is not merely a reduction in expenditure; it is a redefinition of priorities. During the COVID period, Uttar Pradesh followed its priorities with patience, and there is no doubt that the state can continue to do so even now. Today, when the younger generation seeks ideals in its leaders, and when the public demands transparency and accountability, such decisions send a positive message. It proves that self-discipline is possible even in politics. In a financial crisis, a responsible government does what a responsible family does: first reduce expenses, then think of ways to increase income. However, it is also a bitter truth that the success of the Chief Minister’s decisions will now depend on how deeply this sentiment permeates the entire administrative machinery. From ministers to clerks, from the Secretariat to the tehsil level, if this resolve of frugality takes the form of a mass movement, then its outcomes will not only be fiscal, but social as well. Such a state will not only become economically stronger, but will also earn the trust of its citizens. It would not be an exaggeration to say that this decision of frugality is not merely an administrative measure; it is a philosophy, a value system. Restraint during crisis, wisdom during adversity, and the resolve to provide limitless service with limited resources.... This is the foundation upon which trustworthy governance stands. When the public sees that its leader first implements tough decisions on himself and only then expects others to follow, people themselves become willing to join that journey. This is the true strength of democracy and also the greatest need of the present time. There is an old saying that the boat which understands its own burden remains steady even during storms. A state, too, is a vast system, and its stability depends upon its balance. If expenditure becomes uncontrolled, it turns into a burden on the system, but if it is controlled and purpose-oriented, it becomes the basis of development, and this is exactly what Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath is trying to achieve. (Author Dr Shirish Mishra is a Professor in the Department of Commerce at Central University, Motihari.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of WION.

That trust is the real strength of democracy. When frugality begins from the top, it naturally flows downward. This is the difference between imposed austerity and austerity adopted voluntarily.

Yogi emerges as a role model of financial discipline

As India’s recent state election cycle comes to an end, attention is likely to shift once again to the international stage. The forthcoming Quadrilateral Security Dialogue Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in New Delhi, preparations relating to future BRICS Summit engagements, the India–Africa Summit, and a series of high-level diplomatic initiatives involving Prime Minister Narendra Modi, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and other senior ministers are expected to underline India’s expanding global role.&nbsp;At a time when the international system is becoming increasingly fragmented and multipolar, these developments also invite reflection on a larger question: whether India’s own civilisational traditions and strategic culture may offer insights into navigating a more uncertain world order.&nbsp;In recent years, geopolitical debates across many countries have increasingly invoked the language of civilisation and identity. Yet there is an important distinction between using civilisation as an instrument of rivalry and understanding civilisation as a source of strategic and ethical reflection.At its best, civilisational thinking does not encourage triumphalism or cultural confrontation. Rather, it provides deeper frameworks for understanding diplomacy, restraint, legitimacy, coexistence, and the responsible exercise of power.&nbsp;For India, some of these traditions are embedded in texts such as the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and the Tirukkural. While rooted in different historical and cultural contexts, they continue to offer remarkably sophisticated reflections on statecraft, political conduct, leadership, negotiation, ethics, and power.The Mahabharata in particular is far more than an epic of war. It is also a profound meditation on diplomacy, moral ambiguity, political failure, and the tragic consequences of the breakdown of order. Before conflict becomes inevitable, repeated efforts are made to preserve peace through negotiation, compromise, mediation, and restraint.&nbsp;The epic recognises that power is necessary in political life. Yet it also warns that power exercised without wisdom, self-restraint, or ethical purpose can ultimately destroy the very order it seeks to defend. In this sense, the Mahabharata does not romanticise conflict; rather, it portrays the terrible costs that arise when political systems lose the capacity for balance and accommodation.&nbsp;The Ramayana, though different in tone and structure, also places considerable emphasis on legitimacy, ethical leadership, alliances, loyalty, and responsibility. Leadership is presented not merely as authority, but as a moral obligation linked to justice, trust, and social order.&nbsp;Similarly, the Tirukkural offers one of the most concise and sophisticated reflections on governance and ethical conduct in the Indian intellectual tradition. Its observations on prudent leadership, diplomacy, learning, justice, and measured conduct remain strikingly relevant even in contemporary political life.Taken together, these traditions suggest a strategic culture that values:&nbsp;<ul><li>&nbsp;restraint alongside strength</li><li>diplomacy alongside deterrence</li><li>&nbsp;legitimacy alongside power</li><li>and coexistence alongside competition</li></ul>Such ideas may have renewed relevance in an era where international politics is becoming increasingly transactional, polarised, and unstable.For countries such as India, which must simultaneously navigate major power competition, regional instability, economic transformation, and expanding international expectations, strategic maturity will depend not only on material capability but also on intellectual confidence and diplomatic balance. Civilisational frameworks should therefore not be reduced to instruments of geopolitical assertion or cultural rivalry. Used wisely, they can instead serve as intellectual resources that encourage strategic patience, pluralism, restraint, and a more balanced understanding of power and responsibility.&nbsp;As the world moves deeper into a multipolar era, there may be value in revisiting traditions that recognise both the necessity and the limits of power. In that respect, India’s civilisational inheritance may still have an important contribution to make—not only to its own foreign policy thinking, but also to wider global discussions on how states can pursue strength without abandoning restraint, and competition without losing the capacity for coexistence.

At a time when the international system is becoming increasingly fragmented, these developments also invite reflection on a larger question: whether India’s own civilisational traditions and strategic culture may offer insights into navigating a more uncertain world order.

As India’s recent state election cycle comes to an end, attention is likely to shift once again to the international stage. The forthcoming Quadrilateral Security Dialogue Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in New Delhi, preparations relating to future BRICS Summit engagements, the India–Africa Summit, and a series of high-level diplomatic initiatives involving Prime Minister Narendra Modi, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and other senior ministers are expected to underline India’s expanding global role. At a time when the international system is becoming increasingly fragmented and multipolar, these developments also invite reflection on a larger question: whether India’s own civilisational traditions and strategic culture may offer insights into navigating a more uncertain world order. In recent years, geopolitical debates across many countries have increasingly invoked the language of civilisation and identity. Yet there is an important distinction between using civilisation as an instrument of rivalry and understanding civilisation as a source of strategic and ethical reflection. At its best, civilisational thinking does not encourage triumphalism or cultural confrontation. Rather, it provides deeper frameworks for understanding diplomacy, restraint, legitimacy, coexistence, and the responsible exercise of power. For India, some of these traditions are embedded in texts such as the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and the Tirukkural. While rooted in different historical and cultural contexts, they continue to offer remarkably sophisticated reflections on statecraft, political conduct, leadership, negotiation, ethics, and power. The Mahabharata in particular is far more than an epic of war. It is also a profound meditation on diplomacy, moral ambiguity, political failure, and the tragic consequences of the breakdown of order. Before conflict becomes inevitable, repeated efforts are made to preserve peace through negotiation, compromise, mediation, and restraint. The epic recognises that power is necessary in political life. Yet it also warns that power exercised without wisdom, self-restraint, or ethical purpose can ultimately destroy the very order it seeks to defend. In this sense, the Mahabharata does not romanticise conflict; rather, it portrays the terrible costs that arise when political systems lose the capacity for balance and accommodation. The Ramayana, though different in tone and structure, also places considerable emphasis on legitimacy, ethical leadership, alliances, loyalty, and responsibility. Leadership is presented not merely as authority, but as a moral obligation linked to justice, trust, and social order. Similarly, the Tirukkural offers one of the most concise and sophisticated reflections on governance and ethical conduct in the Indian intellectual tradition. Its observations on prudent leadership, diplomacy, learning, justice, and measured conduct remain strikingly relevant even in contemporary political life. Taken together, these traditions suggest a strategic culture that values: restraint alongside strength diplomacy alongside deterrence legitimacy alongside power and coexistence alongside competition Such ideas may have renewed relevance in an era where international politics is becoming increasingly transactional, polarised, and unstable. For countries such as India, which must simultaneously navigate major power competition, regional instability, economic transformation, and expanding international expectations, strategic maturity will depend not only on material capability but also on intellectual confidence and diplomatic balance. Civilisational frameworks should therefore not be reduced to instruments of geopolitical assertion or cultural rivalry. Used wisely, they can instead serve as intellectual resources that encourage strategic patience, pluralism, restraint, and a more balanced understanding of power and responsibility. As the world moves deeper into a multipolar era, there may be value in revisiting traditions that recognise both the necessity and the limits of power. In that respect, India’s civilisational inheritance may still have an important contribution to make—not only to its own foreign policy thinking, but also to wider global discussions on how states can pursue strength without abandoning restraint, and competition without losing the capacity for coexistence.

At a time when the international system is becoming increasingly fragmented, these developments also invite reflection on a larger question: whether India’s own civilisational traditions and strategic culture may offer insights into navigating a more uncertain world order.

Civilisational statecraft and India’s diplomatic tradition in a multipolar world

WASHINGTON - For decades, the United States enjoyed a positive image in much of the world. No longer. Nothing highlights the sharp change in perceptions than a global survey that showed more positive views of China and Russia than America.&nbsp;The survey is an annual exercise commissioned by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, a watchdog group based in Denmark. Its findings were based &nbsp;on polling of more than 94,000 respondents in 85 countries. It is said to be the largest survey of its kind.&nbsp;It was published on May 8 ahead of a Summit on Democracy in Copenhagen next week. Of the countries surveyed, 82 held negative views of the United States.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missiles-and-deals-at-the-same-time-us-iran-war-and-peace-dichotomy-explained-through-history-1778225338623">Missiles and deals at the same time? US-Iran war and peace dichotomy explained through history</a>&nbsp;The results underscore Washington’s disdain of what political scientists call “soft power,” a term coined in the mid-1980s by the late Harvard professor Joseph Nye. His last essay on the subject, published shortly after his death in June 2025, argued that U.S. foreign policy was doomed if America continued to turn its back on soft power.&nbsp;The term defines the ability of a country to influence others by attraction and persuasion rather than coercion, force, or payments .Soft power covers the cultural appeal conveyed by, for example, movies, music and lifestyles. (During the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, American-made blue jeans were prized possessions, soft power tools in a way.)&nbsp;“The fast decline of the United States’ perception around the world is saddening but not shocking,” former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters when he presented the survey results.&nbsp;He added: “U.S. 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 U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeatedly stated intention to take control of Greenland.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-dismisses-iranian-attack-on-three-us-warships-as-a-trifle-insists-ceasefire-still-in-place-1778205065513">Trump dismisses Iranian attack on three US warships in Strait of Hormuz as 'a trifle,' insists ceasefire still in place</a>&nbsp;Add the painful economic impact resulting from the war on Iran Trump launched on February 28, and it is easy to understand why Rasmussen said the unprecedented decline of &nbsp;views of America was “not shocking.”&nbsp;Iran responded to devastating waves of air and missile strikes on 13,000 targets, from military installations to suspected nuclear facilities, by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway which carries twenty percent of the world’s oil, gas &nbsp;and fertilisers. &nbsp;The initial attack killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and most of his senior aides. &nbsp;&nbsp;The war is now in its third month and indirect negotiations, brokered by Pakistan, have not been successful. The U.S. is clearly not as skilled in diplomacy and negotiations as it is in using its overwhelming military might.&nbsp;Soft power has been a topic of concern among the foreign policy community for years but it has taken on urgency since the Donald Trump’s first term in office from 2017 to 2021 when he described the European Union as a “foe.” &nbsp;&nbsp;His habit of breaking long-established norms of international relations gathered momentum since he began his second term in January 2025. Now, the expression “soft power suicide” tends to crop up in conversations about where the United States is going.&nbsp;In an insightful essay in Foreign Policy magazine, an influential publication widely read by experts, Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard, argued that &nbsp;“the United States has given up one of its core international strengths.” &nbsp;&nbsp;Walt noted that one of the most striking features of the Trump administration is its “absolute confidence in America’s hard power.” No other country can match America’s military might or the awe-inspiring skills of special forces that were on display in the operation to abduct the Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife on January 3.&nbsp;They were flown to New York to face charges of drug smuggling. Maduro was replaced by his deputy, Delcy Rodriguez. She soon made clear she would follow policies acceptable to Trump. The U.S. promptly re-opened its embassy in Caracas.&nbsp;The success of the Maduro raid apparently convinced Trump that killing Iran’s Supreme Leader and almost all of the top leadership would result in a regime that would bend to his will. He was wrong. Ayatollah Khomeini was replaced by his son, Mojtaba Khomeini.&nbsp;He is considered more hardline and inflexible than his father and the prospect of finding an Iranian equivalent of Delcy Rodriguez is remote. &nbsp;&nbsp;Now, Iranian officials say Washington and Tehran are debating a one-page U.S. proposal for the two sides to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin a 30-day truce to give time for negotiations on a comprehensive deal to end the war. Iran has yet to respond.&nbsp;Walt’s essay echoed a point shared by many critics of &nbsp;U.S. over-reliance on military power, a historic trend which failed to end in victory in the long wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan.&nbsp;“What’s puzzling is that administration officials don’t recognise what’s happening,” he wrote. “Do they not understand…that treating the use of force as an act to be celebrated is going to make other countries less willing to work with an erratic, vengeful and potentially threatening America?&nbsp;“Haven’t they ever heard the old adage that “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”? &nbsp;&nbsp;It’s no surprise that in the survey by the Alliance of Democracy Foundation, the United States was most frequently named in response to which country posed the greatest threat to the world, after Russia and Israel. &nbsp;&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

Soft power has been a topic of concern among the foreign policy community for years but it has taken on urgency since the Donald Trump’s first term in office from 2017 to 2021 when he described the European Union as a “foe.”  

WASHINGTON - For decades, the United States enjoyed a positive image in much of the world. No longer. Nothing highlights the sharp change in perceptions than a global survey 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 based on polling of more than 94,000 respondents in 85 countries. It is said to be the largest survey of its kind. It was published on May 8 ahead of a Summit on Democracy in Copenhagen next week. Of the countries surveyed, 82 held negative views of the United States. Also read | Missiles and deals at the same time? US-Iran war and peace dichotomy explained through history The results underscore Washington’s disdain of what political scientists call “soft power,” a term coined in the mid-1980s by the late Harvard professor Joseph Nye. His last essay on the subject, published shortly after his death in June 2025, argued that U.S. foreign policy was doomed if America continued to turn its back on soft power. The term defines the ability of a country to influence others by attraction and persuasion rather than coercion, force, or payments .Soft power covers the cultural appeal conveyed by, for example, movies, music and lifestyles. (During the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, American-made blue jeans were prized possessions, soft power tools in a way.) “The fast decline of the United States’ perception around the world is saddening but not shocking,” former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters when he presented the survey results. He added: “U.S. 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 U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeatedly stated intention to take control of Greenland. Also read | Trump dismisses Iranian attack on three US warships in Strait of Hormuz as 'a trifle,' insists ceasefire still in place Add the painful economic impact resulting from the war on Iran Trump launched on February 28, and it is easy to understand why Rasmussen said the unprecedented decline of views of America was “not shocking.” Iran responded to devastating waves of air and missile strikes on 13,000 targets, from military installations to suspected nuclear facilities, by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway which carries twenty percent of the world’s oil, gas and fertilisers. The initial attack killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and most of his senior aides. The war is now in its third month and indirect negotiations, brokered by Pakistan, have not been successful. The U.S. is clearly not as skilled in diplomacy and negotiations as it is in using its overwhelming military might. Soft power has been a topic of concern among the foreign policy community for years but it has taken on urgency since the Donald Trump’s first term in office from 2017 to 2021 when he described the European Union as a “foe.” His habit of breaking long-established norms of international relations gathered momentum since he began his second term in January 2025. Now, the expression “soft power suicide” tends to crop up in conversations about where the United States is going. In an insightful essay in Foreign Policy magazine, an influential publication widely read by experts, Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard, argued that “the United States has given up one of its core international strengths.” Walt noted that one of the most striking features of the Trump administration is its “absolute confidence in America’s hard power.” No other country can match America’s military might or the awe-inspiring skills of special forces that were on display in the operation to abduct the Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife on January 3. They were flown to New York to face charges of drug smuggling. Maduro was replaced by his deputy, Delcy Rodriguez. She soon made clear she would follow policies acceptable to Trump. The U.S. promptly re-opened its embassy in Caracas. The success of the Maduro raid apparently convinced Trump that killing Iran’s Supreme Leader and almost all of the top leadership would result in a regime that would bend to his will. He was wrong. Ayatollah Khomeini was replaced by his son, Mojtaba Khomeini. He is considered more hardline and inflexible than his father and the prospect of finding an Iranian equivalent of Delcy Rodriguez is remote. Now, Iranian officials say Washington and Tehran are debating a one-page U.S. proposal for the two sides to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin a 30-day truce to give time for negotiations on a comprehensive deal to end the war. Iran has yet to respond. Walt’s essay echoed a point shared by many critics of U.S. over-reliance on military power, a historic trend which failed to end in victory in the long wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. “What’s puzzling is that administration officials don’t recognise what’s happening,” he wrote. “Do they not understand…that treating the use of force as an act to be celebrated is going to make other countries less willing to work with an erratic, vengeful and potentially threatening America? “Haven’t they ever heard the old adage that “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”? It’s no surprise that in the survey by the Alliance of Democracy Foundation, the United States was most frequently named in response to which country posed the greatest threat to the world, after Russia and Israel. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

Soft power has been a topic of concern among the foreign policy community for years but it has taken on urgency since the Donald Trump’s first term in office from 2017 to 2021 when he described the European Union as a “foe.” &nbsp;

Trump 2.0: The world’s military giant is losing the global soft power contest

Indian newsrooms changed ever since the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22, 2025. The mood shifted. Shock, reflection, and anticipation of India's response replaced the usual noise and debates. A heaviness in the air was palpable when the enormity of the event became apparent by the evening: 26 innocent civilians were killed in one of the deadliest terror attacks in India. Horrifying images and survivor accounts trickled from the remote hill station, first through social media and then turned into a flood that filled Indian screens and devices. As someone shared on social media with the image of a woman sitting near her dead husband, it was 'All Eyes on Pahalgam'. The terror attack dominated every discussion in the subsequent days.&nbsp;Who were the attackers? How did they infiltrate? And the lingering question was: How and when would India respond? And if it did, how big would that response be?Even while reporting on the attack calmly, one could sense the anger building across the country. In the first week of May, signs started appearing of India's massive response to Pakistan-based terrorism. Mock drills. Civil defence rehearsals. Blackout exercises. Increased military chatter. Unusual troop movements along the border.Inside the newsroom, the conversations shifted from 'will India respond' to 'when will India respond'. Nobody said it loudly, but everybody knew it was just a matter of time. All of us could feel it:&nbsp;something was coming.&nbsp;Suddenly, every news alert felt important. Every defence source message was read twice. We were glued to the screens and refreshing our social media feeds to find out and break the news first on the developments along the border. Defence beat reporters barely slept for days. Anticipation was building in the newsroom, as India waited for the moment of closure, which was already decided somewhere behind closed doors. On the intervening night of May 6-7, just after midnight, something stirred, and nobody in the newsroom was thinking of going home. Around 1 AM, the first confirmation came in. India had launched strikes targeting the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. Phones ringing, keyboards clacking, TV anchors screaming, breaking news, and fiery graphics filling the screens.&nbsp;This is no longer a speculation. This is not a drill. This is, Operation Sindoor. We were not just reporting news. We were writing history. As it unfolded in real time before our eyes. The phrase 'Operation Sindoor' took over every screen in the newsroom. Anchors rushed back to studios. Producers rewrote rundowns. Guests were patched in from the wee hours into daybreak and more. Graphics teams scrambled for maps and timelines.&nbsp;The Indian Army posted three words on social media that instantly spread across every newsroom, every television screen, and every Indian phone that night: 'Justice is served'. Those words changed the feeling inside the newsroom. For days, we had covered funerals, mourning families, and unanswered questions after Pahalgam.But now, for the first time since April 22, there was a sense that India had answered. The following days were about making sense of the chaos.&nbsp;Daily press briefings. Drone and missile strikes caught on shaky social media footage. Grainy satellite images. Border shelling updates from Jammu and Kashmir and other areas. Air defence systems activated. Global reactions. Nuclear escalation fears amid reports of missile strikes near some strategic Pakistani facilities. Claims and counterclaims from Pakistan. Misinformation. Disinformation. Propaganda from the neighbouring country masquerading as news.&nbsp;Every few minutes brought another 'breaking' update. Somewhere amid all the noise, exhaustion disappeared. These were not ordinary days and nights for a newsperson. Adrenaline had kicked in. Shift timings did not matter anymore. The whole war was one single shift. Nobody looked away from their screens because deep down, every journalist knew they were covering one of the biggest stories of the year, maybe even of the decade.&nbsp;In the media field, we are taught to stay detached from the story. But some nights make that impossible. Operation Sindoor was one of them. It was felt in the guts. And reported from the hearts.&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.

Operation Sindoor explained: From the Pahalgam terror attack to India’s midnight precision strikes, border firing, mock drills, and nuclear war fears — here’s the complete story of India’s 2025 military response against terror

Indian newsrooms changed ever since the Pahalgam terror attack of April 22, 2025. The mood shifted. Shock, reflection, and anticipation of India's response replaced the usual noise and debates. A heaviness in the air was palpable when the enormity of the event became apparent by the evening: 26 innocent civilians were killed in one of the deadliest terror attacks in India. Horrifying images and survivor accounts trickled from the remote hill station, first through social media and then turned into a flood that filled Indian screens and devices. As someone shared on social media with the image of a woman sitting near her dead husband, it was 'All Eyes on Pahalgam'. The terror attack dominated every discussion in the subsequent days. Who were the attackers? How did they infiltrate? And the lingering question was: How and when would India respond? And if it did, how big would that response be? Even while reporting on the attack calmly, one could sense the anger building across the country. In the first week of May, signs started appearing of India's massive response to Pakistan-based terrorism. Mock drills. Civil defence rehearsals. Blackout exercises. Increased military chatter. Unusual troop movements along the border. Inside the newsroom, the conversations shifted from 'will India respond' to 'when will India respond'. Nobody said it loudly, but everybody knew it was just a matter of time. All of us could feel it: something was coming. Suddenly, every news alert felt important. Every defence source message was read twice. We were glued to the screens and refreshing our social media feeds to find out and break the news first on the developments along the border. Defence beat reporters barely slept for days. Anticipation was building in the newsroom, as India waited for the moment of closure, which was already decided somewhere behind closed doors. On the intervening night of May 6-7, just after midnight, something stirred, and nobody in the newsroom was thinking of going home. Around 1 AM, the first confirmation came in. India had launched strikes targeting the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. Phones ringing, keyboards clacking, TV anchors screaming, breaking news, and fiery graphics filling the screens. This is no longer a speculation. This is not a drill. This is, Operation Sindoor. We were not just reporting news. We were writing history. As it unfolded in real time before our eyes. The phrase 'Operation Sindoor' took over every screen in the newsroom. Anchors rushed back to studios. Producers rewrote rundowns. Guests were patched in from the wee hours into daybreak and more. Graphics teams scrambled for maps and timelines. The Indian Army posted three words on social media that instantly spread across every newsroom, every television screen, and every Indian phone that night: 'Justice is served'. Those words changed the feeling inside the newsroom. For days, we had covered funerals, mourning families, and unanswered questions after Pahalgam. But now, for the first time since April 22, there was a sense that India had answered. The following days were about making sense of the chaos. Daily press briefings. Drone and missile strikes caught on shaky social media footage. Grainy satellite images. Border shelling updates from Jammu and Kashmir and other areas. Air defence systems activated. Global reactions. Nuclear escalation fears amid reports of missile strikes near some strategic Pakistani facilities. Claims and counterclaims from Pakistan. Misinformation. Disinformation. Propaganda from the neighbouring country masquerading as news. Every few minutes brought another 'breaking' update. Somewhere amid all the noise, exhaustion disappeared. These were not ordinary days and nights for a newsperson. Adrenaline had kicked in. Shift timings did not matter anymore. The whole war was one single shift. Nobody looked away from their screens because deep down, every journalist knew they were covering one of the biggest stories of the year, maybe even of the decade. In the media field, we are taught to stay detached from the story. But some nights make that impossible. Operation Sindoor was one of them. It was felt in the guts. And reported from the hearts. 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.

Operation Sindoor, launched on May 7, 2025, by the Indian Armed Forces, marked India’s powerful response to the Pahalgam terror attack

Operation Sindoor in the newsroom: Covering history in sleepless nights

As tensions persist between the United States and China, and global conflicts continue across regions from Europe to the Middle East, the international system is becoming increasingly fragmented and unpredictable. As states prepare for intensified diplomatic engagements, including the forthcoming Quadrilateral Security Dialogue Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in New Delhi, questions of strategic alignment, deterrence, and the management of competition are becoming central to global diplomacy. In such a world, the central challenge for states is no longer simply how to dominate the international system, but how to navigate uncertainty, manage shifting alignments, and avoid strategic overreach. It is in this context that the experience of the Byzantine Empire becomes relevant once again. Strategy under constant pressure For centuries, Byzantium operated in a highly contested environment—surrounded by rival powers, shifting coalitions, and recurring crises. Its survival was not based on overwhelming military dominance, but on the careful integration of diplomacy, intelligence, calibrated force, and strategic patience. Modern interpretations of Byzantine strategy, including the work of Edward Luttwak, emphasise a central insight: in unstable systems, survival depends less on raw power and more on how effectively power is applied. Force as a last instrument, not a first option Byzantium rarely relied on direct confrontation when alternatives existed. It understood that war with equal or superior rivals was often costly and strategically unnecessary. Instead, it used: * delay * negotiation * selective engagement * and political fragmentation of adversaries Military force was not absent, but it was carefully rationed and deployed only when outcomes could be shaped decisively. This reflects a broader strategic principle: in fragmented systems, restraint can be as powerful as force.&nbsp;<ul><li>Diplomacy as a tool of strategic design Byzantine diplomacy was not passive—it was an active instrument of statecraft. Alliances were fluid and constantly adjusted. Rivals were managed rather than always confronted directly. External relationships were structured to prevent the consolidation of hostile coalitions. In many cases, the objective was not to eliminate adversaries, but to ensure they remained divided, constrained, or strategically balanced. This logic resonates strongly in today’s international environment, where alignments are increasingly fluid and issue-based. Intelligence, influence, and perception A critical but less visible dimension of Byzantine strategy was its deep investment in information and intelligence. The empire built extensive networks to: * assess adversaries * understand internal weaknesses * and shape external perceptions Influence was often exercised indirectly, through calibrated messaging and strategic communication rather than overt force. In the modern world—where information and perception are central to geopolitics—this dimension is particularly relevant. Calibrated use of force When Byzantium did use military power, it did so with precision and constraint. Force was: * limited in scope * focused on specific objectives * integrated with diplomacy and political strategy The aim was not total victory at all costs, but stability, balance, and the avoidance of unnecessary escalation. This distinction remains critical in contemporary geopolitics, where escalation control is often as important as deterrence itself. Relevance for today’s international system The modern world increasingly reflects conditions similar to those Byzantium faced: * multiple power centres * shifting alliances * persistent regional conflicts * and institutional uncertainty In such an environment, states must balance deterrence with diplomacy, and capability with restraint. For countries such as India, China, and the United States, the challenge is not only to accumulate power, but to deploy it in ways that preserve strategic autonomy while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Byzantine strategy does not offer a blueprint, but it offers a lens: adaptability matters more than rigidity, calibration more than overreach, and management of complexity more than dominance. Conclusion In an increasingly fragmented international system, success may depend less on overwhelming strength and more on the ability to combine power with patience, diplomacy with deterrence, and ambition with restraint. That may be the most enduring lesson the Byzantine experience offers the modern world. 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.</li></ul>

Byzantium rarely relied on direct confrontation when alternatives existed. It understood that war with equal or superior rivals was often costly and strategically unnecessary.

As tensions persist between the United States and China, and global conflicts continue across regions from Europe to the Middle East, the international system is becoming increasingly fragmented and unpredictable. As states prepare for intensified diplomatic engagements, including the forthcoming Quadrilateral Security Dialogue Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in New Delhi, questions of strategic alignment, deterrence, and the management of competition are becoming central to global diplomacy. In such a world, the central challenge for states is no longer simply how to dominate the international system, but how to navigate uncertainty, manage shifting alignments, and avoid strategic overreach. It is in this context that the experience of the Byzantine Empire becomes relevant once again. Strategy under constant pressure For centuries, Byzantium operated in a highly contested environment—surrounded by rival powers, shifting coalitions, and recurring crises. Its survival was not based on overwhelming military dominance, but on the careful integration of diplomacy, intelligence, calibrated force, and strategic patience. Modern interpretations of Byzantine strategy, including the work of Edward Luttwak, emphasise a central insight: in unstable systems, survival depends less on raw power and more on how effectively power is applied. Force as a last instrument, not a first option Byzantium rarely relied on direct confrontation when alternatives existed. It understood that war with equal or superior rivals was often costly and strategically unnecessary. Instead, it used: * delay * negotiation * selective engagement * and political fragmentation of adversaries Military force was not absent, but it was carefully rationed and deployed only when outcomes could be shaped decisively. This reflects a broader strategic principle: in fragmented systems, restraint can be as powerful as force. Diplomacy as a tool of strategic design Byzantine diplomacy was not passive—it was an active instrument of statecraft. Alliances were fluid and constantly adjusted. Rivals were managed rather than always confronted directly. External relationships were structured to prevent the consolidation of hostile coalitions. In many cases, the objective was not to eliminate adversaries, but to ensure they remained divided, constrained, or strategically balanced. This logic resonates strongly in today’s international environment, where alignments are increasingly fluid and issue-based. Intelligence, influence, and perception A critical but less visible dimension of Byzantine strategy was its deep investment in information and intelligence. The empire built extensive networks to: * assess adversaries * understand internal weaknesses * and shape external perceptions Influence was often exercised indirectly, through calibrated messaging and strategic communication rather than overt force. In the modern world—where information and perception are central to geopolitics—this dimension is particularly relevant. Calibrated use of force When Byzantium did use military power, it did so with precision and constraint. Force was: * limited in scope * focused on specific objectives * integrated with diplomacy and political strategy The aim was not total victory at all costs, but stability, balance, and the avoidance of unnecessary escalation. This distinction remains critical in contemporary geopolitics, where escalation control is often as important as deterrence itself. Relevance for today’s international system The modern world increasingly reflects conditions similar to those Byzantium faced: * multiple power centres * shifting alliances * persistent regional conflicts * and institutional uncertainty In such an environment, states must balance deterrence with diplomacy, and capability with restraint. For countries such as India, China, and the United States, the challenge is not only to accumulate power, but to deploy it in ways that preserve strategic autonomy while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Byzantine strategy does not offer a blueprint, but it offers a lens: adaptability matters more than rigidity, calibration more than overreach, and management of complexity more than dominance. Conclusion In an increasingly fragmented international system, success may depend less on overwhelming strength and more on the ability to combine power with patience, diplomacy with deterrence, and ambition with restraint. That may be the most enduring lesson the Byzantine experience offers the modern world. 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.

Byzantium rarely relied on direct confrontation when alternatives existed. It understood that war with equal or superior rivals was often costly and strategically unnecessary.

Byzantine Strategy and the Art of Survival in a Fragmented World

Sometimes a single project can change the entire story of a region. India's Great Nicobar Island Development Project is exactly that kind of moment. This massive $10 billion plan is set to turn India's southernmost island into a powerful business and military hub, and experts believe it could shake up the balance of power across the Indo-Pacific region.To understand why this project is such a big deal, we have to first look at the map. The Great Nicobar Island sits very close to the Malacca Strait, one of the busiest sea routes in the world. Think of the Malacca Strait as a narrow gate between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Almost every ship carrying oil, gas, and goods to East Asia passes through this gate. China, in particular, depends heavily on this route, with a huge share of its oil and trade flowing through it. This dependence is so worrying for Beijing that strategists call it the "Malacca dilemma."Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/strait-of-hormuz-alert-us-reroutes-global-shipping-to-omani-waters-to-avoid-iranian-minefields-1778049002177">Strait of Hormuz alert: US reroutes global shipping to Omani waters to avoid Iranian 'minefields'</a>Now imagine India sitting right at the doorstep of this gate. That is exactly what Great Nicobar offers. By developing this island, India gets the power to watch, monitor, and if needed, influence the movement of ships through this critical passage. For China, this is not good news. Their entire trade lifeline can be observed from a distance.The Andaman and Nicobar Islands stretch for nearly 700 kilometres, almost like a natural wall placed at the entry of the Malacca Strait. Defence experts often say these islands act like a "natural aircraft carrier" for India. Great Nicobar, being the last island in this chain, is located almost equally close to Singapore, Port Klang in Malaysia, and Colombo in Sri Lanka. This means India can compete with these foreign ports and reduce its dependence on them for shifting cargo.The benefits go far beyond the military side. The project plans to build a major port, an airport, a power plant, and a full township on the island. Once ready, it can attract international shipping traffic, generate thousands of jobs, and bring better road, sea, and air connectivity to the region. It can also become a strong trade and logistics hub, supporting India's long-term plan of becoming a serious maritime power.There is also a bigger picture here. India has been working hard to expand its presence in the Indo-Pacific region, especially as China keeps building ports and bases in countries around the Indian Ocean, often called the "String of Pearls" strategy. With Great Nicobar, India answers this move with its own strong base, placed in a location China cannot easily counter.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jalandhar-blast-khalistan-liberation-army-claims-responsibility-threatens-to-shed-so-much-blood-that-everything-will-look-red-1778040143835">Jalandhar blast: KLA claims responsibility for explosion near BSF HQ</a>The project has not been smooth sailing. Environmental groups have raised concerns about the impact on rainforests, coral reefs, and tribal communities living on the island. Taking these issues seriously, the National Green Tribunal has cleared the project, but with strict environmental conditions. The government has been told to protect biodiversity and the rights of local tribes while moving ahead.According to a report by Hindol Sengupta in The Sunday Guardian, this project could seriously challenge China's maritime strategy by giving India tighter control over key sea lanes in the Indo-Pacific. In simple words, if any conflict ever arises, India would have a very strong card to play right at China's most sensitive chokepoint.The message is clear. Great Nicobar is not just about building roads and ports on a faraway island. It is about India taking its rightful place in global trade and security. It is about making sure that the seas around our country remain safe, open, and under our own watchful eye. If carried out well, this could become one of the boldest and smartest moves India has made in decades — quietly turning a tiny island into the country's biggest geopolitical asset.&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

The massive $10 billion Great Nicobar Island Development Project plan is set to turn India's southernmost island into a powerful business and military hub, and experts believe it could shake up the balance of power across the Indo-Pacific region.

Sometimes a single project can change the entire story of a region. India's Great Nicobar Island Development Project is exactly that kind of moment. This massive $10 billion plan is set to turn India's southernmost island into a powerful business and military hub, and experts believe it could shake up the balance of power across the Indo-Pacific region. To understand why this project is such a big deal, we have to first look at the map. The Great Nicobar Island sits very close to the Malacca Strait, one of the busiest sea routes in the world. Think of the Malacca Strait as a narrow gate between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Almost every ship carrying oil, gas, and goods to East Asia passes through this gate. China, in particular, depends heavily on this route, with a huge share of its oil and trade flowing through it. This dependence is so worrying for Beijing that strategists call it the "Malacca dilemma." Also read | Strait of Hormuz alert: US reroutes global shipping to Omani waters to avoid Iranian 'minefields' Now imagine India sitting right at the doorstep of this gate. That is exactly what Great Nicobar offers. By developing this island, India gets the power to watch, monitor, and if needed, influence the movement of ships through this critical passage. For China, this is not good news. Their entire trade lifeline can be observed from a distance. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands stretch for nearly 700 kilometres, almost like a natural wall placed at the entry of the Malacca Strait. Defence experts often say these islands act like a "natural aircraft carrier" for India. Great Nicobar, being the last island in this chain, is located almost equally close to Singapore, Port Klang in Malaysia, and Colombo in Sri Lanka. This means India can compete with these foreign ports and reduce its dependence on them for shifting cargo. The benefits go far beyond the military side. The project plans to build a major port, an airport, a power plant, and a full township on the island. Once ready, it can attract international shipping traffic, generate thousands of jobs, and bring better road, sea, and air connectivity to the region. It can also become a strong trade and logistics hub, supporting India's long-term plan of becoming a serious maritime power. There is also a bigger picture here. India has been working hard to expand its presence in the Indo-Pacific region, especially as China keeps building ports and bases in countries around the Indian Ocean, often called the "String of Pearls" strategy. With Great Nicobar, India answers this move with its own strong base, placed in a location China cannot easily counter. Also read | Jalandhar blast: KLA claims responsibility for explosion near BSF HQ The project has not been smooth sailing. Environmental groups have raised concerns about the impact on rainforests, coral reefs, and tribal communities living on the island. Taking these issues seriously, the National Green Tribunal has cleared the project, but with strict environmental conditions. The government has been told to protect biodiversity and the rights of local tribes while moving ahead. According to a report by Hindol Sengupta in The Sunday Guardian, this project could seriously challenge China's maritime strategy by giving India tighter control over key sea lanes in the Indo-Pacific. In simple words, if any conflict ever arises, India would have a very strong card to play right at China's most sensitive chokepoint. The message is clear. Great Nicobar is not just about building roads and ports on a faraway island. It is about India taking its rightful place in global trade and security. It is about making sure that the seas around our country remain safe, open, and under our own watchful eye. If carried out well, this could become one of the boldest and smartest moves India has made in decades — quietly turning a tiny island into the country's biggest geopolitical asset. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

&nbsp;The massive $10 billion Great Nicobar Island Development Project plan is set to turn India's southernmost island into a powerful business and military hub, and experts believe it could shake up the balance of power across the Indo-Pacific region.

India's bold Nicobar development counters China's String of Pearls

The “Jhal” (spice) hit the Trinamool Congress, while “Muri” (puffed rice) brought all potential electoral nutrients for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Mamata Banerjee dubbed it “drama” when Narendra Modi made an unscheduled stop to eat Jhalmuri, famous street snack, during his poll campaign, but that TMC-labelled “drama” now appears to have turned into a political juggernaut—one that has enabled the BJP to trounce the Trinamool Congress, scripting saffron history in Bengal and putting it on course to form its first government in the state since Independence, as the Trinamool stares at defeat after 15 years in power. The final numbers of West Bengal Assembly elections signals a seismic political shift; this comes in the first election following a record voter deletion under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and amid high turnout exceeding 90 per cent in the early phases.&nbsp;Over 15 years ago, Mamata Banerjee rode to power on the emotive slogan of “Ma, Mati, Manush”, ending 34 years of Left Front rule. That promise of change swept her to three straight victories. But in 2026, the wind seems to have changed direction. Five potent forces — perceived minority appeasement, women’s safety concerns, economic discontent, internal party fissures, and a resurgent BJP machinery — have combined to challenge TMC’s dominance.&nbsp;Here are five key reasons that appear to have brought the curtains down on Trinamool hegemony:<h2>Mounting Anti-Incumbency, Governance Fatigue</h2>&nbsp;Fifteen years in power bred deep anti-incumbency. What began as a wave of hope gradually gave way to widespread frustration over “syndicate raj” and “cut-money” culture. Voters complained that everyday life — from getting a job to accessing welfare schemes — was marred by middlemen and political patronage. The high voter turnout reflected not just enthusiasm but accumulated anger against a system that many felt had become unresponsive and arrogant. Promises of poriborton (change) rang hollow as people saw little improvement on the ground in employment and public service delivery.<h2>Corruption Scandals Eroding Public Trust</h2>&nbsp;A string of high-profile scams dented TMC’s image beyond repair. The school recruitment scandal involving former minister Partha Chatterjee became a symbol of systemic rot, with allegations of massive irregularities in appointments. Critics pointed to multiple sectors where alleged financial misdeeds surfaced, painting a picture of entrenched corruption. Opposition campaigns, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders, repeatedly highlighted these issues, framing them as loot of Bengal’s resources. These scandals turned what should have been governance debates into questions of basic integrity, alienating even traditional supporters.<h2>Women’s Safety Concerns: Sandeshkhali, RG Kar as Turning Points</h2>Incidents like Sandeshkhali, where serious allegations of sexual violence and land grabbing by TMC local leaders emerged, struck a raw nerve, especially among women voters. The RG Kar medical college case further amplified fears about women’s safety under the regime. What was once TMC’s stronghold — the “Mahila” vote — showed signs of cracking. Many women, who had benefited from welfare schemes, appeared to weigh personal security and dignity higher. The BJP’s sharp focus on these issues during the campaign appears to have resonated deeply, converting outrage into votes and neutralising TMC’s traditional gender outreach.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/tamil-nadu-election-results-2026-winners-who-won-who-lost-full-list-of-constituency-wise-results-1777871942459">Tamil Nadu Election Results 2026 Winners: Who won, who lost</a><h2>Economic Grievances, Industrial Exodus</h2>&nbsp;Bengal’s economic decline under TMC rule became a major talking point. Reports suggested that over 6,700 companies had relocated or shut operations between 2011 and March 2025, pointing to industrial stagnation. Singur remained a lingering symbol of policy missteps, while youth unemployment fuelled outward migration. Critics argued that despite schemes, the lack of big-ticket investments and a hostile perception towards industry had left the state lagging. Voters in urban and semi-urban areas, in particular, seemed to demand jobs and development over freebies, tilting the scales against the incumbent.<h2>TMC’s Internal Strife and Factionalism</h2>&nbsp;The party’s visible divisions between veteran loyalists of Mamata Banerjee and the “naba Trinamool” camp around Abhishek Banerjee weakened its organisational strength. Public spats, allegations of money transactions, and reported clashes over local control eroded discipline. Senior leaders occasionally voiced dissatisfaction, and opposition parties seized upon this infighting to portray TMC as a house divided. Despite attempts at course correction through disciplinary measures, the generational tension and factional feuds often overshadowed the party’s campaign, leaving it vulnerable at the booth level.&nbsp;Beyond these, broader issues such as alleged appeasement politics, infiltration concerns along borders, neglect of communities like the Matuas and tribals, and post-poll violence fears played into the narrative of a state whose cultural identity and security were under strain.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/west-bengal-election-results-2026-winners-who-won-who-lost-key-seats-top-faces-and-full-list-of-constituency-wise-results-1777883304142">West Bengal Election Results 2026 Winners: Who won, who lost</a>

The BJP, on its part, ran a disciplined campaign built on booth-level management, central leadership push, and consistent messaging on development and good governance. Its surge from 77 seats in 2021 to challenging for power reflects years of groundwork in North Bengal, Jangalmahal, and urban pockets.&nbsp;As the trends point towards a historic shift, the verdict signals more than a change of guard. It reflects Bengal’s impatience with misrule and hunger for accountability. The massive mandate for BJP will resonate nationally and boost the party’s prospects heading into future Lok Sabha elections. It also sets a clear benchmark for performance.&nbsp;The new government will face the stiff challenge of living up to heightened expectations. Development, employment generation, zero tolerance on corruption, restoration of law and order, and ironclad women’s safety must become the prime focus. The fruits of good governance need to reach the last mile — from bustling Kolkata neighbourhoods to remote villages — if this mandate is to translate into lasting transformation. Bengal has spoken decisively. The real test now begins for those tasked with rebuilding “Sonar Bangla.”&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

BJP surges past majority in West Bengal, ending TMC’s 15-year rule. High turnout, anti-incumbency, corruption scandals, women’s safety concerns, economic slowdown, and internal rifts weaken Mamata Banerjee’s grip, signalling a major political shift in the state.

The “Jhal” (spice) hit the Trinamool Congress, while “Muri” (puffed rice) brought all potential electoral nutrients for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Mamata Banerjee dubbed it “drama” when Narendra Modi made an unscheduled stop to eat Jhalmuri, famous street snack, during his poll campaign, but that TMC-labelled “drama” now appears to have turned into a political juggernaut—one that has enabled the BJP to trounce the Trinamool Congress, scripting saffron history in Bengal and putting it on course to form its first government in the state since Independence, as the Trinamool stares at defeat after 15 years in power. The final numbers of West Bengal Assembly elections signals a seismic political shift; this comes in the first election following a record voter deletion under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and amid high turnout exceeding 90 per cent in the early phases. Over 15 years ago, Mamata Banerjee rode to power on the emotive slogan of “Ma, Mati, Manush”, ending 34 years of Left Front rule. That promise of change swept her to three straight victories. But in 2026, the wind seems to have changed direction. Five potent forces — perceived minority appeasement, women’s safety concerns, economic discontent, internal party fissures, and a resurgent BJP machinery — have combined to challenge TMC’s dominance. Here are five key reasons that appear to have brought the curtains down on Trinamool hegemony: Mounting Anti-Incumbency, Governance Fatigue Fifteen years in power bred deep anti-incumbency. What began as a wave of hope gradually gave way to widespread frustration over “syndicate raj” and “cut-money” culture. Voters complained that everyday life — from getting a job to accessing welfare schemes — was marred by middlemen and political patronage. The high voter turnout reflected not just enthusiasm but accumulated anger against a system that many felt had become unresponsive and arrogant. Promises of poriborton (change) rang hollow as people saw little improvement on the ground in employment and public service delivery. Corruption Scandals Eroding Public Trust A string of high-profile scams dented TMC’s image beyond repair. The school recruitment scandal involving former minister Partha Chatterjee became a symbol of systemic rot, with allegations of massive irregularities in appointments. Critics pointed to multiple sectors where alleged financial misdeeds surfaced, painting a picture of entrenched corruption. Opposition campaigns, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders, repeatedly highlighted these issues, framing them as loot of Bengal’s resources. These scandals turned what should have been governance debates into questions of basic integrity, alienating even traditional supporters. Women’s Safety Concerns: Sandeshkhali, RG Kar as Turning Points Incidents like Sandeshkhali, where serious allegations of sexual violence and land grabbing by TMC local leaders emerged, struck a raw nerve, especially among women voters. The RG Kar medical college case further amplified fears about women’s safety under the regime. What was once TMC’s stronghold — the “Mahila” vote — showed signs of cracking. Many women, who had benefited from welfare schemes, appeared to weigh personal security and dignity higher. The BJP’s sharp focus on these issues during the campaign appears to have resonated deeply, converting outrage into votes and neutralising TMC’s traditional gender outreach. Also Read: Tamil Nadu Election Results 2026 Winners: Who won, who lost Economic Grievances, Industrial Exodus Bengal’s economic decline under TMC rule became a major talking point. Reports suggested that over 6,700 companies had relocated or shut operations between 2011 and March 2025, pointing to industrial stagnation. Singur remained a lingering symbol of policy missteps, while youth unemployment fuelled outward migration. Critics argued that despite schemes, the lack of big-ticket investments and a hostile perception towards industry had left the state lagging. Voters in urban and semi-urban areas, in particular, seemed to demand jobs and development over freebies, tilting the scales against the incumbent. TMC’s Internal Strife and Factionalism The party’s visible divisions between veteran loyalists of Mamata Banerjee and the “naba Trinamool” camp around Abhishek Banerjee weakened its organisational strength. Public spats, allegations of money transactions, and reported clashes over local control eroded discipline. Senior leaders occasionally voiced dissatisfaction, and opposition parties seized upon this infighting to portray TMC as a house divided. Despite attempts at course correction through disciplinary measures, the generational tension and factional feuds often overshadowed the party’s campaign, leaving it vulnerable at the booth level. Beyond these, broader issues such as alleged appeasement politics, infiltration concerns along borders, neglect of communities like the Matuas and tribals, and post-poll violence fears played into the narrative of a state whose cultural identity and security were under strain. Also Read: West Bengal Election Results 2026 Winners: Who won, who lost

BJP surges past majority in West Bengal, ending TMC’s 15-year rule. High turnout, anti-incumbency, corruption scandals, women’s safety concerns, economic slowdown, and internal rifts weaken Mamata Banerjee’s grip, signalling a major political shift in the state.

Bengal Election Results: Jhalmuri to juggernaut, BJP spices up TMC’s rout; voters show no ‘mamata’ for Didi’s 15-year rule

The war in West Asia and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz propelled a stinging disruption in supply chains, impairing industrial competitiveness, inflating household expenditures, and destabilising domestic order. Countries in the subcontinent are net importers of hydrocarbons from West Asia, with the Strait of Hormuz serving as a critical conduit. Since the beginning of the war, Sri Lanka has re-launched the National Fuel Authorisation System to ration fuel supplies. In Pakistan, supply chain disruptions have hamstrung fertiliser reserves in the kharif season, impacting agricultural productivity and food security. The subcontinent’s landlocked small states—Bhutan and Nepal—depend on India for hydrocarbon imports and, thereby, are experiencing second-order vulnerability.&nbsp;While the crisis has amplified the subcontinent’s economic and political predicaments, it opened a window for a reset in the bilateral relations of India and Bangladesh. In March, Bangladesh imposed rationing amid stockpiling and panic-buying. Three of its largest sources of hydrocarbon and aluminium imports—Qatar, Iraq, and the UAE—declared force majeure on production, after Iran targeted their energy infrastructure. Last month, amid public anxiety, Bangladesh received 5000 tonnes of diesel via the Indo-Bangladesh Friendship Pipeline. An additional 5000 tonnes arrived on April 10, while the government is expected to import another 17000 tonnes to assuage concerns.&nbsp;&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-sheikh-hasina-and-her-awami-league-find-space-in-tarique-rahman-s-new-bangladesh-amid-jamaat-s-rise-1771229273915">Will Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League find space in Tarique Rahman’s ‘new Bangladesh’ amid Jamaat’s rise?</a>&nbsp;Apart from Bangladesh, India has supplied 38000 metric tonnes of oil products to Sri Lanka and has continued uninterrupted deliveries to Bhutan and Nepal. Similar requests from Malé are also being considered. But the uniqueness of the Bangladeshi case is lent primarily by the trajectory of Indo-Bangladesh relations since 2024. For 15 years, the dominant frame circumscribing Dhaka–Delhi bonhomie was personalistic—the Awami League-led regime of Sheikh Hasina. The regime cracked down on separatist elements operating in India’s Northeast from Bangladesh’s soil and evolved enduring institutional arrangements, such as the Ganga Waters Treaty and the land boundary agreement. Connectivity was a major plank of the bilateral relationship: railway lines were restored, and, in 2023, the Friendship Pipeline was inaugurated. With the fall of Hasina, the relations entered a frigid phase. Anti-India sentiment gained traction in Bangladesh, particularly after the assassination of Osman Hadi. Bangladesh imposed restrictions on the import of rice and yarn from India, while the two neighbours exchanged acrimonious terms on the question of Hasina’s extradition.&nbsp;The relations now seem to have entered a phase of cautious but strategic recalibration. India and Bangladesh are future-proofing their bilateral ties by embedding them in structural necessity and pragmatism. The logic of geography—India and Bangladesh share one of the longest land borders in the world—and economic rationalism are expected to lend credence to functional cooperation between the two states, which will sustain stability amid geopolitical and domestic headwinds.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-let-s-keep-working-says-bangladesh-envoy-hamidullah-after-fm-rahman-s-intense-delhi-week-1775993352889">‘Let’s keep working,’ says Bangladesh envoy Hamidullah after FM Rahman’s intense Delhi week</a>&nbsp;Functional cooperation serves four ends. First, by focussing on concrete, specialised shared problems, it denotes responsibility in both actors. It helps devise mechanisms for cooperation that employ best practices and lessons from both countries. Second, as these mechanisms gradually institutionalise, they lower transaction costs and make trade-offs in bilateral negotiations more agreeable and structured, rather than making a relationship a zero-sum game. Third, they create issue-linkages, cultivating interdependencies and constraining the unilateral exercise of power by imposing costs. Lastly, functional dimensions spawn expert, issue-specific networks in civil societies that diffuse norms that inform state behaviour. In the case of Bangladesh and India, river-water sharing, power, and trade can provide these critical linkages.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Ganga Waters Treaty (GWT) recognises transboundary riparian interdependence; its expiry in 2026 provides low-hanging fruit for renewing cooperative mechanisms. The revival of negotiations of the Joint Rivers Commission and the Technical Committee is a welcome development and should be made time-bound and cross-sectional. The treaty will inevitably need to revise its base years for measuring the river’s flow; the process must be backed by a mutually agreed-upon scientific methodology. The Ganges basin has experienced the cascading impact of climate change, which has hampered flows in dry seasons. A forward-looking renewal of the treaty must therefore be climate-responsive and data-driven to address this shared vulnerability.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sheikh-hasina-s-unfiltered-interview-minorities-live-in-fear-mob-terror-rules-bangladesh-wion-1769484942121/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/sheikh-hasina-s-unfiltered-interview-minorities-live-in-fear-mob-terror-rules-bangladesh-wion-1769484942121/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;But these negotiations have a gestation period. By contrast, the opening of closed land ports and border haats between India and Bangladesh will deliver immediate relief to clogged supply chains and small traders, especially of yarn, garments, and plastic products, reducing the burden on the Benapole–Petrapole crossing. Harmonising regulations can decrease costs and time in the passage of bilateral trade.&nbsp;In addition, the template of power cooperation, largely founded on hydrocarbons, can be replicated to support the neighbours’ green transition goals. The conclusion of a tripartite power-purchase agreement among Nepal, India, and Bangladesh can be expanded in scope to include Bhutan. India and Bangladesh can also explore bilateral interdependencies in hydropower cooperation, with notable hydropower projects coming up in India’s Northeast, cutting costs and time.&nbsp;The crisis in West Asia has forced a reckoning with structural realities and avenues of cooperation. Functional cooperation on issues of river-water sharing, power, and bilateral trade can spill over into trust-building. By prioritising issue-based interdependencies, Dhaka and New Delhi can shield development and connectivity from domestic contestations, imparting resilience and predictability to their relations and the region at large.&nbsp;DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

West Asia war and the Strait of Hormuz disruption hit South Asia’s fuel supply chains. Amid crisis, India and Bangladesh are rebuilding ties through energy, trade, and water cooperation, boosting regional stability.

The war in West Asia and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz propelled a stinging disruption in supply chains, impairing industrial competitiveness, inflating household expenditures, and destabilising domestic order. Countries in the subcontinent are net importers of hydrocarbons from West Asia, with the Strait of Hormuz serving as a critical conduit. Since the beginning of the war, Sri Lanka has re-launched the National Fuel Authorisation System to ration fuel supplies. In Pakistan, supply chain disruptions have hamstrung fertiliser reserves in the kharif season, impacting agricultural productivity and food security. The subcontinent’s landlocked small states—Bhutan and Nepal—depend on India for hydrocarbon imports and, thereby, are experiencing second-order vulnerability. While the crisis has amplified the subcontinent’s economic and political predicaments, it opened a window for a reset in the bilateral relations of India and Bangladesh. In March, Bangladesh imposed rationing amid stockpiling and panic-buying. Three of its largest sources of hydrocarbon and aluminium imports—Qatar, Iraq, and the UAE—declared force majeure on production, after Iran targeted their energy infrastructure. Last month, amid public anxiety, Bangladesh received 5000 tonnes of diesel via the Indo-Bangladesh Friendship Pipeline. An additional 5000 tonnes arrived on April 10, while the government is expected to import another 17000 tonnes to assuage concerns. Also Read: Will Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League find space in Tarique Rahman’s ‘new Bangladesh’ amid Jamaat’s rise? Apart from Bangladesh, India has supplied 38000 metric tonnes of oil products to Sri Lanka and has continued uninterrupted deliveries to Bhutan and Nepal. Similar requests from Malé are also being considered. But the uniqueness of the Bangladeshi case is lent primarily by the trajectory of Indo-Bangladesh relations since 2024. For 15 years, the dominant frame circumscribing Dhaka–Delhi bonhomie was personalistic—the Awami League-led regime of Sheikh Hasina. The regime cracked down on separatist elements operating in India’s Northeast from Bangladesh’s soil and evolved enduring institutional arrangements, such as the Ganga Waters Treaty and the land boundary agreement. Connectivity was a major plank of the bilateral relationship: railway lines were restored, and, in 2023, the Friendship Pipeline was inaugurated. With the fall of Hasina, the relations entered a frigid phase. Anti-India sentiment gained traction in Bangladesh, particularly after the assassination of Osman Hadi. Bangladesh imposed restrictions on the import of rice and yarn from India, while the two neighbours exchanged acrimonious terms on the question of Hasina’s extradition. The relations now seem to have entered a phase of cautious but strategic recalibration. India and Bangladesh are future-proofing their bilateral ties by embedding them in structural necessity and pragmatism. The logic of geography—India and Bangladesh share one of the longest land borders in the world—and economic rationalism are expected to lend credence to functional cooperation between the two states, which will sustain stability amid geopolitical and domestic headwinds. Also Read: ‘Let’s keep working,’ says Bangladesh envoy Hamidullah after FM Rahman’s intense Delhi week Functional cooperation serves four ends. First, by focussing on concrete, specialised shared problems, it denotes responsibility in both actors. It helps devise mechanisms for cooperation that employ best practices and lessons from both countries. Second, as these mechanisms gradually institutionalise, they lower transaction costs and make trade-offs in bilateral negotiations more agreeable and structured, rather than making a relationship a zero-sum game. Third, they create issue-linkages, cultivating interdependencies and constraining the unilateral exercise of power by imposing costs. Lastly, functional dimensions spawn expert, issue-specific networks in civil societies that diffuse norms that inform state behaviour. In the case of Bangladesh and India, river-water sharing, power, and trade can provide these critical linkages. The Ganga Waters Treaty (GWT) recognises transboundary riparian interdependence; its expiry in 2026 provides low-hanging fruit for renewing cooperative mechanisms. The revival of negotiations of the Joint Rivers Commission and the Technical Committee is a welcome development and should be made time-bound and cross-sectional. The treaty will inevitably need to revise its base years for measuring the river’s flow; the process must be backed by a mutually agreed-upon scientific methodology. The Ganges basin has experienced the cascading impact of climate change, which has hampered flows in dry seasons. A forward-looking renewal of the treaty must therefore be climate-responsive and data-driven to address this shared vulnerability. https://www.wionews.com/videos/sheikh-hasina-s-unfiltered-interview-minorities-live-in-fear-mob-terror-rules-bangladesh-wion-1769484942121/embed But these negotiations have a gestation period. By contrast, the opening of closed land ports and border haats between India and Bangladesh will deliver immediate relief to clogged supply chains and small traders, especially of yarn, garments, and plastic products, reducing the burden on the Benapole–Petrapole crossing. Harmonising regulations can decrease costs and time in the passage of bilateral trade. In addition, the template of power cooperation, largely founded on hydrocarbons, can be replicated to support the neighbours’ green transition goals. The conclusion of a tripartite power-purchase agreement among Nepal, India, and Bangladesh can be expanded in scope to include Bhutan. India and Bangladesh can also explore bilateral interdependencies in hydropower cooperation, with notable hydropower projects coming up in India’s Northeast, cutting costs and time. The crisis in West Asia has forced a reckoning with structural realities and avenues of cooperation. Functional cooperation on issues of river-water sharing, power, and bilateral trade can spill over into trust-building. By prioritising issue-based interdependencies, Dhaka and New Delhi can shield development and connectivity from domestic contestations, imparting resilience and predictability to their relations and the region at large. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WION.

West Asia war and the Strait of Hormuz disruption hit South Asia’s fuel supply chains. Amid crisis, India and Bangladesh are rebuilding ties through energy, trade, and water cooperation, boosting regional stability.

Crisis as catalyst: Recalibrating India–Bangladesh ties

Picture this: enemy drones buzzing like angry bees over our soldiers or ships, ready to strike without warning. In today’s fast world of modern warfare, stopping these small flying threats quickly is a matter of life and death. Now, America’s giant defence firm Lockheed Martin has come up with something truly smart – a missile launcher that shoots straight up into the sky, almost like a rocket taking off. This new JAGM Quad Launcher, or JQL, has just passed a big live test where it fired perfectly at a 90-degree angle. No more tilting or turning the whole system towards the target. It works even in tight spots, and this could completely change how our forces fight back against drones on land and at sea.&nbsp;Think about the old way of launching missiles. Most systems need to point sideways or at a slant before firing, like aiming a gun. That takes precious seconds to adjust, especially on a rocking ship deck or a moving army truck. But with this vertical launch, the missile blasts straight up first and then smartly turns mid-air to chase the enemy. Soldiers can fire from tiny spaces without shifting position – imagine a jeep stuck in a narrow valley or a small naval boat in rough waves. Every second saved here can mean the difference between safety and danger for our troops.&nbsp;What makes this system even more exciting is its clever design that feels like smart building blocks. Engineers call it a modular, open-architecture setup. In easy words, it is flexible like Lego pieces – you can add new parts, upgrade sensors, or connect it with other military gadgets without starting from scratch. In today’s world, where threats change every day, this adaptability is a lifesaver. As defence expert Felipe Benvegnu rightly said, staying ahead of enemies needs exactly this kind of quick flexibility.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-accuses-us-of-energy-grab-says-iran-and-venezuela-military-actions-only-about-oil-1777115468087">Russia accuses US of energy grab, says Iran and Venezuela military actions only ‘about oil’</a>&nbsp;The launcher talks smoothly with existing combat networks through something called the Launcher Management Assembly. This means a soldier can control it from right next to it or even from far away, safe inside a command vehicle. It also has a smart pivot system that lets it tilt and fire at any angle or straight up, depending on the situation. Built tough for salty sea air and crashing waves, it is perfect for warships. Plus, there is a special gas control system that safely vents the hot missile exhaust during vertical shots. No harm to nearby crew or equipment – everyone stays protected, and the team can reload fast and get back into action without long waits.&nbsp;At the heart of this whole system sits the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile, lovingly called JAGM. This is no ordinary missile. It has a “dual-mode seeker” – fancy words for two powerful ways to find its target. One is laser guidance, where a friendly laser beam lights up the enemy like a spotlight and the missile follows it faithfully. The second is radar, which bounces signals off the target and tracks it even in complete darkness, fog, clouds, or battlefield smoke. Together, these eyes help the missile lock onto tiny, speedy drones that normal weapons might miss. Best part? It can even be launched before fully locking on, and then guided later from the ground or air. In the chaos of real battle, where things change in a flash, this gives our forces a huge edge.&nbsp;According to a report by Interesting Engineering, one JAGM shot does the job of costly special anti-drone weapons but at a much lower price. This makes it perfect for “layered defence” – like a safety net with many layers. First, electronic jamming can confuse the drone’s signals. Then lasers can zap small ones. If anything slips through, the JAGM steps in like a reliable big brother to finish the job. No waste, just smart protection.&nbsp;In a thrilling January test, engineers mounted this launcher on a special 6x6 ground vehicle nicknamed the “Mothership”. Built by Richard Childress Racing – yes, the same famous American racing team known for super-fast cars – this tough vehicle carries both missiles and drones together. It acts like a moving launch pad that can fire in any direction, giving full 360-degree coverage without even moving the truck. Racing engineers brought their magic of speed and precision into defence work, now making accurate parts for aircraft and military gear. The test showed how this combo turns a simple vehicle into a deadly, fast-moving defender.

With vertical launch, the missile shoots straight up and then turns mid-air to hit the target. Soldiers can fire from tight spaces without moving position, saving crucial seconds that can decide safety in combat.

Picture this: enemy drones buzzing like angry bees over our soldiers or ships, ready to strike without warning. In today’s fast world of modern warfare, stopping these small flying threats quickly is a matter of life and death. Now, America’s giant defence firm Lockheed Martin has come up with something truly smart – a missile launcher that shoots straight up into the sky, almost like a rocket taking off. This new JAGM Quad Launcher, or JQL, has just passed a big live test where it fired perfectly at a 90-degree angle. No more tilting or turning the whole system towards the target. It works even in tight spots, and this could completely change how our forces fight back against drones on land and at sea. Think about the old way of launching missiles. Most systems need to point sideways or at a slant before firing, like aiming a gun. That takes precious seconds to adjust, especially on a rocking ship deck or a moving army truck. But with this vertical launch, the missile blasts straight up first and then smartly turns mid-air to chase the enemy. Soldiers can fire from tiny spaces without shifting position – imagine a jeep stuck in a narrow valley or a small naval boat in rough waves. Every second saved here can mean the difference between safety and danger for our troops. What makes this system even more exciting is its clever design that feels like smart building blocks. Engineers call it a modular, open-architecture setup. In easy words, it is flexible like Lego pieces – you can add new parts, upgrade sensors, or connect it with other military gadgets without starting from scratch. In today’s world, where threats change every day, this adaptability is a lifesaver. As defence expert Felipe Benvegnu rightly said, staying ahead of enemies needs exactly this kind of quick flexibility. Also Read: Russia accuses US of energy grab, says Iran and Venezuela military actions only ‘about oil’ The launcher talks smoothly with existing combat networks through something called the Launcher Management Assembly. This means a soldier can control it from right next to it or even from far away, safe inside a command vehicle. It also has a smart pivot system that lets it tilt and fire at any angle or straight up, depending on the situation. Built tough for salty sea air and crashing waves, it is perfect for warships. Plus, there is a special gas control system that safely vents the hot missile exhaust during vertical shots. No harm to nearby crew or equipment – everyone stays protected, and the team can reload fast and get back into action without long waits. At the heart of this whole system sits the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile, lovingly called JAGM. This is no ordinary missile. It has a “dual-mode seeker” – fancy words for two powerful ways to find its target. One is laser guidance, where a friendly laser beam lights up the enemy like a spotlight and the missile follows it faithfully. The second is radar, which bounces signals off the target and tracks it even in complete darkness, fog, clouds, or battlefield smoke. Together, these eyes help the missile lock onto tiny, speedy drones that normal weapons might miss. Best part? It can even be launched before fully locking on, and then guided later from the ground or air. In the chaos of real battle, where things change in a flash, this gives our forces a huge edge. According to a report by Interesting Engineering, one JAGM shot does the job of costly special anti-drone weapons but at a much lower price. This makes it perfect for “layered defence” – like a safety net with many layers. First, electronic jamming can confuse the drone’s signals. Then lasers can zap small ones. If anything slips through, the JAGM steps in like a reliable big brother to finish the job. No waste, just smart protection. In a thrilling January test, engineers mounted this launcher on a special 6x6 ground vehicle nicknamed the “Mothership”. Built by Richard Childress Racing – yes, the same famous American racing team known for super-fast cars – this tough vehicle carries both missiles and drones together. It acts like a moving launch pad that can fire in any direction, giving full 360-degree coverage without even moving the truck. Racing engineers brought their magic of speed and precision into defence work, now making accurate parts for aircraft and military gear. The test showed how this combo turns a simple vehicle into a deadly, fast-moving defender.

With vertical launch, the missile shoots straight up and then turns mid-air to hit the target. Soldiers can fire from tight spaces without moving position, saving crucial seconds that can decide safety in combat.

Lockheed’s sky-high missile launcher: Crushing drones like never before

Since Operation Epic Fury began on February 28, China has taken a very careful and limited role in openly supporting Iran. On March 2, China’s foreign ministry said that the U.S. and Israeli strikes break international law, showing political support without direct involvement.There are also signs of quiet, indirect help. Ships from China carrying sodium perchlorate, a chemical used in missile fuel, are believed to have reached Iran. U.S. intelligence has warned that China may also be preparing to supply shoulder-fired rockets, which can target helicopters and low-flying aircraft.However, China has not provided major direct support like money or open military help. Instead, its biggest role is coming from an unexpected domain—space.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/irgc-gunboat-fires-on-container-ship-near-oman-heavy-damage-reported-amid-strait-of-hormuz-standoff-1776845119527">IRGC gunboat fires on container ship near Oman: Heavy damage reported amid Strait of Hormuz standoff</a>As highlighted by The Economist, social media is now flooded with satellite images of the Middle East captured by Chinese satellites and shared by Chinese companies. At the same time, American firms have restricted access to their satellite data due to pressure from the Trump administration. This has cut off journalists, researchers, and analysts from getting important open information.This restriction has now become even tighter. Planet Labs, a major U.S. satellite company, moved from a 14-day delay to an indefinite blackout on April 5, 2026. This means users no longer know when or if they will get fresh images. Because of this, the global OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) community is now heavily dependent on Chinese and European satellite data.One major trigger for this shift was the Minab incident on February 28, where a Tomahawk missile strike hit a school in Iran. Chinese satellite images were later used by international journalists to prove U.S. involvement, creating global pressure. This is widely seen as one of the reasons behind the strong American reaction against what some call “space transparency.”Because of these developments, Chinese satellite images are becoming more important than ever. They show how much China has improved its Earth-observation technology, meaning satellites that capture detailed images of Earth. This also shows that the West no longer has full control over high-quality space imagery.For analysts, this creates a mixed situation. Chinese images are useful, but they also raise serious concerns about control and credibility.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-hangs-man-for-corruption-on-earth-mossad-links-what-does-that-mean-1776841879206">Iran hangs man for 'corruption on Earth,' Mossad links - What does that mean?</a>The ongoing war has become a major opportunity for Chinese satellite companies to expand globally. As noted by The Economist, expert Bill Greer says that U.S. restrictions are unintentionally helping competitors like China, because American firms are limiting themselves while others fill the gap.There is also growing evidence of direct links between Chinese satellite companies and Iran. Leaked documents from April 15 revealed that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards acquired a Chinese satellite called TEE-01B, built by Earth Eye Co. This satellite was reportedly used to help target Prince Sultan Air Base on March 14, making it a major “smoking gun” showing real operational support.China’s strength lies in its rapidly expanding satellite network. In 2025 alone, it launched over 120 Earth-observation satellites, taking its total to more than 640 satellites, second only to the United States. These satellites use cameras, radar, and radio signals to monitor Earth.In China, the difference between private companies and the government is very small, meaning many firms are closely linked to the state. For example, the Jilin-1 network, with over 100 satellites, has ties to the military and can capture images of any place on Earth every 10 minutes.In terms of technology, China and the U.S. are now almost equal. China’s Superview Neo-1 satellite can produce images as sharp as top American systems. In some areas, like how frequently satellites revisit the same location, China may even be ahead because it has more satellites.China is also advancing in processing data directly in space, which means analysing images before sending them to Earth. Experts believe this advantage will grow further, as China leads in remote sensing technologies—tools used to study Earth from space.Another key benefit is that Chinese firms are not restricted by Western “shutter control” rules, which limit what satellite images can be shared. A Dubai-based company said Chinese partners provide faster and easier access to data, without delays from strict export rules.However, Chinese companies also have their own limitations, as they operate under government control. A former U.S. intelligence officer said they only act within what the Communist Party allows.In some cases, Chinese satellite images have actually exposed damage to U.S. military equipment and Gulf energy sites, which governments might have preferred to keep hidden. This has increased transparency in certain situations.Companies like MizarVision are using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve satellite images. AI helps sharpen blurry pictures, identify objects like aircraft, and track movements over time. Even if images are unclear, AI helps analysts understand what is happening.At the same time, AI is not always accurate. Some labels may be wrong, but feedback helps improve the system. Experts can correct mistakes, and the AI learns to become more precise.This is not the first time Chinese satellite firms have supported groups opposing the U.S. In the past, CGST shared images with the Wagner Group and Houthi rebels, which could help target military assets. Even after sanctions, Chinese companies like Spacety continue to grow and attract funding.China is also moving ahead in satellite video technology. Networks like Jilin-1 and Zhuhai-1 can record videos from space, while only one American company, Planet, has similar capability. Jilin-1 even uses laser communication to send videos directly to Earth.Still, some experts remain cautious. They worry about military links, and say Chinese firms do not always respond to data requests.Earlier, many believed that more satellites would bring greater global transparency. But today, the situation is different. As more countries build their own systems, most are focused on defence and intelligence use, not public sharing.In simple terms, the world is moving towards a reality where more countries are watching each other, but less information is openly available to everyone.

Ships from China carrying sodium perchlorate, a chemical used in missile fuel, are believed to have reached Iran. US intelligence has warned that China may also be preparing to supply shoulder-fired rockets, which can target helicopters and low-flying aircraft.

Since Operation Epic Fury began on February 28, China has taken a very careful and limited role in openly supporting Iran. On March 2, China’s foreign ministry said that the U.S. and Israeli strikes break international law, showing political support without direct involvement. There are also signs of quiet, indirect help. Ships from China carrying sodium perchlorate, a chemical used in missile fuel, are believed to have reached Iran. U.S. intelligence has warned that China may also be preparing to supply shoulder-fired rockets, which can target helicopters and low-flying aircraft. However, China has not provided major direct support like money or open military help. Instead, its biggest role is coming from an unexpected domain—space. Also read | IRGC gunboat fires on container ship near Oman: Heavy damage reported amid Strait of Hormuz standoff As highlighted by The Economist, social media is now flooded with satellite images of the Middle East captured by Chinese satellites and shared by Chinese companies. At the same time, American firms have restricted access to their satellite data due to pressure from the Trump administration. This has cut off journalists, researchers, and analysts from getting important open information. This restriction has now become even tighter. Planet Labs, a major U.S. satellite company, moved from a 14-day delay to an indefinite blackout on April 5, 2026. This means users no longer know when or if they will get fresh images. Because of this, the global OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) community is now heavily dependent on Chinese and European satellite data. One major trigger for this shift was the Minab incident on February 28, where a Tomahawk missile strike hit a school in Iran. Chinese satellite images were later used by international journalists to prove U.S. involvement, creating global pressure. This is widely seen as one of the reasons behind the strong American reaction against what some call “space transparency.” Because of these developments, Chinese satellite images are becoming more important than ever. They show how much China has improved its Earth-observation technology, meaning satellites that capture detailed images of Earth. This also shows that the West no longer has full control over high-quality space imagery. For analysts, this creates a mixed situation. Chinese images are useful, but they also raise serious concerns about control and credibility. Also read | Iran hangs man for 'corruption on Earth,' Mossad links - What does that mean? The ongoing war has become a major opportunity for Chinese satellite companies to expand globally. As noted by The Economist, expert Bill Greer says that U.S. restrictions are unintentionally helping competitors like China, because American firms are limiting themselves while others fill the gap. There is also growing evidence of direct links between Chinese satellite companies and Iran. Leaked documents from April 15 revealed that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards acquired a Chinese satellite called TEE-01B, built by Earth Eye Co. This satellite was reportedly used to help target Prince Sultan Air Base on March 14, making it a major “smoking gun” showing real operational support. China’s strength lies in its rapidly expanding satellite network. In 2025 alone, it launched over 120 Earth-observation satellites, taking its total to more than 640 satellites, second only to the United States. These satellites use cameras, radar, and radio signals to monitor Earth. In China, the difference between private companies and the government is very small, meaning many firms are closely linked to the state. For example, the Jilin-1 network, with over 100 satellites, has ties to the military and can capture images of any place on Earth every 10 minutes. In terms of technology, China and the U.S. are now almost equal. China’s Superview Neo-1 satellite can produce images as sharp as top American systems. In some areas, like how frequently satellites revisit the same location, China may even be ahead because it has more satellites. China is also advancing in processing data directly in space, which means analysing images before sending them to Earth. Experts believe this advantage will grow further, as China leads in remote sensing technologies—tools used to study Earth from space. Another key benefit is that Chinese firms are not restricted by Western “shutter control” rules, which limit what satellite images can be shared. A Dubai-based company said Chinese partners provide faster and easier access to data, without delays from strict export rules. However, Chinese companies also have their own limitations, as they operate under government control. A former U.S. intelligence officer said they only act within what the Communist Party allows. In some cases, Chinese satellite images have actually exposed damage to U.S. military equipment and Gulf energy sites, which governments might have preferred to keep hidden. This has increased transparency in certain situations. Companies like MizarVision are using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve satellite images. AI helps sharpen blurry pictures, identify objects like aircraft, and track movements over time. Even if images are unclear, AI helps analysts understand what is happening. At the same time, AI is not always accurate. Some labels may be wrong, but feedback helps improve the system. Experts can correct mistakes, and the AI learns to become more precise. This is not the first time Chinese satellite firms have supported groups opposing the U.S. In the past, CGST shared images with the Wagner Group and Houthi rebels, which could help target military assets. Even after sanctions, Chinese companies like Spacety continue to grow and attract funding. China is also moving ahead in satellite video technology. Networks like Jilin-1 and Zhuhai-1 can record videos from space, while only one American company, Planet, has similar capability. Jilin-1 even uses laser communication to send videos directly to Earth. Still, some experts remain cautious. They worry about military links, and say Chinese firms do not always respond to data requests. Earlier, many believed that more satellites would bring greater global transparency. But today, the situation is different. As more countries build their own systems, most are focused on defence and intelligence use, not public sharing. In simple terms, the world is moving towards a reality where more countries are watching each other, but less information is openly available to everyone.

Ships from China carrying sodium perchlorate, a chemical used in missile fuel, are believed to have reached Iran. US intelligence has warned that China may also be preparing to supply shoulder-fired rockets, which can target helicopters and low-flying aircraft.

How Beijing’s satellites are winning the Iran war

As geopolitical tensions sharpen and debates over United States actions toward Iran intensify, deeper questions are emerging about the durability of the post-war international order. Much of the current discourse remains focused on immediate actions and perceived violations of norms. What is often missing, however, is a broader historical perspective—an understanding of how this order was constructed, and the conditions under which it emerged.The international system that is frequently invoked today did not arise organically. It was designed—deliberately and systematically—in the aftermath of catastrophic global conflict. To understand its current trajectory, it is necessary to revisit how it was conceived and the circumstances that enabled its creation.Even before the Second World War, efforts had been made to construct a more stable global system. Woodrow Wilson’s proposal for a League of Nations following World War I was ultimately rejected by the United States Senate, widely dismissed at the time as idealistic. Yet it established an enduring intellectual premise: that international order could be consciously constructed, rather than left solely to shifting balances of power.That premise re-emerged under far more favourable conditions during and after the Second World War. The Dumbarton Oaks Conference laid the foundations for the United Nations system, while the Bretton Woods Conference established the architecture for global finance. Together, these frameworks shaped not only security and economic relations, but over time trade, development, and governance norms across the international system.The United States played a central role in this process. It provided strategic leadership, political momentum, and the institutional imagination required to translate post-war devastation into a functioning order. At the same time, it engaged selectively—remaining outside certain frameworks such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, even as it shaped many others.This system was born out of trauma. The devastation of two world wars brought unprecedented levels of violence and destruction, transforming both the ethics and limits of conflict. A fragile consensus—“never again”—began to take shape. Concepts such as restraint, legitimacy, and moral authority entered the strategic lexicon, tempering the older doctrine of “might is right.” Yet ultimate authority remained concentrated in the hands of a small group of powerful states.Today, that order is visibly under strain.The rise of China, the re-emergence of India, and the renewed assertiveness of Russia, together with the growing influence of regional and middle powers, are reshaping the global balance. At the same time, technological disruption—from artificial intelligence to cyber capabilities—and renewed competition over energy and resources are transforming the foundations of power itself.In this context, debates within the United States have taken on increasing urgency. Some American strategists argue that Washington has been “sleeping at the switch”—that it has failed to assert its dominance decisively and risks strategic drift. Seen through this lens, developments involving Iran become more than regional issues. They become platforms for signalling—not only to Tehran, but to Beijing and other actors in a changing global system.Recent actions underscore a clear reality: the United States still possesses the most advanced and capable military power in history, with unmatched global reach. It is worth noting, however, what has not been used. The restraint shown—particularly the avoidance of escalation into nuclear thresholds or other extreme forms of warfare—may prove as significant as the actions themselves.Yet if current trends continue—where power increasingly substitutes for principle—this will not remain a uniquely American dilemma. Other major and regional powers, including China, India, and an assertive Russia, as well as influential middle powers, may soon face similar strategic choices. As capabilities expand, so too does the temptation—or perceived necessity—to act outside established norms. What begins as exception risks becoming precedent.This is the paradox of great power transition. Once “might” becomes the primary currency of legitimacy, it generates systemic pressure on all major actors to behave in ways that reinforce that logic. In such an environment, restraint is no longer rewarded; it is penalised.At that point, the question is no longer whether the system is under strain, but whether it is capable of renewal.Incremental adjustments and crisis management may stabilise the present, but they do not shape the future. Without a broader framework, they risk becoming a form of strategic drift—managing disorder rather than designing order.There is precedent for such design. The Dumbarton Oaks process itself was not a summit of heads of state, but a structured diplomatic effort conducted by senior officials operating with political authorisation. It was shaped by strong leadership, but also by negotiation, sequencing, and compromise among competing interests.A contemporary equivalent would necessarily be more complex. It would have to reflect a more diffuse distribution of power and a lower level of trust among major actors. It would require an approach that is consultative rather than directive, incremental rather than declaratory, and focused on convergence rather than dominance.Any such effort would need to include the United States, China, India, and Russia as central actors, alongside other major, legacy, and regional powers. India’s role would not be that of a hegemonic architect, but of a credible convenor capable of bridging divides across competing systems and interests.Symbolism would matter. A venue such as Nalanda—once a global centre of learning that drew scholars from across Asia and beyond—offers more than historical resonance. It represents a tradition of intellectual exchange that transcended political boundaries, a space where knowledge, dialogue, and pluralism flourished across cultures and civilisations. In a contemporary context marked by fragmentation and strategic mistrust, such symbolism carries practical value. Nalanda, in this sense, is not merely a place—it is a metaphor for a more open, dialogic, and civilisationally grounded approach to organising international cooperation.In the absence of such an initiative, managed competition will give way to unmanaged rivalry, where stability becomes episodic and crisis becomes the default condition.&nbsp;A durable global architecture will depend on the active participation of the United States, China, India, and Russia—alongside other major, legacy, and regional powers—around which a stable international order must be constructed.The post-war system was not inevitable; it was envisioned, negotiated, and built. As it comes under increasing strain, the central question is whether the international community still possesses the imagination—and discipline—to do so again, before drift hardens into irreversible disorder.&nbsp;Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

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

As geopolitical tensions sharpen and debates over United States actions toward Iran intensify, deeper questions are emerging about the durability of the post-war international order. Much of the current discourse remains focused on immediate actions and perceived violations of norms. What is often missing, however, is a broader historical perspective—an understanding of how this order was constructed, and the conditions under which it emerged. The international system that is frequently invoked today did not arise organically. It was designed—deliberately and systematically—in the aftermath of catastrophic global conflict. To understand its current trajectory, it is necessary to revisit how it was conceived and the circumstances that enabled its creation. Even before the Second World War, efforts had been made to construct a more stable global system. Woodrow Wilson’s proposal for a League of Nations following World War I was ultimately rejected by the United States Senate, widely dismissed at the time as idealistic. Yet it established an enduring intellectual premise: that international order could be consciously constructed, rather than left solely to shifting balances of power. That premise re-emerged under far more favourable conditions during and after the Second World War. The Dumbarton Oaks Conference laid the foundations for the United Nations system, while the Bretton Woods Conference established the architecture for global finance. Together, these frameworks shaped not only security and economic relations, but over time trade, development, and governance norms across the international system. The United States played a central role in this process. It provided strategic leadership, political momentum, and the institutional imagination required to translate post-war devastation into a functioning order. At the same time, it engaged selectively—remaining outside certain frameworks such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, even as it shaped many others. This system was born out of trauma. The devastation of two world wars brought unprecedented levels of violence and destruction, transforming both the ethics and limits of conflict. A fragile consensus—“never again”—began to take shape. Concepts such as restraint, legitimacy, and moral authority entered the strategic lexicon, tempering the older doctrine of “might is right.” Yet ultimate authority remained concentrated in the hands of a small group of powerful states. Today, that order is visibly under strain. The rise of China, the re-emergence of India, and the renewed assertiveness of Russia, together with the growing influence of regional and middle powers, are reshaping the global balance. At the same time, technological disruption—from artificial intelligence to cyber capabilities—and renewed competition over energy and resources are transforming the foundations of power itself. In this context, debates within the United States have taken on increasing urgency. Some American strategists argue that Washington has been “sleeping at the switch”—that it has failed to assert its dominance decisively and risks strategic drift. Seen through this lens, developments involving Iran become more than regional issues. They become platforms for signalling—not only to Tehran, but to Beijing and other actors in a changing global system. Recent actions underscore a clear reality: the United States still possesses the most advanced and capable military power in history, with unmatched global reach. It is worth noting, however, what has not been used. The restraint shown—particularly the avoidance of escalation into nuclear thresholds or other extreme forms of warfare—may prove as significant as the actions themselves. Yet if current trends continue—where power increasingly substitutes for principle—this will not remain a uniquely American dilemma. Other major and regional powers, including China, India, and an assertive Russia, as well as influential middle powers, may soon face similar strategic choices. As capabilities expand, so too does the temptation—or perceived necessity—to act outside established norms. What begins as exception risks becoming precedent. This is the paradox of great power transition. Once “might” becomes the primary currency of legitimacy, it generates systemic pressure on all major actors to behave in ways that reinforce that logic. In such an environment, restraint is no longer rewarded; it is penalised. At that point, the question is no longer whether the system is under strain, but whether it is capable of renewal. Incremental adjustments and crisis management may stabilise the present, but they do not shape the future. Without a broader framework, they risk becoming a form of strategic drift—managing disorder rather than designing order. There is precedent for such design. The Dumbarton Oaks process itself was not a summit of heads of state, but a structured diplomatic effort conducted by senior officials operating with political authorisation. It was shaped by strong leadership, but also by negotiation, sequencing, and compromise among competing interests. A contemporary equivalent would necessarily be more complex. It would have to reflect a more diffuse distribution of power and a lower level of trust among major actors. It would require an approach that is consultative rather than directive, incremental rather than declaratory, and focused on convergence rather than dominance. Any such effort would need to include the United States, China, India, and Russia as central actors, alongside other major, legacy, and regional powers. India’s role would not be that of a hegemonic architect, but of a credible convenor capable of bridging divides across competing systems and interests. Symbolism would matter. A venue such as Nalanda—once a global centre of learning that drew scholars from across Asia and beyond—offers more than historical resonance. It represents a tradition of intellectual exchange that transcended political boundaries, a space where knowledge, dialogue, and pluralism flourished across cultures and civilisations. In a contemporary context marked by fragmentation and strategic mistrust, such symbolism carries practical value. Nalanda, in this sense, is not merely a place—it is a metaphor for a more open, dialogic, and civilisationally grounded approach to organising international cooperation. In the absence of such an initiative, managed competition will give way to unmanaged rivalry, where stability becomes episodic and crisis becomes the default condition. A durable global architecture will depend on the active participation of the United States, China, India, and Russia—alongside other major, legacy, and regional powers—around which a stable international order must be constructed. The post-war system was not inevitable; it was envisioned, negotiated, and built. As it comes under increasing strain, the central question is whether the international community still possesses the imagination—and discipline—to do so again, before drift hardens into irreversible disorder. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ministry of Defence’s decision to designate 2025 as the Year of Reforms is not a bureaucratic exercise in rebranding. It is a considered response to a security environment that has grown more demanding, not less. Anchored in Defence Forces Vision 2047, the initiative pursues greater jointness and integration among the three services and works toward the establishment of Integrated Theatre Commands (ITCs). These are not reforms undertaken in the abstract; they are shaped by the reality of over 5,000 kilometres of disputed land borders shared with two nuclear-armed neighbours, and a coastline whose strategic significance continues to grow. Criticism framing these efforts as risking ‘continentalisation’, weakening interoperability, or unleashing unmanageable institutional disruption does not hold up against the geographic facts, the doctrinal record, or the progress already made on the ground.&nbsp;<h2>On the question of continentalisation</h2>&nbsp;The concern about ‘continentalisation’ would carry more weight if India’s strategic circumstances bore any resemblance to those of its critics’ preferred comparisons. China’s reductions in ground forces took place in a setting where direct land threats were considerably fewer. India does not have that luxury. The LAC and the LoC remain live, contested frontiers—not theoretical concerns—and any reform framework that ignores this would be strategically irresponsible.&nbsp;India’s approach does not choose between land and maritime power; it deliberately sustains both. Land forces continue to anchor continental deterrence and provide strategic depth, while air and naval assets are developed for power projection and sea denial. The structure of the three proposed ITCs reflects precisely this balance. The Northern Theatre Command, headquartered in Lucknow, will manage the China frontier stretching from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh. The Western Theatre Command, based in Jaipur, will focus on the Pakistan front. The Maritime Theatre Command at Thiruvananthapuram will be dedicated exclusively to naval imperatives. Each will be led by a unified four-star commander drawing together all three services. Carrier battle groups, island defence, and anti-access and area-denial operations are not afterthoughts in this framework—they have a dedicated command structure of their own.&nbsp;<h2>On force structure and interoperability</h2>&nbsp;According to Global Firepower 2026 rankings, India maintains approximately 1.43 million active military personnel, with the Army accounting for the largest share. This is not the result of institutional inertia or bias toward land power; it reflects operational reality. The reforms do not challenge this—they build upon it. Additional Army formations are being restructured into Integrated Battle Groups, with Air Force close air support, Navy coastal assets, and joint logistics woven into their fabric rather than bolted on as an afterthought.&nbsp;The June 2025 decision to empower the CDS to issue binding Joint Instructions and Joint Orders across all three services was a meaningful step, not a ceremonial one. It has already begun to cut through the resource allocation silos that have long complicated joint planning.&nbsp;On interoperability, the criticism is frankly dated. Invoking the 1991 Gulf War as a reference point for evaluating India’s joint capabilities today reflects an unfamiliarity with two decades of quiet but substantive progress in C4ISR—Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. The Department of Military Affairs has driven the standardisation of common protocols across services: the expansion of Integrated Material Management Online Systems, the building of tri-service data links, shared encryption standards, and the codification of joint doctrines. Exercises such as TROPEX and Gagan Shakti are not symbolic displays—they are annual tests of whether these systems actually work together. The CDS’s authority, extended in June 2025, to issue single-point operational directives means that sound practices from any one service can now be applied across all three in joint planning.&nbsp;<h2>On indigenisation and procurement</h2>&nbsp;The Atmanirbhar Bharat framework has moved defence indigenisation from aspiration to measurable output. Drones, missiles, radars, and major platforms are increasingly domestically sourced, and this has not come at the cost of operational quality. In the financial year 2025–26, Acceptance of Necessity was accorded for proposals valued at over ₹6.73 lakh crore, with a clear emphasis on joint systems. The tri-service Common Operating Picture—drawing together ISRO satellites, MQ-9B drones, and ground-based sensors—is close to becoming fully operational. The honest assessment is that no core capability has been traded away. What these reforms are building is a more coherent, more responsive force—one better suited to the hybrid and multi-domain scenarios that modern conflict increasingly demands.&nbsp;<h2>On institutional risk and sequencing</h2>&nbsp;The worry that running the Agnipath scheme, the IBG rollout, and theatre command formation simultaneously courts organisational chaos deserves a direct answer. The Swiss Cheese model of cumulative failure that critics invoke is a legitimate framework—but it describes unmanaged change, not what is actually happening here. India’s reform process is governed by iterative wargaming, phased field trials, and sequencing under direct CDS oversight. These are not reforms being pushed through in haste.&nbsp;The Agnipath scheme, launched in 2022, had inducted over 1.75 lakh Agniveers by the end of 2025. Each inductee undergoes six months of foundational training before moving to unit-specific skill development. The first cohort completes its four-year engagement in 2026. Retention, currently set at 25% and subject to review by the Army Commanders' Conference, is performance-based, selecting those who demonstrate the qualities the force needs for the long term. The demographic effect is deliberate and significant: the average age of the soldier is expected to fall from around 32 to 26 years, bringing with it a generation of personnel comfortable with drones, AI systems, and networked warfare. The fiscal benefit—reduced pension liability freeing funds for capital investment—is a consequential gain, not a minor footnote.&nbsp;The Rudra Brigade, approved on 26 July 2025, gives concrete form to what IBGs mean in practice. Under a single commander, it brings together infantry, mechanised forces, armour, artillery, special forces—including the newly raised Bhairav light commando battalions—alongside drone units and logistics. It is designed for rapid, multi-axis operations across varied terrain, drawing on Cold Start principles and the operational lessons of recent standoffs. At a target strength of 3,000 to 5,000 personnel, these formations offer a meaningfully different kind of agility from the large divisional structures they are designed to supplement.&nbsp;<h2>On theatre command timelines</h2>&nbsp;Theatre commands have achieved near-unanimous consensus among the services—a degree of institutional alignment that should not be taken for granted. Operational rollout is on track for May 2026, timed to coincide with the extended tenure of the CDS, who will oversee the transition. The logic of sequencing—jointness first, structural integration second—is sound. It keeps operational command distinct from the administrative Raise-Train-Sustain functions, ensuring that the command structure being built is oriented toward warfighting from the outset.&nbsp;What is taking shape is a force that is leaner without being hollowed out, more technologically capable without having sacrificed proven strengths, and genuinely joint in a way that earlier structures never fully achieved. The spectrum of threats India faces — from high-altitude border confrontations to maritime competition to operations in cyberspace — demands exactly this kind of force. Continued investment in indigenisation, joint training, and careful resource stewardship will carry this forward. The armed forces' commitment to mission readiness is not a slogan at the end of a policy document. It is the standard against which every one of these reforms will ultimately be judged.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

India’s approach does not choose between land and maritime power; it deliberately sustains both. Land forces continue to anchor continental deterrence and provide strategic depth, while air and naval assets are developed for power projection and sea denial.

The Ministry of Defence’s decision to designate 2025 as the Year of Reforms is not a bureaucratic exercise in rebranding. It is a considered response to a security environment that has grown more demanding, not less. Anchored in Defence Forces Vision 2047, the initiative pursues greater jointness and integration among the three services and works toward the establishment of Integrated Theatre Commands (ITCs). These are not reforms undertaken in the abstract; they are shaped by the reality of over 5,000 kilometres of disputed land borders shared with two nuclear-armed neighbours, and a coastline whose strategic significance continues to grow. Criticism framing these efforts as risking ‘continentalisation’, weakening interoperability, or unleashing unmanageable institutional disruption does not hold up against the geographic facts, the doctrinal record, or the progress already made on the ground. On the question of continentalisation The concern about ‘continentalisation’ would carry more weight if India’s strategic circumstances bore any resemblance to those of its critics’ preferred comparisons. China’s reductions in ground forces took place in a setting where direct land threats were considerably fewer. India does not have that luxury. The LAC and the LoC remain live, contested frontiers—not theoretical concerns—and any reform framework that ignores this would be strategically irresponsible. India’s approach does not choose between land and maritime power; it deliberately sustains both. Land forces continue to anchor continental deterrence and provide strategic depth, while air and naval assets are developed for power projection and sea denial. The structure of the three proposed ITCs reflects precisely this balance. The Northern Theatre Command, headquartered in Lucknow, will manage the China frontier stretching from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh. The Western Theatre Command, based in Jaipur, will focus on the Pakistan front. The Maritime Theatre Command at Thiruvananthapuram will be dedicated exclusively to naval imperatives. Each will be led by a unified four-star commander drawing together all three services. Carrier battle groups, island defence, and anti-access and area-denial operations are not afterthoughts in this framework—they have a dedicated command structure of their own. On force structure and interoperability According to Global Firepower 2026 rankings, India maintains approximately 1.43 million active military personnel, with the Army accounting for the largest share. This is not the result of institutional inertia or bias toward land power; it reflects operational reality. The reforms do not challenge this—they build upon it. Additional Army formations are being restructured into Integrated Battle Groups, with Air Force close air support, Navy coastal assets, and joint logistics woven into their fabric rather than bolted on as an afterthought. The June 2025 decision to empower the CDS to issue binding Joint Instructions and Joint Orders across all three services was a meaningful step, not a ceremonial one. It has already begun to cut through the resource allocation silos that have long complicated joint planning. On interoperability, the criticism is frankly dated. Invoking the 1991 Gulf War as a reference point for evaluating India’s joint capabilities today reflects an unfamiliarity with two decades of quiet but substantive progress in C4ISR—Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. The Department of Military Affairs has driven the standardisation of common protocols across services: the expansion of Integrated Material Management Online Systems, the building of tri-service data links, shared encryption standards, and the codification of joint doctrines. Exercises such as TROPEX and Gagan Shakti are not symbolic displays—they are annual tests of whether these systems actually work together. The CDS’s authority, extended in June 2025, to issue single-point operational directives means that sound practices from any one service can now be applied across all three in joint planning. On indigenisation and procurement The Atmanirbhar Bharat framework has moved defence indigenisation from aspiration to measurable output. Drones, missiles, radars, and major platforms are increasingly domestically sourced, and this has not come at the cost of operational quality. In the financial year 2025–26, Acceptance of Necessity was accorded for proposals valued at over ₹6.73 lakh crore, with a clear emphasis on joint systems. The tri-service Common Operating Picture—drawing together ISRO satellites, MQ-9B drones, and ground-based sensors—is close to becoming fully operational. The honest assessment is that no core capability has been traded away. What these reforms are building is a more coherent, more responsive force—one better suited to the hybrid and multi-domain scenarios that modern conflict increasingly demands. On institutional risk and sequencing The worry that running the Agnipath scheme, the IBG rollout, and theatre command formation simultaneously courts organisational chaos deserves a direct answer. The Swiss Cheese model of cumulative failure that critics invoke is a legitimate framework—but it describes unmanaged change, not what is actually happening here. India’s reform process is governed by iterative wargaming, phased field trials, and sequencing under direct CDS oversight. These are not reforms being pushed through in haste. The Agnipath scheme, launched in 2022, had inducted over 1.75 lakh Agniveers by the end of 2025. Each inductee undergoes six months of foundational training before moving to unit-specific skill development. The first cohort completes its four-year engagement in 2026. Retention, currently set at 25% and subject to review by the Army Commanders' Conference, is performance-based, selecting those who demonstrate the qualities the force needs for the long term. The demographic effect is deliberate and significant: the average age of the soldier is expected to fall from around 32 to 26 years, bringing with it a generation of personnel comfortable with drones, AI systems, and networked warfare. The fiscal benefit—reduced pension liability freeing funds for capital investment—is a consequential gain, not a minor footnote. The Rudra Brigade, approved on 26 July 2025, gives concrete form to what IBGs mean in practice. Under a single commander, it brings together infantry, mechanised forces, armour, artillery, special forces—including the newly raised Bhairav light commando battalions—alongside drone units and logistics. It is designed for rapid, multi-axis operations across varied terrain, drawing on Cold Start principles and the operational lessons of recent standoffs. At a target strength of 3,000 to 5,000 personnel, these formations offer a meaningfully different kind of agility from the large divisional structures they are designed to supplement. On theatre command timelines Theatre commands have achieved near-unanimous consensus among the services—a degree of institutional alignment that should not be taken for granted. Operational rollout is on track for May 2026, timed to coincide with the extended tenure of the CDS, who will oversee the transition. The logic of sequencing—jointness first, structural integration second—is sound. It keeps operational command distinct from the administrative Raise-Train-Sustain functions, ensuring that the command structure being built is oriented toward warfighting from the outset. What is taking shape is a force that is leaner without being hollowed out, more technologically capable without having sacrificed proven strengths, and genuinely joint in a way that earlier structures never fully achieved. The spectrum of threats India faces — from high-altitude border confrontations to maritime competition to operations in cyberspace — demands exactly this kind of force. Continued investment in indigenisation, joint training, and careful resource stewardship will carry this forward. The armed forces' commitment to mission readiness is not a slogan at the end of a policy document. It is the standard against which every one of these reforms will ultimately be judged. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

India’s approach does not choose between land and maritime power; it deliberately sustains both. Land forces continue to anchor continental deterrence and provide strategic depth, while air and naval assets are developed for power projection and sea denial.

Addressing misconceptions regarding India’s military reforms

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

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

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