The Early Spring is proof not everyone can talk about their real feelings, and it is perfectly OK

UN votes to ‘correct the map’ as India backs fairer world view

Nigerian Navy discovers 99,000 litres of suspected stolen, illegally refined products as it intensifies anti-crude oil theft operations

Who is Aditi Paudel? 17-year-old becomes Japan's first literacy ambassador

Bengaluru: Officials find 40 kg expired chilli at chairman's club 

Jaishankar rejects trade link to ending Ukraine war 

Israeli strikes on Lebanon kill three, injure 23 despite truce

Alpine glacier was covered with sheep wool sheets to prevent melting. It worked

South Korea mulls deploying military assets to Strait of Hormuz

World's fifth-largest economy, British army can't afford to train

Breaking | Vance takes the podium: First White House briefing since Leavitt's exit

Taiwan raises 'concerns' over China's missile test

BRICS 2026: $1 trillion sovereign capital set to converge in Delhi for first iBRICS Summit

What is Iran's Pickaxe Mountain that Trump has again threatened to bomb?

UN votes to correct world map that visually shrank Africa for 450 years

Former NewJeans member Danielle launches YouTube channel, hints at new solo journey

Bangladesh batter Towhid Hridoy creates history with 350 not out in South Africa

Brendan Fraser’s transformation fuels The Mummy 4 excitement as fans welcome back Rick O’Connell

Krishna Janmashtami 2026: From Dhaniya Panjiri to Makhana Kheer- 5 best sweet dishes perfect for celebrating Lord Krishna’s birth

Donald Trump plans to travel to Ireland on Qatari-donated jet amid security concerns

Nazi-looted art to return to Jewish heirs

Eight killed in Kerala’s Thrissur after car rams into lorry parked on highway

Why Russian fighter jets use bulky, low-pressure tyres compared to US jets

FBI-wanted fraud accused arrested in Jalandhar over $600,000 scam

Why US tanks weigh over 20 tons more than Russian tanks

New Friday OTT releases (September 4, 2026): GDN, Dhamaal 4, Jagamae Sangeetham- Watch 6 new movies and TV shows on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Killing the Himalayas slowly: Human urine is melting a glacier on Mount Everest

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

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

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

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

Competing by exclusion: The return of economic containment

As the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran enters its fourth week, one country has quietly stepped into the spotlight—Pakistan. It has offered to host peace talks between Washington and Tehran, a move that has surprised many and raised hopes for some kind of breakthrough. With both sides weary from weeks of strikes, missiles, and rising global tension, Islamabad’s sudden offer has made the world stop and listen.&nbsp;Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif posted on X (formerly Twitter) on March 24, saying Pakistan was “ready and honored” to host “serious and final talks” for a full peace deal to end the war. Within minutes, US President Donald Trump reshared the post, calling it a “positive step.” Just a day earlier, Trump had announced a temporary five-day halt in American attacks on Iran’s energy sites. He also hinted that top officials from both sides had already exchanged messages through friendly countries.&nbsp;According to regional sources, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan have all been acting as informal middlemen, quietly passing messages between Iran and the US. But so far, only Pakistan seems to have the trust of both sides.&nbsp;<h2>Why Pakistan wants to mediate</h2>&nbsp;Pakistan’s decision to jump into one of the world’s most dangerous conflicts isn’t just random. It is driven by both practical needs and smart diplomacy.&nbsp;First, Pakistan understands that if this war continues, the entire region — including its own economy — will suffer. The Strait of Hormuz, which handles almost 20% of the world’s oil, is near total collapse due to attacks. If that continues, oil prices will shoot up worldwide, and Pakistan, already struggling with high inflation and energy costs, will pay the price.&nbsp;Second, Pakistan has a large Shia Muslim population, nearly 15% of its people, and any turmoil in Iran directly affects its social and political stability. Violence in Iran often creates emotional reactions inside Pakistan, including protests and pressure on its government to respond.&nbsp;Third, Pakistan also has a strategic defence deal with Saudi Arabia, signed in 2025. Much like NATO’s principle of “an attack on one is an attack on all,” this agreement links Pakistan’s security to Saudi Arabia’s stability. But it also puts Islamabad in a tight spot — it cannot appear neutral for too long, or it risks angering Riyadh, yet taking sides could ruin its relations with Iran. Hence, offering to mediate is Pakistan’s smartest possible move.&nbsp;<h2>Security tensions at home</h2>&nbsp;At the same time, Pakistan faces major issues on its border with Afghanistan. Just before the Iran war began, Pakistan had launched airstrikes inside Afghan territory against terrorist groups. Now, with the world’s attention fixed on Iran, Pakistan has more freedom to deal with these threats quietly, without attracting much outside criticism.&nbsp;However, if Iran becomes unstable, the problems could easily spread. The Pakistan-Iran border stretches over 900 kilometres and is poorly monitored. Terror groups could slip across easily, using the conflict as cover. That would hurt Pakistan’s economy, especially in Balochistan, where major trade and energy projects are based. It could also scare investors away and threaten plans to connect Pakistan to Central Asian markets.&nbsp;<h2>The road to talks</h2>&nbsp;Reports in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper and Turkey’s Anadolu Agency confirm that American officials may soon arrive in Islamabad for preparatory discussions. Iran has officially denied holding talks, but the tone of its denial suggested that some quiet exchanges are already happening.&nbsp;Analysts believe Pakistan’s advantage lies in its working relations with both camps. Islamabad has deep ties with the United States through trade, the military, and diplomacy. With Iran, Pakistan shares a long border and ongoing regional agreements. And even though Pakistan does not recognise Israel, it quietly communicates through friendly Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.&nbsp;As Zeeshan Shah, a geopolitical analyst based in Washington, told Al-Monitor, Pakistan’s growing role as a mediator is “not surprising.” He explained that Islamabad is one of the few countries near Iran that has not been attacked by Tehran in this war. Its balanced ties with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the US give it rare credibility as a go-between.&nbsp;Some analysts also note another layer — a new kind of financial diplomacy. Zach Witkoff, a business figure close to the Trump family, reportedly visited Islamabad in January to discuss using digital currency systems for international payments. This suggests that apart from politics, economic interests are now shaping how Pakistan engages the world during this crisis.&nbsp;<h2>Tehran’s tentative response</h2>&nbsp;For now, Iran insists that it is not holding any formal talks with the US. But the country’s statements are carefully worded. Tehran says it has received messages from “friendly mediators” but will stick to its conditions — mainly that the US and Israel must stop attacks, pay compensation for the damage, and respect Iran’s security.&nbsp;However, many within Iran’s power circles — especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — strongly oppose any negotiations. According to experts quoted in Al-Monitor, the IRGC fears that such talks could weaken its influence and create internal divisions within Iran’s power structure.&nbsp;<h2>Can Pakistan really pull this off?</h2>&nbsp;Realistically, Pakistan’s offer faces several challenges. The US is still sending more Marines and naval forces to the Gulf, and Iran continues missile attacks on Israeli and allied targets. The battlefield is still hot, making peace talks fragile at best.&nbsp;Still, diplomatic voices in Washington and Dubai describe Pakistan’s role as “a small but genuine hope.” Even a short-term truce could slow missile exchanges, reopen shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, and stabilise global oil prices. That alone would bring relief to millions across Asia, including India and Pakistan, where petrol and gas costs are climbing sharply.&nbsp;But as Theodore Karasik, a Middle East expert also quoted in Al-Monitor, pointed out, diplomacy will only work if both sides truly want it. If the talks turn into political theater—more about headlines than healing—then the war will likely resume in full force.&nbsp;For now, Islamabad has achieved what few expected: it has placed itself at the centre of world diplomacy, even if only for a moment. As the bombs fall and oil prices rise, the world watches to see whether this unexpected mediator from South Asia can turn a flicker of hope into something real — or whether Pakistan’s peace promise will disappear like smoke over the burning Strait of Hormuz.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

As the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran enters its fourth week, one country has quietly stepped into the spotlight—Pakistan. It has offered to host peace talks between Washington and Tehran, a move that has surprised many and raised hopes for some kind of breakthrough. With both sides weary from weeks of strikes, missiles, and rising global tension, Islamabad’s sudden offer has made the world stop and listen. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif posted on X (formerly Twitter) on March 24, saying Pakistan was “ready and honored” to host “serious and final talks” for a full peace deal to end the war. Within minutes, US President Donald Trump reshared the post, calling it a “positive step.” Just a day earlier, Trump had announced a temporary five-day halt in American attacks on Iran’s energy sites. He also hinted that top officials from both sides had already exchanged messages through friendly countries. According to regional sources, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan have all been acting as informal middlemen, quietly passing messages between Iran and the US. But so far, only Pakistan seems to have the trust of both sides. Why Pakistan wants to mediate Pakistan’s decision to jump into one of the world’s most dangerous conflicts isn’t just random. It is driven by both practical needs and smart diplomacy. First, Pakistan understands that if this war continues, the entire region — including its own economy — will suffer. The Strait of Hormuz, which handles almost 20% of the world’s oil, is near total collapse due to attacks. If that continues, oil prices will shoot up worldwide, and Pakistan, already struggling with high inflation and energy costs, will pay the price. Second, Pakistan has a large Shia Muslim population, nearly 15% of its people, and any turmoil in Iran directly affects its social and political stability. Violence in Iran often creates emotional reactions inside Pakistan, including protests and pressure on its government to respond. Third, Pakistan also has a strategic defence deal with Saudi Arabia, signed in 2025. Much like NATO’s principle of “an attack on one is an attack on all,” this agreement links Pakistan’s security to Saudi Arabia’s stability. But it also puts Islamabad in a tight spot — it cannot appear neutral for too long, or it risks angering Riyadh, yet taking sides could ruin its relations with Iran. Hence, offering to mediate is Pakistan’s smartest possible move. Security tensions at home At the same time, Pakistan faces major issues on its border with Afghanistan. Just before the Iran war began, Pakistan had launched airstrikes inside Afghan territory against terrorist groups. Now, with the world’s attention fixed on Iran, Pakistan has more freedom to deal with these threats quietly, without attracting much outside criticism. However, if Iran becomes unstable, the problems could easily spread. The Pakistan-Iran border stretches over 900 kilometres and is poorly monitored. Terror groups could slip across easily, using the conflict as cover. That would hurt Pakistan’s economy, especially in Balochistan, where major trade and energy projects are based. It could also scare investors away and threaten plans to connect Pakistan to Central Asian markets. The road to talks Reports in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper and Turkey’s Anadolu Agency confirm that American officials may soon arrive in Islamabad for preparatory discussions. Iran has officially denied holding talks, but the tone of its denial suggested that some quiet exchanges are already happening. Analysts believe Pakistan’s advantage lies in its working relations with both camps. Islamabad has deep ties with the United States through trade, the military, and diplomacy. With Iran, Pakistan shares a long border and ongoing regional agreements. And even though Pakistan does not recognise Israel, it quietly communicates through friendly Arab nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As Zeeshan Shah, a geopolitical analyst based in Washington, told Al-Monitor, Pakistan’s growing role as a mediator is “not surprising.” He explained that Islamabad is one of the few countries near Iran that has not been attacked by Tehran in this war. Its balanced ties with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the US give it rare credibility as a go-between. Some analysts also note another layer — a new kind of financial diplomacy. Zach Witkoff, a business figure close to the Trump family, reportedly visited Islamabad in January to discuss using digital currency systems for international payments. This suggests that apart from politics, economic interests are now shaping how Pakistan engages the world during this crisis. Tehran’s tentative response For now, Iran insists that it is not holding any formal talks with the US. But the country’s statements are carefully worded. Tehran says it has received messages from “friendly mediators” but will stick to its conditions — mainly that the US and Israel must stop attacks, pay compensation for the damage, and respect Iran’s security. However, many within Iran’s power circles — especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — strongly oppose any negotiations. According to experts quoted in Al-Monitor, the IRGC fears that such talks could weaken its influence and create internal divisions within Iran’s power structure. Can Pakistan really pull this off? Realistically, Pakistan’s offer faces several challenges. The US is still sending more Marines and naval forces to the Gulf, and Iran continues missile attacks on Israeli and allied targets. The battlefield is still hot, making peace talks fragile at best. Still, diplomatic voices in Washington and Dubai describe Pakistan’s role as “a small but genuine hope.” Even a short-term truce could slow missile exchanges, reopen shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, and stabilise global oil prices. That alone would bring relief to millions across Asia, including India and Pakistan, where petrol and gas costs are climbing sharply. But as Theodore Karasik, a Middle East expert also quoted in Al-Monitor, pointed out, diplomacy will only work if both sides truly want it. If the talks turn into political theater—more about headlines than healing—then the war will likely resume in full force. For now, Islamabad has achieved what few expected: it has placed itself at the centre of world diplomacy, even if only for a moment. As the bombs fall and oil prices rise, the world watches to see whether this unexpected mediator from South Asia can turn a flicker of hope into something real — or whether Pakistan’s peace promise will disappear like smoke over the burning Strait of Hormuz. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond foreign templates: Roots of Indian strategic culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China's growth on paper, stagnation in practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me ask you something simple. When you go to a shop and the shopkeeper says, “Sorry, the price has gone up because the government added a new tax,” what do you do? You pay more. You have no choice. That is exactly what is happening right now in America — and what happens in America does not just stay in America. It travels. It reaches India. It reaches your life.&nbsp;On Saturday, 21st February, American President Donald Trump announced a brand new 15% import tax on all goods coming into the United States from other countries. Import tax, also called a tariff, is simply extra money that a country charges when goods arrive from outside. Think of it like an entry fee. That extra cost is not eaten by the seller alone. It gets passed on to the buyer — the ordinary American person wondering why the price of their rice cooker or running shoes just went up.&nbsp;This 15% tax actually replaced a 10% tax that Trump had announced just the day before. And that 10% tax itself came because the Supreme Court of America struck down Trump’s earlier, much larger tariff plan. The court said Trump had no legal authority to impose those tariffs using IEEPA — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. IEEPA is a tool meant for emergencies like blocking money transfers or controlling trade with enemy nations, not for placing import taxes on the whole world. The court cancelled those tariffs.&nbsp;So Trump found another law — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Never used before in American history to impose tariffs, this law allows a president to place up to 15% import tax, but only for 150 days, roughly five months. Section 122 was created for situations where America is spending far more on buying goods from other countries than it earns by selling its own — what is called a trade deficit. Trump argues this is exactly the kind of problem this law was made for. Legal experts, however, are not fully convinced. There is a real possibility someone will take this to court too. But for now, the tariff is in place and it is real.&nbsp;In simple numbers — before the Supreme Court’s ruling, America's average import tax was 16%. After the ruling it dropped sharply to 9.1%. Now, with the new 15% tariff, it is expected to settle around 13.7%. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, a study by the Budget Lab at Yale University confirmed this.&nbsp;Now, why should you care? India exports medicines, textiles, software services, gems and engineering goods to America. A 15% tax means Indian companies either absorb the loss or charge more and risk losing customers. Either way, jobs are affected. Salaries are affected. Trade is not a faraway government matter — it is connected to someone’s job, someone’s evening meal.&nbsp;“Wait,” you might ask, “didn’t India just agree to an 18% rate earlier this month?” Yes, we did. But that deal was built on a legal foundation that the Supreme Court just demolished. While the new 15% tax sounds lower on paper, it is actually a trap. It strips away India’s special status and puts us in the same bucket as everyone else, all while hanging a 150-day timer over our heads. In trade, a lower tax with high uncertainty is often worse than a higher tax with a clear future.&nbsp;Not everything is taxed equally. Medicines, important minerals, defence goods, and products from Canada and Mexico under an existing trade agreement are exempt. But for most imports — including cheap goods from Chinese apps like Shein and Temu — the tax applies fully.&nbsp;Earlier, packages worth $800 or less could enter America without any tax. Trump ended this benefit, and the White House confirmed it will not return. Every small package now faces the 15% tariff. The Republican Party has also passed a law to permanently end this system from June 2027.&nbsp;On the ground, The Wall Street Journal noted that January’s inflation report showed prices for home appliances, furniture, and new cars had already gone up. For most of 2025, American companies and buyers paid over 90% of the extra costs themselves. Some companies stopped hiring. But shrimp fishermen in Alabama said tariffs actually helped them compete against cheaper foreign imports. So the story has two sides.&nbsp;My honest opinion? Tariff policy is not a light switch you can flick on and off every few days. Every change creates uncertainty. Uncertainty is itself a cost. And that cost finds its way to ordinary people every single time.&nbsp;Trump’s goal — protecting American industries, reducing dependence on China, bringing back jobs — is not wrong. But changing rates every 48 hours, getting them struck down in court, and finding new laws does not inspire confidence. A country’s trade policy must be stable and legally sound. What we are seeing right now is the opposite of that.&nbsp;And that, my friend, is exactly why you should be paying attention.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

Let me ask you something simple. When you go to a shop and the shopkeeper says, “Sorry, the price has gone up because the government added a new tax,” what do you do? You pay more. You have no choice. That is exactly what is happening right now in America — and what happens in America does not just stay in America. It travels. It reaches India. It reaches your life. On Saturday, 21st February, American President Donald Trump announced a brand new 15% import tax on all goods coming into the United States from other countries. Import tax, also called a tariff, is simply extra money that a country charges when goods arrive from outside. Think of it like an entry fee. That extra cost is not eaten by the seller alone. It gets passed on to the buyer — the ordinary American person wondering why the price of their rice cooker or running shoes just went up. This 15% tax actually replaced a 10% tax that Trump had announced just the day before. And that 10% tax itself came because the Supreme Court of America struck down Trump’s earlier, much larger tariff plan. The court said Trump had no legal authority to impose those tariffs using IEEPA — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. IEEPA is a tool meant for emergencies like blocking money transfers or controlling trade with enemy nations, not for placing import taxes on the whole world. The court cancelled those tariffs. So Trump found another law — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Never used before in American history to impose tariffs, this law allows a president to place up to 15% import tax, but only for 150 days, roughly five months. Section 122 was created for situations where America is spending far more on buying goods from other countries than it earns by selling its own — what is called a trade deficit. Trump argues this is exactly the kind of problem this law was made for. Legal experts, however, are not fully convinced. There is a real possibility someone will take this to court too. But for now, the tariff is in place and it is real. In simple numbers — before the Supreme Court’s ruling, America's average import tax was 16%. After the ruling it dropped sharply to 9.1%. Now, with the new 15% tariff, it is expected to settle around 13.7%. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, a study by the Budget Lab at Yale University confirmed this. Now, why should you care? India exports medicines, textiles, software services, gems and engineering goods to America. A 15% tax means Indian companies either absorb the loss or charge more and risk losing customers. Either way, jobs are affected. Salaries are affected. Trade is not a faraway government matter — it is connected to someone’s job, someone’s evening meal. “Wait,” you might ask, “didn’t India just agree to an 18% rate earlier this month?” Yes, we did. But that deal was built on a legal foundation that the Supreme Court just demolished. While the new 15% tax sounds lower on paper, it is actually a trap. It strips away India’s special status and puts us in the same bucket as everyone else, all while hanging a 150-day timer over our heads. In trade, a lower tax with high uncertainty is often worse than a higher tax with a clear future. Not everything is taxed equally. Medicines, important minerals, defence goods, and products from Canada and Mexico under an existing trade agreement are exempt. But for most imports — including cheap goods from Chinese apps like Shein and Temu — the tax applies fully. Earlier, packages worth $800 or less could enter America without any tax. Trump ended this benefit, and the White House confirmed it will not return. Every small package now faces the 15% tariff. The Republican Party has also passed a law to permanently end this system from June 2027. On the ground, The Wall Street Journal noted that January’s inflation report showed prices for home appliances, furniture, and new cars had already gone up. For most of 2025, American companies and buyers paid over 90% of the extra costs themselves. Some companies stopped hiring. But shrimp fishermen in Alabama said tariffs actually helped them compete against cheaper foreign imports. So the story has two sides. My honest opinion? Tariff policy is not a light switch you can flick on and off every few days. Every change creates uncertainty. Uncertainty is itself a cost. And that cost finds its way to ordinary people every single time. Trump’s goal — protecting American industries, reducing dependence on China, bringing back jobs — is not wrong. But changing rates every 48 hours, getting them struck down in court, and finding new laws does not inspire confidence. A country’s trade policy must be stable and legally sound. What we are seeing right now is the opposite of that. And that, my friend, is exactly why you should be paying attention. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From chips to chatbots: How India is chasing AI billions

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

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

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

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

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

Who really blinked? That must be a question on many minds after President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi greeted and tweeted to announce what looked like the contours of a much-delayed Indo-US trade agreement. But don’t look for the answer just yet.&nbsp;There are quite a few uncertainties looming over the deal, that the only thing that can be said with a degree of certainty is that both parties have agreed that it is better to do business with each other in a long-standing strategic relationship, rather than prolong a months-long standoff on tariffs and much else in geopolitics that cast a long shadow over ties between the world’s two biggest democracies. India, with the US as its largest trading partner, had much at stake.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-us-trade-tariff-stalemate-broken-what-does-this-mean-for-new-delhi-and-its-economy-1770100909043/amp">India US trade tariff stalemate ends, what does this mean for New Delhi and its economy</a>&nbsp;Right now, it is a moment for sentimental appreciation. India’s stock market, which plunged on a marginal tweak-up in the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) in Sunday’s budget announcements, are up nearly 3 per cent in an overnight mood makeover. What really matters in the long run, however, would be a sector-wise list of winners and losers.&nbsp;On the one hand, there is a case for seeing this as a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) moment in which the White House incumbent goes back on his early bombast, but claims victory after a climbdown. On the other hand, the troubles are not over for India. As a source close to the negotiators from the Indian side says: Eighteen is the new zero!&nbsp;Trump has essentially rolled back his big “reciprocal tariff” hit from 25% to 18% apart from dropping his additional “punitive surcharge” of 25% linked to Russian oil purchases in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict. But it is not quite the same as nil. As the source says, what we have is a “very limited agreement” restricted to the narrow Washington interest in goods that were already in the works but were stuck in a clash of attitudes. The bottom line: while the US has got away with zero duty on a few items, India may have to contend with the “new zero”.&nbsp;Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-dials-indian-pm-modi-says-us-ambassador-sergio-gor-1770048397476">‘We agreed to trade deal’: Trump dials PM Modi, reduces tariffs on India from 25% to 18%</a>&nbsp;What we are seeing, as note in stock movements, is a sigh of relief in export-oriented Indian sectors such as apparel, chemicals, textiles and engineering goods that were stopped on their tracks by the steep tariffs.&nbsp;The limited agreement resembles a discount sale in an online marketplace -- more of an alluring advertising opportunity than a real bargain.&nbsp;Trump’s social media boast that India has agreed to slash Russian oil purchases while buying more from the US and Venezuela is full of diplomatic pinpricks, given that it subjects India into a trade blackmail. Nevertheless, the rollback is a confirmation that the US gave way after India’s posturing signalling a step-up of relations with Moscow and the China-centric Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. India is yet to give up Russian oil purchases, though they are down. From all indications, Venezuela is just a boast factor for Trump, as the oil reserves in that country are of a poor quality and involve steep cost considerations for refiners.&nbsp;There are more questions hanging in the air. What happens to US visa restrictions that have stymied India’s information technology exports, or, for that matter, rants by Trump’s far-right Republican supporters against immigration that borders on racism even against Indian Americans? Given that the Indian rupee has weakened in recent months against the US dollar, one wonders how much the competitiveness and profit margins of India’s merchandise exports eroded by 18% tariffs will be offset by the currency gain.&nbsp;In the backdrop, we have everything from artificial intelligence (AI) and its future gains and the US-led ‘Pax Silica’ which Washington launched last month to secure supply chains for semiconductors and AI to counter China’s grip on critical minerals. India is yet to join the Western alliance and there is reason to believe Trump’s climbdown also factored in the need to include India in the alliance given its significant clout in the software revolution of which AI is only the next frontier.&nbsp;Unlike the recently concluded India-European Union free trade agreement (FTA), the trade deal with the US is not a signed and sealed agreement yet. Geopolitical issues hang in the air, particularly on Washington’s wish to make India abandon its work in Iran’s Chabahar port. The extraordinary warmth Trump showed with Pakistan’s military chief Asim Munir and Islamabad’s establishment last year in the wake of India’s Operation Sindoor retaliation against the Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir cannot be forgotten in a hurry.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-us-ties-trump-announces-trade-deal-with-india-after-pm-modi-call-1770056451367">India-US Ties: Trump Announces Trade Deal with India After PM Modi Call</a>&nbsp;Trump’s sweeping claim that India had agreed to reducing its tariffs and non-tariff barriers to zero and buying various US goods including energy products worth “more than $500 billion” are too vague to be accepted or dismissed at face value. We will have to wait and see. No time horizon has been cited.&nbsp;What remains is the ground reality: Geopolitically and economically, and given the nature of emerging technologies and America’s priority to contain China, India remains important for whoever sits in the White House. Besides, it is difficult to imagine the US without Silicon Valley, whose technology pioneers are unlikely to stomach for long a president seen hostile to India.&nbsp;But that is hardly a victory for the Modi government. It is more like some elbow room that needs to be utilised properly. Perhaps we can say the same about Trump whose Republicans face mid-term Congressional elections later this year. We are living in a diplomatically volatile world beset with technological uncertainties and inward-looking politics everywhere. The dust won’t settle so soon.

Who really blinked? That must be a question on many minds after President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi greeted and tweeted to announce a trade deal. There are quite a few uncertainties looming over the deal. Right now, it is a moment for sentimental appreciation.

Who really blinked? That must be a question on many minds after President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi greeted and tweeted to announce what looked like the contours of a much-delayed Indo-US trade agreement. But don’t look for the answer just yet. There are quite a few uncertainties looming over the deal, that the only thing that can be said with a degree of certainty is that both parties have agreed that it is better to do business with each other in a long-standing strategic relationship, rather than prolong a months-long standoff on tariffs and much else in geopolitics that cast a long shadow over ties between the world’s two biggest democracies. India, with the US as its largest trading partner, had much at stake. Also Read: India US trade tariff stalemate ends, what does this mean for New Delhi and its economy Right now, it is a moment for sentimental appreciation. India’s stock market, which plunged on a marginal tweak-up in the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) in Sunday’s budget announcements, are up nearly 3 per cent in an overnight mood makeover. What really matters in the long run, however, would be a sector-wise list of winners and losers. On the one hand, there is a case for seeing this as a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) moment in which the White House incumbent goes back on his early bombast, but claims victory after a climbdown. On the other hand, the troubles are not over for India. As a source close to the negotiators from the Indian side says: Eighteen is the new zero! Trump has essentially rolled back his big “reciprocal tariff” hit from 25% to 18% apart from dropping his additional “punitive surcharge” of 25% linked to Russian oil purchases in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict. But it is not quite the same as nil. As the source says, what we have is a “very limited agreement” restricted to the narrow Washington interest in goods that were already in the works but were stuck in a clash of attitudes. The bottom line: while the US has got away with zero duty on a few items, India may have to contend with the “new zero”. Also Read: ‘We agreed to trade deal’: Trump dials PM Modi, reduces tariffs on India from 25% to 18% What we are seeing, as note in stock movements, is a sigh of relief in export-oriented Indian sectors such as apparel, chemicals, textiles and engineering goods that were stopped on their tracks by the steep tariffs. The limited agreement resembles a discount sale in an online marketplace -- more of an alluring advertising opportunity than a real bargain. Trump’s social media boast that India has agreed to slash Russian oil purchases while buying more from the US and Venezuela is full of diplomatic pinpricks, given that it subjects India into a trade blackmail. Nevertheless, the rollback is a confirmation that the US gave way after India’s posturing signalling a step-up of relations with Moscow and the China-centric Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. India is yet to give up Russian oil purchases, though they are down. From all indications, Venezuela is just a boast factor for Trump, as the oil reserves in that country are of a poor quality and involve steep cost considerations for refiners. There are more questions hanging in the air. What happens to US visa restrictions that have stymied India’s information technology exports, or, for that matter, rants by Trump’s far-right Republican supporters against immigration that borders on racism even against Indian Americans? Given that the Indian rupee has weakened in recent months against the US dollar, one wonders how much the competitiveness and profit margins of India’s merchandise exports eroded by 18% tariffs will be offset by the currency gain. In the backdrop, we have everything from artificial intelligence (AI) and its future gains and the US-led ‘Pax Silica’ which Washington launched last month to secure supply chains for semiconductors and AI to counter China’s grip on critical minerals. India is yet to join the Western alliance and there is reason to believe Trump’s climbdown also factored in the need to include India in the alliance given its significant clout in the software revolution of which AI is only the next frontier. Unlike the recently concluded India-European Union free trade agreement (FTA), the trade deal with the US is not a signed and sealed agreement yet. Geopolitical issues hang in the air, particularly on Washington’s wish to make India abandon its work in Iran’s Chabahar port. The extraordinary warmth Trump showed with Pakistan’s military chief Asim Munir and Islamabad’s establishment last year in the wake of India’s Operation Sindoor retaliation against the Pahalgam terror attack in Kashmir cannot be forgotten in a hurry. Also Read: India-US Ties: Trump Announces Trade Deal with India After PM Modi Call Trump’s sweeping claim that India had agreed to reducing its tariffs and non-tariff barriers to zero and buying various US goods including energy products worth “more than $500 billion” are too vague to be accepted or dismissed at face value. We will have to wait and see. No time horizon has been cited. What remains is the ground reality: Geopolitically and economically, and given the nature of emerging technologies and America’s priority to contain China, India remains important for whoever sits in the White House. Besides, it is difficult to imagine the US without Silicon Valley, whose technology pioneers are unlikely to stomach for long a president seen hostile to India. But that is hardly a victory for the Modi government. It is more like some elbow room that needs to be utilised properly. Perhaps we can say the same about Trump whose Republicans face mid-term Congressional elections later this year. We are living in a diplomatically volatile world beset with technological uncertainties and inward-looking politics everywhere. The dust won’t settle so soon.

Who really blinked? That must be a question on many minds after President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi greeted and tweeted to announce a trade deal. There are quite a few uncertainties looming over the deal. Right now, it is a moment for sentimental appreciation.

Two cheers, not three: Indo-US trade deal is a half-way house

Imagine a country where all the police suddenly disappear. Things break down, buildings get damaged, and thieves roam freely. Now imagine that same country has nuclear materials dangerous enough to poison millions of people. This is exactly what the world fears could happen in Iran.&nbsp;Recently, American President Donald Trump hinted on social media that a “massive armada” is heading towards Iran. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Trump’s administration is considering military action following Iran’s violent crackdowns on protesters. The American armada isn’t just for striking targets. Its presence might be the only way to launch risky “snatch and grab” teams to secure nuclear materials if chaos erupts. This is extremely worrying because Iran possesses large amounts of highly enriched uranium and operates nuclear reactors. If the government falls and chaos breaks out, these nuclear materials could fall into the wrong hands, creating a catastrophe affecting the entire world.&nbsp;Think of highly enriched uranium like a loaded gun in a secure safe. As long as it’s locked, everyone is safe. But if the safe breaks open, anyone can grab it. Dangerous groups, militias, and terrorist organisations could steal these materials and create weapons of mass destruction. History proves this has happened before, and international experts are genuinely frightened.&nbsp;Iran has approximately 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%. This doesn’t need much more processing to create a nuclear bomb. It’s like having the main ingredient ready for a bomb that could destroy an entire city. Scientists believe this material is hidden in tunnel complexes and damaged enrichment facilities. For determined terrorists or countries building nuclear weapons, stealing it could be worth the effort because it’s incredibly valuable on the black market.&nbsp;Beyond uranium, Iran has the Bushehr nuclear power reactor still operating. Around it are large water-filled pools containing used nuclear fuel rods holding radioactive materials like cesium-137. Here’s what makes this terrifying: cesium-137 is the same radioactive material that made parts of Chernobyl, Ukraine uninhabitable for decades after the 1986 disaster. Decades later, people still cannot live there. If Iran’s pools are damaged, radiation could spread across huge areas, poisoning tens of thousands in Iran and nearby Gulf countries for many years. Wind carries radiation across borders without permission, affecting innocent people far away.&nbsp;Iran also operates medical and research centres with highly radioactive materials that could be weaponised into “dirty bombs”. A dirty bomb combines regular explosives with radioactive material. When it explodes, it spreads deadly radiation everywhere, contaminating land and water. The damage isn’t as catastrophic as nuclear weapons, but it’s devastating enough to terrify entire cities.&nbsp;Here’s where history becomes our teacher. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the world could have experienced a nuclear disaster. But there’s a crucial lesson: America couldn’t simply march in and grab everything. The crumbling Soviet government actually cooperated. Both sides worked together through the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. America spent hundreds of millions of dollars helping Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan secure their nuclear materials and warheads. The Soviet leaders maintained order while handing over control. This cooperation made everything safer and more organised.&nbsp;But with Iran, if the government completely collapses, there might be nobody left to cooperate with. Nobody in charge. Nobody agreeing to anything. Countries might need aggressive action—what experts call “snatch and grab” or “seal and secure” operations. In simple terms, armed teams would rush in, secure dangerous materials, and seal off dangerous sites without waiting for permission. This is why the armada matters. Its military presence provides the protection and firepower needed for such risky operations. It’s dangerous and messy, but it might become necessary if everything falls apart completely.&nbsp;In Iraq after the 2003 invasion, the Tuwaitha nuclear complex was left unguarded for days. Local people broke in and stole materials. This showed what happens when nobody acts quickly enough to protect nuclear sites from chaos and looters.&nbsp;South Africa offers hope. In the early 1990s, when apartheid ended, the government carefully dismantled its nuclear weapons programme. They planned and supervised everything properly with international oversight.&nbsp;Right now, America and its allies face a dangerous choice. They must prepare emergency plans immediately. If Iran’s government remains stable enough to cooperate, that’s the safest path forward. But if chaos erupts, the world must be ready to move fast. The armada standing by isn’t a threat alone—it’s insurance that rapid action can happen when needed. Either way, waiting does nothing. The clock is ticking, and the stakes have never been higher.&nbsp;(Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace &amp; Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany)&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.)

Iran’s collapse could unleash a deadly nuclear chaos, threatening millions across borders, unless swift global action secures radioactive materials before disaster strikes.

Imagine a country where all the police suddenly disappear. Things break down, buildings get damaged, and thieves roam freely. Now imagine that same country has nuclear materials dangerous enough to poison millions of people. This is exactly what the world fears could happen in Iran. Recently, American President Donald Trump hinted on social media that a “massive armada” is heading towards Iran. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Trump’s administration is considering military action following Iran’s violent crackdowns on protesters. The American armada isn’t just for striking targets. Its presence might be the only way to launch risky “snatch and grab” teams to secure nuclear materials if chaos erupts. This is extremely worrying because Iran possesses large amounts of highly enriched uranium and operates nuclear reactors. If the government falls and chaos breaks out, these nuclear materials could fall into the wrong hands, creating a catastrophe affecting the entire world. Think of highly enriched uranium like a loaded gun in a secure safe. As long as it’s locked, everyone is safe. But if the safe breaks open, anyone can grab it. Dangerous groups, militias, and terrorist organisations could steal these materials and create weapons of mass destruction. History proves this has happened before, and international experts are genuinely frightened. Iran has approximately 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%. This doesn’t need much more processing to create a nuclear bomb. It’s like having the main ingredient ready for a bomb that could destroy an entire city. Scientists believe this material is hidden in tunnel complexes and damaged enrichment facilities. For determined terrorists or countries building nuclear weapons, stealing it could be worth the effort because it’s incredibly valuable on the black market. Beyond uranium, Iran has the Bushehr nuclear power reactor still operating. Around it are large water-filled pools containing used nuclear fuel rods holding radioactive materials like cesium-137. Here’s what makes this terrifying: cesium-137 is the same radioactive material that made parts of Chernobyl, Ukraine uninhabitable for decades after the 1986 disaster. Decades later, people still cannot live there. If Iran’s pools are damaged, radiation could spread across huge areas, poisoning tens of thousands in Iran and nearby Gulf countries for many years. Wind carries radiation across borders without permission, affecting innocent people far away. Iran also operates medical and research centres with highly radioactive materials that could be weaponised into “dirty bombs”. A dirty bomb combines regular explosives with radioactive material. When it explodes, it spreads deadly radiation everywhere, contaminating land and water. The damage isn’t as catastrophic as nuclear weapons, but it’s devastating enough to terrify entire cities. Here’s where history becomes our teacher. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the world could have experienced a nuclear disaster. But there’s a crucial lesson: America couldn’t simply march in and grab everything. The crumbling Soviet government actually cooperated. Both sides worked together through the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. America spent hundreds of millions of dollars helping Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan secure their nuclear materials and warheads. The Soviet leaders maintained order while handing over control. This cooperation made everything safer and more organised. But with Iran, if the government completely collapses, there might be nobody left to cooperate with. Nobody in charge. Nobody agreeing to anything. Countries might need aggressive action—what experts call “snatch and grab” or “seal and secure” operations. In simple terms, armed teams would rush in, secure dangerous materials, and seal off dangerous sites without waiting for permission. This is why the armada matters. Its military presence provides the protection and firepower needed for such risky operations. It’s dangerous and messy, but it might become necessary if everything falls apart completely. In Iraq after the 2003 invasion, the Tuwaitha nuclear complex was left unguarded for days. Local people broke in and stole materials. This showed what happens when nobody acts quickly enough to protect nuclear sites from chaos and looters. South Africa offers hope. In the early 1990s, when apartheid ended, the government carefully dismantled its nuclear weapons programme. They planned and supervised everything properly with international oversight. Right now, America and its allies face a dangerous choice. They must prepare emergency plans immediately. If Iran’s government remains stable enough to cooperate, that’s the safest path forward. But if chaos erupts, the world must be ready to move fast. The armada standing by isn’t a threat alone—it’s insurance that rapid action can happen when needed. Either way, waiting does nothing. The clock is ticking, and the stakes have never been higher. (Girish Linganna is an award-winning science communicator and a Defence, Aerospace & Geopolitical Analyst. He is the Managing Director of ADD Engineering Components India Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany) (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.)

Iran’s collapse could unleash a deadly nuclear chaos, threatening millions across borders, unless swift global action secures radioactive materials before disaster strikes.

The invisible poison: Why Iran’s collapse could contaminate the Middle East

Delhi looked cloudy with chilling winds rattling around, but Sunday appeared warm when Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presented her ninth consecutive Union Budget 2026 and brought blazing sunshine for “Sunrise Sectors”—rapidly growing technology-driven industries expected to elevate India to a USD 30 trillion economy, and set to add much-needed spin to PM Modi's Viksit Bharat mission. Renewable energy is a premier "Sunrise Sector" in India, characterized by high growth potential with rapid innovation. The Union Budget 2026 has rolled out strong backing to achieve 500 GW of non-fossil capacity by 2030. Wearing a handwoven Kancheepuram Silk Sari, honouring Tamil Nadu's age-old weaving legacy as well as underlining the significance of Kanyakumari Nuclear project advances, the Finance Minister has provided substantial allocations for the power and renewable energy sector, including continued support for coal-based generation alongside renewables, hydro and pumped storage, to balance energy security, grid stability and the clean energy transition, aiming at "Make in India" in the clean-tech sector, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.&nbsp;ALSO READ: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/separating-facts-from-fiction-in-india-s-military-awards-system-1769623066255">Separating facts from fiction in India’s military awards system</a>&nbsp;The Union Budget 2026, presented amid global economic uncertainties, lays out a clear roadmap for India's growth, with a sharp focus on the energy sector as a driver of progress. Here are five major key takeaways that underline how the budget supports economic resilience, green initiatives and national self-reliance.&nbsp;<ol><li>Three Kartavyas to Drive Economic Momentum: In her speech, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman outlined three key Kartavyas to boost the economy, marking the first budget prepared at the Kartavya Bhavan. The first Kartavya aims to accelerate and sustain economic growth by enhancing productivity and competitiveness while building resilience against volatile global dynamics. The second Kartavya focuses on fulfilling the aspirations of people and building their capacity, making them strong partners in India's path to prosperity and Viksit Bharat. The third Kartavya aligns with PM Modi's vision of 'Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas', ensuring inclusive development. Across these priorities, the power and energy sector emerges as a pivotal force, enabling Aatmanirbhar Bharat and positioning India as a leader in the global supply chain. The budget aggressively advances the technology sector by launching India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0 with a Rs 40,000 crore outlay. This next phase shifts emphasis to end-to-end semiconductor manufacturing, including equipment and materials production, full-stack Indian intellectual property design, and fortified supply chains. It also integrates AI in public services and builds a skilled workforce through industry-led research and training centres, aiming to establish India as a global tech hub and reduce import dependence in critical electronics.</li><li>Strong Push for Energy Transition and Security On energy transition and security, the budget extends the basic customs duty exemption for capital goods used in batteries and battery energy storage systems. The Finance Minister also proposed an outlay of Rs 20,000 crore over the next five years for Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) technologies to scale up and achieve higher readiness levels in end-use applications across five sectors, including power. This move will aid India's green and renewable energy mission by cutting emissions from hard-to-abate industries, promoting cleaner power generation and supporting the shift to low-carbon pathways. By investing in CCUS, the government aims to enhance energy efficiency, lower dependence on imported fuels and meet climate goals, paving the way for sustainable industrial growth.</li><li>Long-Term Relief for Nuclear Power Projects: The budget extends the basic customs duty exemption on imports of goods required for nuclear power projects until 2035, covering all plants regardless of capacity. This step will bolster India's green energy mission and net-zero ambitions by providing policy stability, reducing project costs and encouraging investments in nuclear capacity. Nuclear power, as a clean and reliable source, will help diversify the energy mix, cut carbon emissions and ensure round-the-clock power supply, aligning with the 500 GW non-fossil target by 2030 and the broader goal of net-zero by 2070.</li><li>Incentive for Biogas-Blended Fuels: Another key measure excludes the entire value of biogas while calculating the Central Excise duty payable on biogas-blended CNG. This incentive will aid India's green energy transition by making blended fuels more affordable, encouraging wider adoption in transport and industry. By promoting biogas blending, the budget supports waste-to-energy initiatives, reduces methane emissions from organic waste and cuts reliance on fossil fuels, contributing to cleaner air, rural job creation and a circular economy.</li><li>Robust Support for Renewable and Green Energy Growth: The government has rolled out robust policies for green energy, with the renewable sector expanding from 76 GW in 2014 to over 250 GW by 2025. India now ranks fourth globally in wind, solar and overall renewable capacity, overtaking Japan as the world’s third-largest solar producer. Investments reached Rs 2 lakh crore in 2025 alone, and the renewable energy share in power generation is set to climb from 18 per cent in 2022 to 44 per cent by 2030. The Union Budget 2026-27 prioritizes green energy as a core area, with the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy's allocation rising significantly to Rs 265.49 billion. Emphasis remains on solar through schemes like PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana and PM-KUSUM, alongside nuclear energy expansion, the SHANTI Bill for safe atomic integration and boosts to green manufacturing.</li></ol>In essence, the Union Budget 2026 strikes a fine balance between immediate economic needs and long-term sustainability, with the energy sector at its heart. By backing renewables, nuclear and clean technologies, it not only drives growth but also cements India's role in the global fight against climate change. As the nation marches towards Viksit Bharat, these measures promise a brighter, greener future for all and signify India’s premier climate momentum of One Sun, One World and One Grid. &nbsp;

The Union Budget 2026, presented amid global economic uncertainties, lays out a clear roadmap for Indias growth, with a sharp focus on the energy sector as a driver of progress.

Delhi looked cloudy with chilling winds rattling around, but Sunday appeared warm when Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presented her ninth consecutive Union Budget 2026 and brought blazing sunshine for “Sunrise Sectors”—rapidly growing technology-driven industries expected to elevate India to a USD 30 trillion economy, and set to add much-needed spin to PM Modi's Viksit Bharat mission. Renewable energy is a premier "Sunrise Sector" in India, characterized by high growth potential with rapid innovation. The Union Budget 2026 has rolled out strong backing to achieve 500 GW of non-fossil capacity by 2030. Wearing a handwoven Kancheepuram Silk Sari, honouring Tamil Nadu's age-old weaving legacy as well as underlining the significance of Kanyakumari Nuclear project advances, the Finance Minister has provided substantial allocations for the power and renewable energy sector, including continued support for coal-based generation alongside renewables, hydro and pumped storage, to balance energy security, grid stability and the clean energy transition, aiming at "Make in India" in the clean-tech sector, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. ALSO READ: Separating facts from fiction in India’s military awards system The Union Budget 2026, presented amid global economic uncertainties, lays out a clear roadmap for India's growth, with a sharp focus on the energy sector as a driver of progress. Here are five major key takeaways that underline how the budget supports economic resilience, green initiatives and national self-reliance. Three Kartavyas to Drive Economic Momentum: In her speech, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman outlined three key Kartavyas to boost the economy, marking the first budget prepared at the Kartavya Bhavan. The first Kartavya aims to accelerate and sustain economic growth by enhancing productivity and competitiveness while building resilience against volatile global dynamics. The second Kartavya focuses on fulfilling the aspirations of people and building their capacity, making them strong partners in India's path to prosperity and Viksit Bharat. The third Kartavya aligns with PM Modi's vision of 'Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas', ensuring inclusive development. Across these priorities, the power and energy sector emerges as a pivotal force, enabling Aatmanirbhar Bharat and positioning India as a leader in the global supply chain. The budget aggressively advances the technology sector by launching India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0 with a Rs 40,000 crore outlay. This next phase shifts emphasis to end-to-end semiconductor manufacturing, including equipment and materials production, full-stack Indian intellectual property design, and fortified supply chains. It also integrates AI in public services and builds a skilled workforce through industry-led research and training centres, aiming to establish India as a global tech hub and reduce import dependence in critical electronics. Strong Push for Energy Transition and Security On energy transition and security, the budget extends the basic customs duty exemption for capital goods used in batteries and battery energy storage systems. The Finance Minister also proposed an outlay of Rs 20,000 crore over the next five years for Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) technologies to scale up and achieve higher readiness levels in end-use applications across five sectors, including power. This move will aid India's green and renewable energy mission by cutting emissions from hard-to-abate industries, promoting cleaner power generation and supporting the shift to low-carbon pathways. By investing in CCUS, the government aims to enhance energy efficiency, lower dependence on imported fuels and meet climate goals, paving the way for sustainable industrial growth. Long-Term Relief for Nuclear Power Projects: The budget extends the basic customs duty exemption on imports of goods required for nuclear power projects until 2035, covering all plants regardless of capacity. This step will bolster India's green energy mission and net-zero ambitions by providing policy stability, reducing project costs and encouraging investments in nuclear capacity. Nuclear power, as a clean and reliable source, will help diversify the energy mix, cut carbon emissions and ensure round-the-clock power supply, aligning with the 500 GW non-fossil target by 2030 and the broader goal of net-zero by 2070. Incentive for Biogas-Blended Fuels: Another key measure excludes the entire value of biogas while calculating the Central Excise duty payable on biogas-blended CNG. This incentive will aid India's green energy transition by making blended fuels more affordable, encouraging wider adoption in transport and industry. By promoting biogas blending, the budget supports waste-to-energy initiatives, reduces methane emissions from organic waste and cuts reliance on fossil fuels, contributing to cleaner air, rural job creation and a circular economy. Robust Support for Renewable and Green Energy Growth: The government has rolled out robust policies for green energy, with the renewable sector expanding from 76 GW in 2014 to over 250 GW by 2025. India now ranks fourth globally in wind, solar and overall renewable capacity, overtaking Japan as the world’s third-largest solar producer. Investments reached Rs 2 lakh crore in 2025 alone, and the renewable energy share in power generation is set to climb from 18 per cent in 2022 to 44 per cent by 2030. The Union Budget 2026-27 prioritizes green energy as a core area, with the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy's allocation rising significantly to Rs 265.49 billion. Emphasis remains on solar through schemes like PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana and PM-KUSUM, alongside nuclear energy expansion, the SHANTI Bill for safe atomic integration and boosts to green manufacturing. In essence, the Union Budget 2026 strikes a fine balance between immediate economic needs and long-term sustainability, with the energy sector at its heart. By backing renewables, nuclear and clean technologies, it not only drives growth but also cements India's role in the global fight against climate change. As the nation marches towards Viksit Bharat, these measures promise a brighter, greener future for all and signify India’s premier climate momentum of One Sun, One World and One Grid.

The Union Budget 2026, presented amid global economic uncertainties, lays out a clear roadmap for India's growth, with a sharp focus on the energy sector as a driver of progress.

Union Budget 2026: Three ‘Kartavyas’ drive Sunrise Industries and Energy Security – 5 must-know takeaways

Spare a thought for the courageous Iranians who braved their brutal government in the belief that US President Donald Trump meant it when he issued a social media post saying that HELP IS ON THE WAY.Issued on January 13 after two nights of some of the largest anti-government protests in Iranian history, the posting said:Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.The help would come, Trump said, unless government forces would stop killing protesters. But the killing continued. Estimates of the death toll range from 6,159 (from an Iranian Human Rights group) to more than 30,000 ( from TIME magazine.. The Iranian government put the toll at 3,117.Trump never clarified how long he thought it would take help to arrive. But it is easy to see why some Iranians thought it would be soon —in the form or air strikes or a special operations attack on the model of the daring attack on Caracas that resulted in the capture and abduction of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro just ten days before the “help is on the way” promise.What was on the way was what Trump called “a massive armada” –the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier accompanied by three guided missile destroyers. The strike group, part of America’s overwhelming military superiority, arrived in the Indian Ocean on January 26 within striking distance to possible targets in Iran.Killing demonstrators as a trigger for American action has disappeared from the White House vocabulary, which instead switched to long-standing American demands for Iranian policy changes.Though the demands have not been officially announced, American and European officials said they included an end to all enrichment of uranium, limits on the number and range of ballistic missiles and breaking links with the armed groups serving as proxies for the Tehran rulers. The groups include Lebanon-based Hezbollah and Gaza’s Hamas.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-hopefully-we-won-t-have-to-use-it-trump-confirms-very-big-very-powerful-ships-heading-to-iran-1769735829348">‘Hopefully we won’t have to use it’: Trump confirms ‘very big, very powerful ships’ heading to Iran</a>Trump drew parallels between the vast naval force assembled in the waters off Venezuela before Maduro was snatched and the new build-up in striking distance of Iran and urged its leaders to negotiate a deal on its nuclear programme. “Time is running out, it is truly of the essence,” he told reporters.One of the options under discussion by Trump and his closest aides, according to sources close to the White House, are air strikes on Iranian leaders and security forces to trigger another round of popular protests so widespread that the leadership of the regime would have to change.But the protest movement has been so cowed and weakened by the slaughter of thousands in recent days that it takes a large dose of optimism to consider it a possibility.While pondering the options, Washington has run into an unexpected obstacle: vocal opposition to a military strike from America’s closest allies in the region – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Republic, Qatar and Oman. Saudi Arabia has ruled out the use of its airspace and territory for a U.S. attack. &nbsp;The reason is fear that Iran could retaliate with attacks on U.S. allies – and worries that chaos could ensue in Iran if the regime fell. &nbsp;Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-warns-us-its-forces-have-fingers-on-the-trigger-astrump-threatens-tehran-with-major-destruction-1769650180755">Iran warns US its forces have ‘fingers on the trigger’ as Trump threatens Tehran with ‘major destruction’</a>Another outcome that is part of the considerations is direct attacks on U.S. installations. While Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles shrank during the 12-day war with Israel last year, it is thought to have enough left to hit most of the military bases the U.S. maintains in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.The biggest U.S. military institution in the Middle East is al Udeid airbase, which houses more than 10,000 Americans and is the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, which coordinates air operations across Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. As the prospect of war drew nearer, several hundred U.S. military have been evacuated from the base.One of the darkest scenarios for Iranian retaliation would be laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman. A critical global trade route, it carries about a fifth of liquefied natural gas exports and a quarter of oil worldwide. Mining that waterway would seriously damage the global economy.On the diplomatic front, Iran suffered a long-delayed blow from the European Union on Thursday (January 29); EU foreign ministers designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organisation. Meeting in Brussels, the ministers also froze the assets and banned visas for 15 individuals.EU chief Ursula von der Leyen said the move was “long overdue”, a nod to Washington which designated the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group in 2019. “Terrorist is indeed how you call a regime that crushes its own people’s protests in blood.”

While pondering the options, Washington has run into an unexpected obstacle: vocal opposition to a military strike from America’s closest allies in the region – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Republic, Qatar and Oman. 

Spare a thought for the courageous Iranians who braved their brutal government in the belief that US President Donald Trump meant it when he issued a social media post saying that HELP IS ON THE WAY. Issued on January 13 after two nights of some of the largest anti-government protests in Iranian history, the posting said: Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP. The help would come, Trump said, unless government forces would stop killing protesters. But the killing continued. Estimates of the death toll range from 6,159 (from an Iranian Human Rights group) to more than 30,000 ( from TIME magazine.. The Iranian government put the toll at 3,117. Trump never clarified how long he thought it would take help to arrive. But it is easy to see why some Iranians thought it would be soon —in the form or air strikes or a special operations attack on the model of the daring attack on Caracas that resulted in the capture and abduction of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro just ten days before the “help is on the way” promise. What was on the way was what Trump called “a massive armada” –the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier accompanied by three guided missile destroyers. The strike group, part of America’s overwhelming military superiority, arrived in the Indian Ocean on January 26 within striking distance to possible targets in Iran. Killing demonstrators as a trigger for American action has disappeared from the White House vocabulary, which instead switched to long-standing American demands for Iranian policy changes. Though the demands have not been officially announced, American and European officials said they included an end to all enrichment of uranium, limits on the number and range of ballistic missiles and breaking links with the armed groups serving as proxies for the Tehran rulers. The groups include Lebanon-based Hezbollah and Gaza’s Hamas. Also read | ‘Hopefully we won’t have to use it’: Trump confirms ‘very big, very powerful ships’ heading to Iran Trump drew parallels between the vast naval force assembled in the waters off Venezuela before Maduro was snatched and the new build-up in striking distance of Iran and urged its leaders to negotiate a deal on its nuclear programme. “Time is running out, it is truly of the essence,” he told reporters. One of the options under discussion by Trump and his closest aides, according to sources close to the White House, are air strikes on Iranian leaders and security forces to trigger another round of popular protests so widespread that the leadership of the regime would have to change. But the protest movement has been so cowed and weakened by the slaughter of thousands in recent days that it takes a large dose of optimism to consider it a possibility. While pondering the options, Washington has run into an unexpected obstacle: vocal opposition to a military strike from America’s closest allies in the region – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Republic, Qatar and Oman. Saudi Arabia has ruled out the use of its airspace and territory for a U.S. attack. The reason is fear that Iran could retaliate with attacks on U.S. allies – and worries that chaos could ensue in Iran if the regime fell. Also read | Iran warns US its forces have ‘fingers on the trigger’ as Trump threatens Tehran with ‘major destruction’ Another outcome that is part of the considerations is direct attacks on U.S. installations. While Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles shrank during the 12-day war with Israel last year, it is thought to have enough left to hit most of the military bases the U.S. maintains in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The biggest U.S. military institution in the Middle East is al Udeid airbase, which houses more than 10,000 Americans and is the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, which coordinates air operations across Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. As the prospect of war drew nearer, several hundred U.S. military have been evacuated from the base. One of the darkest scenarios for Iranian retaliation would be laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman. A critical global trade route, it carries about a fifth of liquefied natural gas exports and a quarter of oil worldwide. Mining that waterway would seriously damage the global economy. On the diplomatic front, Iran suffered a long-delayed blow from the European Union on Thursday (January 29); EU foreign ministers designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organisation. Meeting in Brussels, the ministers also froze the assets and banned visas for 15 individuals. EU chief Ursula von der Leyen said the move was “long overdue”, a nod to Washington which designated the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group in 2019. “Terrorist is indeed how you call a regime that crushes its own people’s protests in blood.”

While pondering the options, Washington has run into an unexpected obstacle: vocal opposition to a military strike from America’s closest allies in the region – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Republic, Qatar and Oman.&nbsp;

Trump’s Iran conundrum: Choosing between bad options

Every year, the announcement of the Republic Day military awards triggers the same argument. Social media fills up with claims that the system is “top-heavy”, that generals collect medals while soldiers who face bullets are ignored. WhatsApp forwards circulate numbers showing a high share of awards going to senior officers. Commentators then jump to the conclusion that the system rewards rank, not courage.&nbsp;The numbers often quoted are not always wrong. The interpretation of those numbers usually is. This debate suffers from one basic flaw: it treats all military awards as if they mean the same thing. They do not. Once you separate different categories of awards and understand what each is meant to recognise, the claim that the system is skewed collapses.<h2>Service Awards Are Not Gallantry Awards</h2>The most common mistake is mixing service awards with gallantry awards. On Republic Day 2026, military decorations were approved for 301 personnel. President Droupadi Murmu approved military decorations for 301 Armed Forces personnel. These included 30 Param Vishisht Seva Medals, 56 Ati Vishisht Seva Medals, and 135 Vishisht Seva Medals. These Distinguished Service medals dominated the announcement, and yes, they predominantly went to senior officers of colonel rank and above, with the PVSM reserved exclusively for Lieutenant Generals, Vice Admirals, and Air Marshals.&nbsp;These medals are not for bravery in combat. They are awarded for sustained, exceptional service and command responsibility, mostly in peacetime or long-duration operational roles. The PVSM, in particular, is meant for officers who have carried the heaviest strategic responsibilities over decades of service. Naturally, that limits eligibility to very senior ranks. Critics often ask why generals receive so many awards. The answer is simple: generals do not fight patrol actions or lead assaults. Their responsibility lies elsewhere. A corps commander makes decisions that affect the lives of 60,000 soldiers under his command. His judgments on deployment, logistics, intelligence coordination, and civil-military interaction can prevent casualties—or cause them. These decisions are not dramatic, but they are decisive.&nbsp;Lieutenant General Abhijit S Pendharkar, who received the Uttam Yudh Seva Medal as Commander of 3 Corps, exemplifies this kind of operational leadership where strategic decisions have massive downstream consequences.These are the roles that Distinguished Service medals recognise. They reward the burden of command, the weight of responsibility, and the strategic impact that only comes with senior rank.&nbsp;&nbsp;Comparing these awards with battlefield gallantry statistics is methodologically absurd, like criticising a hospital for giving more administrative recognition to chief surgeons than to nurses, while ignoring that nurses receive different forms of recognition appropriate to their roles.<h2>Gallantry Awards Tell a Different Story</h2>If we look only at gallantry awards—the ones that recognise courage under fire, the picture changes completely.On Republic Day 2026, 70 gallantry awards were approved, including six posthumous. These comprised one Ashok Chakra, three Kirti Chakras, 13 Shaurya Chakras, including one posthumous, one Bar to Sena Medal for Gallantry, 44 Sena Medals for Gallantry, including five posthumous, six Nao Sena Medals for Gallantry, and two Vayu Sena Medals for Gallantry. The breakdown tells the story. Group Captain Shubhanshu Shukla received the Ashok Chakra, India's highest peacetime gallantry award. The Kirti Chakra recipients included Major Arshdeep Singh, Naib Subedar Doleshwar Subba, and Group Captain Prasanth Balakrishnan Nair. Notice the ranks represented in Shaurya Chakra awards i.e, Lieutenant Colonel Ghatage Aditya Shrikumar, multiple majors and captains, Subedar P H Moses, Lance Daffadar Baldev Chand, who was awarded posthumously, and Riflemen Manglem Sang Vaiphei and Dhurba Jyoti Dutta.&nbsp;Generals are absent from these lists, exactly as they should be. Colonel Amit Dadhwal, multiple lieutenant colonels and majors, several captains, numerous subedars and naib subedars, havildars, including Jhantu Ali Shaikh, who received his award posthumously, naiks, lance naiks, sepoys, and riflemen. One particularly poignant award went to Lance Havildar Satya Pal Singh, who received a Bar to his existing Sena Medal for Gallantry, indicating repeated acts of bravery. Combat bravery occurs at the sharp end: during counter-terrorist operations, ambushes, IED clearances, and close-quarters fighting. Senior officers are not meant to be there. Their job is to ensure those operations succeed with minimum loss.&nbsp;These situations don't involve generals because generals, by virtue of their command responsibilities, are not and should not be at that level of tactical engagement. Of the 44 Sena Medals for Gallantry awarded, the overwhelming majority went to subedars, naib subedars, havildars, naiks, lance naiks, sepoys, riflemen, and other junior ranks. The problem is not with how the system functions, but with how critics analyse it by lumping all awards together.<h2>The Numbers, Properly Read</h2>When the full awards list is examined honestly, the “top-heavy” claim does not survive scrutiny. When we examine the complete Republic Day 2026 awards announcement, the "top-heavy" narrative collapses under the weight of actual data. The 30 PVSM awards went to the most senior officers: 19 Lieutenant Generals, one Major General, four Vice Admirals, including one Surgeon Vice Admiral, and six Air Marshals. These represent the apex of three decades or more of military service, commanding formations of thousands, often in the most sensitive operational areas. Lieutenant General Dhiraj Seth commanded Southern Command, Lieutenant General Rajan Sharawat commanded 9 Corps, and Lieutenant General Gambhir Singh commanded 4 Corps. These are not ceremonial positions.&nbsp;They are commands where decisions literally determine whether operations succeed or fail, whether soldiers come home safely or in coffins. The 56 AVSM awards showed more diversity: 11 Lieutenant Generals, 23 Major Generals, one Brigadier, one Subedar, six Vice Admirals and Rear Admirals, and 13 Air Force officers from Air Marshal to Air Vice Marshal rank. Significantly, Subedar H Hokato Sema from 9 Assam received the AVSM, demonstrating that distinguished service recognition isn't exclusively a general officer club. Major General Manish Kumar received the Yudh Seva Medal as Inspector General Assam Rifles North, while Major General Vijay Mahadevan commanded Counter Insurgency Force Romeo, both operational commands where service directly translated to mission success in active insurgency zones.&nbsp;The 135 VSM awards went predominantly to Major Generals, Brigadiers, Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, with representation from Rear Admirals, Commodores, Captains, Air Vice Marshals, Air Commodores, Group Captains, Wing Commanders, and even junior ranks, including Subedar Major Rakesh Singh Rawat and Havildar Ramesh Kumar. The VSM category demonstrates how service recognition extends across the rank structure, not concentrating exclusively at the top. When critics focus only on the 30 PVSM and 56 AVSM awards, they're deliberately forming a narrative that ignores how the system distributes recognition across different categories designed for different purposes.<h2>OR-Exclusive Awards</h2>There are also medals that officers cannot receive at all. The Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and Good Conduct Service Medal are awarded exclusively to Other Ranks and Junior Commissioned Officers. These recognise discipline, integrity, and sustained professionalism over long careers. Hundreds are awarded every year. Any serious analysis of “who gets recognised” that ignores these awards is incomplete by definition.<h2>MACP: Financial Recognition Where It Matters Most</h2>Beyond medals, the military has institutional mechanisms to prevent financial stagnation among junior ranks. The Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme provides time-bound financial upgradation to Other Ranks and JCOs when promotions are limited. Officers do not receive MACP benefits. A captain stuck in rank receives no automatic financial relief. A Havildar does. This is a deliberate structural choice to protect those with limited promotion avenues. Yet MACP is never mentioned in viral critiques because it does not fit the narrative.<h2>The Myth of the “Farewell Medal”</h2>Another common claim is that senior officers receive medals automatically on retirement. This is simply untrue.Distinguished Service medals are not guaranteed. Many senior officers retire without them. Recommendations are scrutinised, questioned, and often rejected. The reason awards cluster around retirement is that senior command tenures end then, allowing performance to be assessed over a complete cycle. Timing should not be confused with entitlement.<h2>Responsibility Is Also a Burden</h2>At the heart of this debate is a deeper misunderstanding: the belief that only physical courage deserves recognition.That view is not just simplistic; it is dangerous. Wars are not won by heroics alone. Planning, logistics, intelligence, and leadership win them. A poor strategic decision can kill more soldiers than enemy fire. A good one can save lives without a single shot being fired. Military systems recognise this reality. They must reward both courage and command, differently but fairly.<h2>What Actually Affects Soldier Morale</h2>There is little evidence that soldiers resent awards given to senior officers. Those who serve understand the difference between gallantry and service recognition. They know their battalion commander’s responsibilities are not the same as theirs. What damages morale is something else entirely: when bravery goes unrecognised, when citations are delayed, when bureaucracy blocks rightful awards. That is where reform should focus—not on creating artificial resentment between ranks.<h2>The Bottom Line</h2>When the full picture is considered, India’s military awards system is far more balanced than critics claim. Gallantry awards overwhelmingly go to junior ranks. Service awards recognise command responsibility across levels. Other Ranks have exclusive medals, financial progression schemes, and honourary promotions that materially improve their lives. Senior officers receive recognition only after decades of accountability over thousands of lives.&nbsp;The system is not perfect. No human institution is. But the charge that it is structurally biased in favour of generals does not hold up to serious examination. The real problem is not the awards system. It is the habit of drawing loud conclusions from partial data. Understanding the difference between courage and command—and recognising both honestly—is the first step toward a more informed debate.&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.)

Separating facts from fiction in India’s military awards system

Every year, the announcement of the Republic Day military awards triggers the same argument. Social media fills up with claims that the system is “top-heavy”, that generals collect medals while soldiers who face bullets are ignored. WhatsApp forwards circulate numbers showing a high share of awards going to senior officers. Commentators then jump to the conclusion that the system rewards rank, not courage. The numbers often quoted are not always wrong. The interpretation of those numbers usually is. This debate suffers from one basic flaw: it treats all military awards as if they mean the same thing. They do not. Once you separate different categories of awards and understand what each is meant to recognise, the claim that the system is skewed collapses. Service Awards Are Not Gallantry Awards The most common mistake is mixing service awards with gallantry awards. On Republic Day 2026, military decorations were approved for 301 personnel. President Droupadi Murmu approved military decorations for 301 Armed Forces personnel. These included 30 Param Vishisht Seva Medals, 56 Ati Vishisht Seva Medals, and 135 Vishisht Seva Medals. These Distinguished Service medals dominated the announcement, and yes, they predominantly went to senior officers of colonel rank and above, with the PVSM reserved exclusively for Lieutenant Generals, Vice Admirals, and Air Marshals. These medals are not for bravery in combat. They are awarded for sustained, exceptional service and command responsibility, mostly in peacetime or long-duration operational roles. The PVSM, in particular, is meant for officers who have carried the heaviest strategic responsibilities over decades of service. Naturally, that limits eligibility to very senior ranks. Critics often ask why generals receive so many awards. The answer is simple: generals do not fight patrol actions or lead assaults. Their responsibility lies elsewhere. A corps commander makes decisions that affect the lives of 60,000 soldiers under his command. His judgments on deployment, logistics, intelligence coordination, and civil-military interaction can prevent casualties—or cause them. These decisions are not dramatic, but they are decisive. Lieutenant General Abhijit S Pendharkar, who received the Uttam Yudh Seva Medal as Commander of 3 Corps, exemplifies this kind of operational leadership where strategic decisions have massive downstream consequences. These are the roles that Distinguished Service medals recognise. They reward the burden of command, the weight of responsibility, and the strategic impact that only comes with senior rank. Comparing these awards with battlefield gallantry statistics is methodologically absurd, like criticising a hospital for giving more administrative recognition to chief surgeons than to nurses, while ignoring that nurses receive different forms of recognition appropriate to their roles. Gallantry Awards Tell a Different Story If we look only at gallantry awards—the ones that recognise courage under fire, the picture changes completely. On Republic Day 2026, 70 gallantry awards were approved, including six posthumous. These comprised one Ashok Chakra, three Kirti Chakras, 13 Shaurya Chakras, including one posthumous, one Bar to Sena Medal for Gallantry, 44 Sena Medals for Gallantry, including five posthumous, six Nao Sena Medals for Gallantry, and two Vayu Sena Medals for Gallantry. The breakdown tells the story. Group Captain Shubhanshu Shukla received the Ashok Chakra, India's highest peacetime gallantry award. The Kirti Chakra recipients included Major Arshdeep Singh, Naib Subedar Doleshwar Subba, and Group Captain Prasanth Balakrishnan Nair. Notice the ranks represented in Shaurya Chakra awards i.e, Lieutenant Colonel Ghatage Aditya Shrikumar, multiple majors and captains, Subedar P H Moses, Lance Daffadar Baldev Chand, who was awarded posthumously, and Riflemen Manglem Sang Vaiphei and Dhurba Jyoti Dutta. Generals are absent from these lists, exactly as they should be. Colonel Amit Dadhwal, multiple lieutenant colonels and majors, several captains, numerous subedars and naib subedars, havildars, including Jhantu Ali Shaikh, who received his award posthumously, naiks, lance naiks, sepoys, and riflemen. One particularly poignant award went to Lance Havildar Satya Pal Singh, who received a Bar to his existing Sena Medal for Gallantry, indicating repeated acts of bravery. Combat bravery occurs at the sharp end: during counter-terrorist operations, ambushes, IED clearances, and close-quarters fighting. Senior officers are not meant to be there. Their job is to ensure those operations succeed with minimum loss. These situations don't involve generals because generals, by virtue of their command responsibilities, are not and should not be at that level of tactical engagement. Of the 44 Sena Medals for Gallantry awarded, the overwhelming majority went to subedars, naib subedars, havildars, naiks, lance naiks, sepoys, riflemen, and other junior ranks. The problem is not with how the system functions, but with how critics analyse it by lumping all awards together. The Numbers, Properly Read When the full awards list is examined honestly, the “top-heavy” claim does not survive scrutiny. When we examine the complete Republic Day 2026 awards announcement, the "top-heavy" narrative collapses under the weight of actual data. The 30 PVSM awards went to the most senior officers: 19 Lieutenant Generals, one Major General, four Vice Admirals, including one Surgeon Vice Admiral, and six Air Marshals. These represent the apex of three decades or more of military service, commanding formations of thousands, often in the most sensitive operational areas. Lieutenant General Dhiraj Seth commanded Southern Command, Lieutenant General Rajan Sharawat commanded 9 Corps, and Lieutenant General Gambhir Singh commanded 4 Corps. These are not ceremonial positions. They are commands where decisions literally determine whether operations succeed or fail, whether soldiers come home safely or in coffins. The 56 AVSM awards showed more diversity: 11 Lieutenant Generals, 23 Major Generals, one Brigadier, one Subedar, six Vice Admirals and Rear Admirals, and 13 Air Force officers from Air Marshal to Air Vice Marshal rank. Significantly, Subedar H Hokato Sema from 9 Assam received the AVSM, demonstrating that distinguished service recognition isn't exclusively a general officer club. Major General Manish Kumar received the Yudh Seva Medal as Inspector General Assam Rifles North, while Major General Vijay Mahadevan commanded Counter Insurgency Force Romeo, both operational commands where service directly translated to mission success in active insurgency zones. The 135 VSM awards went predominantly to Major Generals, Brigadiers, Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, with representation from Rear Admirals, Commodores, Captains, Air Vice Marshals, Air Commodores, Group Captains, Wing Commanders, and even junior ranks, including Subedar Major Rakesh Singh Rawat and Havildar Ramesh Kumar. The VSM category demonstrates how service recognition extends across the rank structure, not concentrating exclusively at the top. When critics focus only on the 30 PVSM and 56 AVSM awards, they're deliberately forming a narrative that ignores how the system distributes recognition across different categories designed for different purposes. OR-Exclusive Awards There are also medals that officers cannot receive at all. The Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and Good Conduct Service Medal are awarded exclusively to Other Ranks and Junior Commissioned Officers. These recognise discipline, integrity, and sustained professionalism over long careers. Hundreds are awarded every year. Any serious analysis of “who gets recognised” that ignores these awards is incomplete by definition. MACP: Financial Recognition Where It Matters Most Beyond medals, the military has institutional mechanisms to prevent financial stagnation among junior ranks. The Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme provides time-bound financial upgradation to Other Ranks and JCOs when promotions are limited. Officers do not receive MACP benefits. A captain stuck in rank receives no automatic financial relief. A Havildar does. This is a deliberate structural choice to protect those with limited promotion avenues. Yet MACP is never mentioned in viral critiques because it does not fit the narrative. The Myth of the “Farewell Medal” Another common claim is that senior officers receive medals automatically on retirement. This is simply untrue. Distinguished Service medals are not guaranteed. Many senior officers retire without them. Recommendations are scrutinised, questioned, and often rejected. The reason awards cluster around retirement is that senior command tenures end then, allowing performance to be assessed over a complete cycle. Timing should not be confused with entitlement. Responsibility Is Also a Burden At the heart of this debate is a deeper misunderstanding: the belief that only physical courage deserves recognition. That view is not just simplistic; it is dangerous. Wars are not won by heroics alone. Planning, logistics, intelligence, and leadership win them. A poor strategic decision can kill more soldiers than enemy fire. A good one can save lives without a single shot being fired. Military systems recognise this reality. They must reward both courage and command, differently but fairly. What Actually Affects Soldier Morale There is little evidence that soldiers resent awards given to senior officers. Those who serve understand the difference between gallantry and service recognition. They know their battalion commander’s responsibilities are not the same as theirs. What damages morale is something else entirely: when bravery goes unrecognised, when citations are delayed, when bureaucracy blocks rightful awards. That is where reform should focus—not on creating artificial resentment between ranks. The Bottom Line When the full picture is considered, India’s military awards system is far more balanced than critics claim. Gallantry awards overwhelmingly go to junior ranks. Service awards recognise command responsibility across levels. Other Ranks have exclusive medals, financial progression schemes, and honourary promotions that materially improve their lives. Senior officers receive recognition only after decades of accountability over thousands of lives. The system is not perfect. No human institution is. But the charge that it is structurally biased in favour of generals does not hold up to serious examination. The real problem is not the awards system. It is the habit of drawing loud conclusions from partial data. Understanding the difference between courage and command—and recognising both honestly—is the first step toward a more informed debate. (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.)

On Republic Day 2026, military decorations were approved for 301 personnel. President Droupadi Murmu approved military decorations for 301 Armed Forces personnel. These included 30 Param Vishisht Seva Medals, 56 Ati Vishisht Seva Medals, and 135 Vishisht Seva Medals

The World Economic Forum at Davos has long been a comfort zone for the old colonial powers of Europe, where terms like ‘multilateralism‘, ‘rule-based order’, and ‘shared values’ frequently appear alongside political statements and business opportunities for the powerful and wealthy. Donald Trump’s 2026 Davos intervention was not simply another provocative speech; it sharply embodied a new type of big-power colonialism: transactional, coercive, unapologetic, and free of historical remorse.In doing so, Trump forced Europe to confront an uncomfortable irony: the former colonisers found themselves at the receiving end of a colonial logic they once perfected. Some bold gestures, such as those by the Canadian PM, President Macron, and a few others, along with signs of determination to push back, have toned down Trump’s rhetoric, but his unilateral overdrive is far from over. It prompted Europeans to come together to mitigate the damage to fragile Western Alliance.&nbsp;<h2>The Trump Doctrine at Davos: Power before pretence</h2>&nbsp;Trump’s message was brutally simple. Security follows power, power follows economic strength, and alliances survive only if they serve immediate national interest. Everything else—values, norms, historical sentiment—is negotiable. At Davos, it was applied across a few prominent issues: Greenland, Venezuela, Europe’s security dependence, and Trump’s Board of Peace.Trump did not seek approval. He sought compliance. By openly questioning NATO’s reliability, labelling it “ungrateful”, casting doubt on reciprocal defence commitments, threatening tariffs on allies, and openly floating the idea of acquiring Greenland and reframed U.S. leadership as ownership. The implicit message to Europe was unmistakable: protection is no longer free, and sovereignty is conditional. Unlike their yet-to-be-ratified trade deal, a stronger stance by some European countries/allies like Canada, and more importantly, some internal criticism in the U.S., forced him to tone down his rhetoric.&nbsp;<h2>Greenland: Strategic logic or neo-colonial assertion?&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;Trump framed Greenland in terms of geography, power projection, Arctic dominance and Golden Dome deployment, downplaying his desire to control its resources, including rare earths and minerals. Greenland straddles emerging Arctic sea lanes, missile trajectories and under‑ice submarine routes, and in his view is too strategic to be left to a weak Denmark or a divided NATO in Trump’s view.He cast it as part of North America’s security ecosystem, claiming a U.S. right to determine its future—classic imperial logic cloaked in security necessity, overriding sovereignty and enforced through economic coercion rather than diplomacy. Europeans, long complicit in similar U.S. adventures like Iraq, understand this logic but were shaken by his removal of the polite diplomatic language that once masked such interventions. Their resistance, including threats to revoke trade deals or sell U.S. bonds, forced him to reverse a planned 10 per cent tariff on eight countries, yet confidence in U.S. reliability remains damaged.&nbsp;Denmark and Greenland remain uneasy, as a verbal understanding between the NATO chief and Trump offers no real sovereignty guarantee, much like Palestinians being excluded from Trump’s expanded “Board for Peace” beyond Gaza. With no written agreement and Trump boasting of total and permanent access to Greenland under a framework deal that bypassed both Greenland and Denmark, his fixation is clearly not over.If current trends continue, the outcome may be an updated 1951 U.S.–Denmark pact granting Washington sovereign control over expanded military bases, more NATO sentries and curbs on non‑NATO mining in Greenland—a middle path between outright U.S. takeover and simple surrender.&nbsp;<h2>Venezuela: A demonstration, not a debate</h2>&nbsp;Trump’s reference to Venezuela at Davos signalled the sad demise of the ‘rule-based order’. By showcasing U.S. military action and regime change as effective tools, Trump reinforced a central theme: America will act unilaterally, decisively, and unapologetically exploit other countries’ resources, without consequences.Venezuela became the proof-of-concept for Trump’s doctrine of coercive statecraft—use force sparingly, but advertise it loudly. For old colonial powers accustomed to operating through multilateral cover and humanitarian rhetoric, Trump’s bluntness was deeply unsettling. He made no attempt to moralise intervention—instead proudly boasted on exploitative outcomes.&nbsp;<h2>Europe’s Dilemma: Strategic Dependence Without Strategic Voice</h2>&nbsp;Europe emerged from Davos exposed. Trump forced into the open what many already knew: Europe’s security is outsourced, its economic leverage diluted, and its political unity fragile.By tying NATO commitments to defence spending and political obedience, he weaponised this dependency. Europe was reminded that it enjoys U.S. security guarantees without the capacity to act independently. The Greenland episode showed how urgently Europe must rebuild autonomous strategic and sovereignty capacity.This moment marked a psychological rupture: Europe looks less like an equal partner and more like a protected territory bargaining with its protector. For former imperial capitals, this reversal is humiliating and destabilising, but it has also spurred resolve. The tougher line taken by some leaders, including talk of FTAs and defence agreements with India and even a “mother of all deals,” signals a clear intent to diversify beyond the U.S. and pursue strategic balancing.&nbsp;<h2>Board for Peace or Trump’s Club!</h2>&nbsp;In Davos, President Trump unveiled the Board of Peace appointing himself President for Life. Except 19 countries, who are on appeasement drive to impress him, other countries stayed away, with few bluntly refusing to join. It was a poor show of bad optics and appeasement, because such a personality based organisation earns no credibility. It’s likely to survive only till Trump is in White House.Despite many actions of President Trump to undermine UN, this board doesn’t have the traction to replace UN. No G7 country or any major power has joined so far and may not join it, as it presupposes subordination to Donald Trump, who has allotted himself over-riding powers and boasting of overstated claims for peace.&nbsp;<h2>China and Russia: Reading the signals carefully</h2>&nbsp;Trump’s 2026 Davos speech, when seen in the context of his National Security Strategy, framed China and Russia in the context of Arctic security and great-power rivalry.For China, Trump’s Davos posture confirms a hardened containment mindset. Greenland is less about Denmark and more about denying China Arctic access, infrastructure footholds, and future influence over polar trade routes, to which even other NATO members are complicit. It also encourages China to exercise similar unilateralism in Indo-Pacific on the pretext of its security. China, as well as some members of the EU, view it as a justification for diverting their trade from the US to each other.Russia, meanwhile, sees both opportunity and risk. Trump’s scepticism of alliances weakens NATO cohesion, favouring it, but his emphasis on raw power and spheres of influence clashes with Moscow’s area of influence in Arctic. The Venezuela-style demonstrations also signal that the U.S. retains escalation dominance when it chooses to use it on Russian partners like Syria and Iran.&nbsp;<h2>India: Strategic autonomy vindicated</h2>&nbsp;For India, Trump’s Davos stance vindicates its strategy of strategic autonomy and multilateral engagement amid Trump‑era unpredictability, transactional diplomacy, economic weaponisation, and unilateralism.India must treat Trump 2.0 as a lasting pattern of economic pressure, tariff diplomacy, and power‑centric geopolitics, engaging the US without over‑reliance, managing China without provocation, and keeping Russia ties stable.Trump’s idea of economic security as national security, and his readiness to override partners, warns India to pursue self‑reliance, diversify trade, and stand up to him where national interests demand. Joining Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ is not in India’s interest; it can be left under study indefinitely to remain diplomatically correct.&nbsp;<h2>Conclusion</h2>&nbsp;At Davos 2026, Trump openly declared that sovereignty is elastic, alliances are transactional, and morality follows power. Europe’s former colonisers are unsettled because Trump now uses against them the language they once used abroad with American support, yet episodes like the Greenland U‑turn and the reversal of his 10 per cent tariff threat show that coordinated European pushback and united retaliation can blunt his coercive unilateralism. It vindicated India’s strategy of autonomy and multilateralism against unjustified tariffs.&nbsp;Davos revealed a fractured order where the new big coloniser seeks leverage, not legitimacy, and it set a precedent for China and Russia to exercise similar unilateralism in renewed great‑power rivalry.&nbsp;So long as an updated Monroe‑style “Donroe Doctrine” shapes the American strategic psyche, (could go beyond Trump’s presidency) other states must build options that let them look—and act—beyond, and without, the United States.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)&nbsp;&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump’s message was brutally simple. Security follows power, power follows economic strength, and alliances survive only if they serve immediate national interest. Everything else—values, norms, historical sentiment—is negotiable.

The World Economic Forum at Davos has long been a comfort zone for the old colonial powers of Europe, where terms like ‘multilateralism‘, ‘rule-based order’, and ‘shared values’ frequently appear alongside political statements and business opportunities for the powerful and wealthy. Donald Trump’s 2026 Davos intervention was not simply another provocative speech; it sharply embodied a new type of big-power colonialism: transactional, coercive, unapologetic, and free of historical remorse. In doing so, Trump forced Europe to confront an uncomfortable irony: the former colonisers found themselves at the receiving end of a colonial logic they once perfected. Some bold gestures, such as those by the Canadian PM, President Macron, and a few others, along with signs of determination to push back, have toned down Trump’s rhetoric, but his unilateral overdrive is far from over. It prompted Europeans to come together to mitigate the damage to fragile Western Alliance. The Trump Doctrine at Davos: Power before pretence Trump’s message was brutally simple. Security follows power, power follows economic strength, and alliances survive only if they serve immediate national interest. Everything else—values, norms, historical sentiment—is negotiable. At Davos, it was applied across a few prominent issues: Greenland, Venezuela, Europe’s security dependence, and Trump’s Board of Peace. Trump did not seek approval. He sought compliance. By openly questioning NATO’s reliability, labelling it “ungrateful”, casting doubt on reciprocal defence commitments, threatening tariffs on allies, and openly floating the idea of acquiring Greenland and reframed U.S. leadership as ownership. The implicit message to Europe was unmistakable: protection is no longer free, and sovereignty is conditional. Unlike their yet-to-be-ratified trade deal, a stronger stance by some European countries/allies like Canada, and more importantly, some internal criticism in the U.S., forced him to tone down his rhetoric. Greenland: Strategic logic or neo-colonial assertion? Trump framed Greenland in terms of geography, power projection, Arctic dominance and Golden Dome deployment, downplaying his desire to control its resources, including rare earths and minerals. Greenland straddles emerging Arctic sea lanes, missile trajectories and under‑ice submarine routes, and in his view is too strategic to be left to a weak Denmark or a divided NATO in Trump’s view. He cast it as part of North America’s security ecosystem, claiming a U.S. right to determine its future—classic imperial logic cloaked in security necessity, overriding sovereignty and enforced through economic coercion rather than diplomacy. Europeans, long complicit in similar U.S. adventures like Iraq, understand this logic but were shaken by his removal of the polite diplomatic language that once masked such interventions. Their resistance, including threats to revoke trade deals or sell U.S. bonds, forced him to reverse a planned 10 per cent tariff on eight countries, yet confidence in U.S. reliability remains damaged. Denmark and Greenland remain uneasy, as a verbal understanding between the NATO chief and Trump offers no real sovereignty guarantee, much like Palestinians being excluded from Trump’s expanded “Board for Peace” beyond Gaza. With no written agreement and Trump boasting of total and permanent access to Greenland under a framework deal that bypassed both Greenland and Denmark, his fixation is clearly not over. If current trends continue, the outcome may be an updated 1951 U.S.–Denmark pact granting Washington sovereign control over expanded military bases, more NATO sentries and curbs on non‑NATO mining in Greenland—a middle path between outright U.S. takeover and simple surrender. Venezuela: A demonstration, not a debate Trump’s reference to Venezuela at Davos signalled the sad demise of the ‘rule-based order’. By showcasing U.S. military action and regime change as effective tools, Trump reinforced a central theme: America will act unilaterally, decisively, and unapologetically exploit other countries’ resources, without consequences. Venezuela became the proof-of-concept for Trump’s doctrine of coercive statecraft—use force sparingly, but advertise it loudly. For old colonial powers accustomed to operating through multilateral cover and humanitarian rhetoric, Trump’s bluntness was deeply unsettling. He made no attempt to moralise intervention—instead proudly boasted on exploitative outcomes. Europe’s Dilemma: Strategic Dependence Without Strategic Voice Europe emerged from Davos exposed. Trump forced into the open what many already knew: Europe’s security is outsourced, its economic leverage diluted, and its political unity fragile. By tying NATO commitments to defence spending and political obedience, he weaponised this dependency. Europe was reminded that it enjoys U.S. security guarantees without the capacity to act independently. The Greenland episode showed how urgently Europe must rebuild autonomous strategic and sovereignty capacity. This moment marked a psychological rupture: Europe looks less like an equal partner and more like a protected territory bargaining with its protector. For former imperial capitals, this reversal is humiliating and destabilising, but it has also spurred resolve. The tougher line taken by some leaders, including talk of FTAs and defence agreements with India and even a “mother of all deals,” signals a clear intent to diversify beyond the U.S. and pursue strategic balancing. Board for Peace or Trump’s Club! In Davos, President Trump unveiled the Board of Peace appointing himself President for Life. Except 19 countries, who are on appeasement drive to impress him, other countries stayed away, with few bluntly refusing to join. It was a poor show of bad optics and appeasement, because such a personality based organisation earns no credibility. It’s likely to survive only till Trump is in White House. Despite many actions of President Trump to undermine UN, this board doesn’t have the traction to replace UN. No G7 country or any major power has joined so far and may not join it, as it presupposes subordination to Donald Trump, who has allotted himself over-riding powers and boasting of overstated claims for peace. China and Russia: Reading the signals carefully Trump’s 2026 Davos speech, when seen in the context of his National Security Strategy, framed China and Russia in the context of Arctic security and great-power rivalry. For China, Trump’s Davos posture confirms a hardened containment mindset. Greenland is less about Denmark and more about denying China Arctic access, infrastructure footholds, and future influence over polar trade routes, to which even other NATO members are complicit. It also encourages China to exercise similar unilateralism in Indo-Pacific on the pretext of its security. China, as well as some members of the EU, view it as a justification for diverting their trade from the US to each other. Russia, meanwhile, sees both opportunity and risk. Trump’s scepticism of alliances weakens NATO cohesion, favouring it, but his emphasis on raw power and spheres of influence clashes with Moscow’s area of influence in Arctic. The Venezuela-style demonstrations also signal that the U.S. retains escalation dominance when it chooses to use it on Russian partners like Syria and Iran. India: Strategic autonomy vindicated For India, Trump’s Davos stance vindicates its strategy of strategic autonomy and multilateral engagement amid Trump‑era unpredictability, transactional diplomacy, economic weaponisation, and unilateralism. India must treat Trump 2.0 as a lasting pattern of economic pressure, tariff diplomacy, and power‑centric geopolitics, engaging the US without over‑reliance, managing China without provocation, and keeping Russia ties stable. Trump’s idea of economic security as national security, and his readiness to override partners, warns India to pursue self‑reliance, diversify trade, and stand up to him where national interests demand. Joining Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ is not in India’s interest; it can be left under study indefinitely to remain diplomatically correct. Conclusion At Davos 2026, Trump openly declared that sovereignty is elastic, alliances are transactional, and morality follows power. Europe’s former colonisers are unsettled because Trump now uses against them the language they once used abroad with American support, yet episodes like the Greenland U‑turn and the reversal of his 10 per cent tariff threat show that coordinated European pushback and united retaliation can blunt his coercive unilateralism. It vindicated India’s strategy of autonomy and multilateralism against unjustified tariffs. Davos revealed a fractured order where the new big coloniser seeks leverage, not legitimacy, and it set a precedent for China and Russia to exercise similar unilateralism in renewed great‑power rivalry. So long as an updated Monroe‑style “Donroe Doctrine” shapes the American strategic psyche, (could go beyond Trump’s presidency) other states must build options that let them look—and act—beyond, and without, the United States. (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.)

US President Donald Trump’s message was brutally simple. Security follows power, power follows economic strength, and alliances survive only if they serve immediate national interest. Everything else—values, norms, historical sentiment—is negotiable.

When old colonisers meet a new one: Decoding Trump’s coercive demonstration and U-turn at Davos

It was a day of mourning for the political fraternity of Maharashtra - if not India, as senior Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Ajit Pawar tragically lost his life in a plane crash. The incident occurred in Maharashtra’s Baramati, the same place where Pawar started his political journey. An aspiring leader and true people’s favourite, Pawar was famously called “Dada” (elder brother in Marathi) for his leadership and social involvement, while also becoming the face of the NCP (after his separation from uncle Sharad Pawar) since 2023.&nbsp;Pawar’s death also means Maharashtra will never see its beloved leader take the Chief Minister post, something he had aspired to become before tragedy struck in the morning of 28 Jan 2026. Dada was a renowned figure in Indian politics and famously wrote several chapters during his political career, including a rebellion against his uncle, Sharad Pawar, in 2023 and taking oath as Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra in November 2019.<h2>Dada’s rise</h2>Having successfully contested the 1991 Baramati Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian parliament), Ajit Pawar vacated his seat in less than 60 days for his uncle Sharad, who was appointed Defence Minister by Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao. He would then start a new chapter in state politics, winning the Baramati Legislative seat in the 1991 state elections. He would serve the seat until his death, carrying on a winning legacy and interestingly never losing an election.&nbsp;Pawar’s first term as minister came early at the age of 33 when then CM Sudhakarrao Naik appointed him Minister of State for Agriculture and Power. He would later serve as cabinet minister in governments led by Sharad Pawar, Vilasrao Deshmukh, Sushilkumar Shinde, Ashok Chavan, Prithviraj Chavan, Devendra Fadnavis, Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde.<h2>Dada’s golden era</h2>In 2010, after then-CM Ashok Chavan was asked to vacate his post for corruption charges, a new government was formed in Maharashtra led by Prithviraj Chavan. While it was anticipated that Chhagan Bhujbal be retained as Dy CM, it was the internal support that saw Pawar become the front-runner and become the new deputy in the state.However, Pawar’s eyes were always on the big throne of the state and he would make desperate attempts to come into power.<h2>First attempt to be CM</h2>In the build-up to the 2014 Assembly elections in Maharashtra, Pawar advocated the idea of running for all 288 seats rather than forming an alliance with the Indian National Congress (INC). The decision was made officially on the same evening when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) broke its pre-election alliance with Shivsena. This was Pawar’s opportunity to become the kingmaker and if not the king in Maharashtra. However, the BJP’s success and their ideology to form a government with Shivsena saw Pawar and Co sit on the opposition bench despite having 41 seats.&nbsp;ALSO READ |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/was-pawar-s-body-identified-by-his-watch-what-we-know-about-tragic-plane-crash-1769591507027"> Was Ajit Pawar’s body identified by his watch? What we know about tragic plane crash</a><h2>The near miss</h2>In the aftermath of the 2019 Assembly elections, a period of political turmoil saw the BJP split with Shivsena as the latter was set to form a government with Congress and the NCP. Ajit Pawar was elected as the leader of the house for NCP and was advocated as the CM candidate by party leaders. However, uncle Sharad’s preference to support Uddhav Thackeray to become CM saw Pawar take the back seat.&nbsp;As an act of rebellion against uncle Sharad, Ajit Pawar and his supporting MLAs would support the BJP and form a government, which lasted mere three days before Devendra Fadnavis resigned. The formation of the government with the BJP became a huge front-page story while Thackeray was chosen as the CM face by the new alliance of Shivsena, Congress and NCP. Pawar threatened to return unless he was promised the CM post. However, in the coming days after the turmoil, Pawar had to settle for a Deputy CM post in the Thackeray-led government.&nbsp;It was the closest he came to becoming the CM of Maharashtra and was never in the running thereafter with the BJP emerging as the powerhouse in the coming years.<h2>The admission</h2>In a political rally in 2025, Pawar openly admitted that had he been offered the CM post in 2019, he would have stayed with the BJP. Interestingly, this statement came after the BJP supported Eknath Shinde to become the CM of the state in 2022. Shinde had famously rebelled against Shivsena party leader Uddhav Thackeray and supported the BJP in government formation, a move similar to Pawar when he supported Devendra Fadnavis in the aftermath of the 2019 Assembly elections.&nbsp;Unfortunately for Pawar, he was never offered the CM post like Shinde and missed out on the throne.&nbsp;ALSO READ |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/moment-when-maharashtra-deputy-cm-ajit-pawar-s-aircraft-crashed-cctv-footage-here-1769587382783"> Exact moment when Maharashtra Deputy CM Ajit Pawar's aircraft crashed: CCTV footage here</a><h2>The legacy</h2>Despite the near misses, Pawar goes down as one of the respected and legendary political figures in the state of Maharashtra. He served as the deputy CM of the state a record six times and worked under a record nine chief ministers during his tenure. As mentioned, he never lost any elections at the individual level and served for the state until his death on Jan 28.&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

Ajit Pawar goes down as one of the respected and legendary political figures in the state of Maharashtra. He served as the deputy CM of the state a record six times and worked under a record nine chief ministers during his tenure.

It was a day of mourning for the political fraternity of Maharashtra - if not India, as senior Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Ajit Pawar tragically lost his life in a plane crash. The incident occurred in Maharashtra’s Baramati, the same place where Pawar started his political journey. An aspiring leader and true people’s favourite, Pawar was famously called “Dada” (elder brother in Marathi) for his leadership and social involvement, while also becoming the face of the NCP (after his separation from uncle Sharad Pawar) since 2023. Pawar’s death also means Maharashtra will never see its beloved leader take the Chief Minister post, something he had aspired to become before tragedy struck in the morning of 28 Jan 2026. Dada was a renowned figure in Indian politics and famously wrote several chapters during his political career, including a rebellion against his uncle, Sharad Pawar, in 2023 and taking oath as Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra in November 2019. Dada’s rise Having successfully contested the 1991 Baramati Lok Sabha (lower house of the Indian parliament), Ajit Pawar vacated his seat in less than 60 days for his uncle Sharad, who was appointed Defence Minister by Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao. He would then start a new chapter in state politics, winning the Baramati Legislative seat in the 1991 state elections. He would serve the seat until his death, carrying on a winning legacy and interestingly never losing an election. Pawar’s first term as minister came early at the age of 33 when then CM Sudhakarrao Naik appointed him Minister of State for Agriculture and Power. He would later serve as cabinet minister in governments led by Sharad Pawar, Vilasrao Deshmukh, Sushilkumar Shinde, Ashok Chavan, Prithviraj Chavan, Devendra Fadnavis, Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde. Dada’s golden era In 2010, after then-CM Ashok Chavan was asked to vacate his post for corruption charges, a new government was formed in Maharashtra led by Prithviraj Chavan. While it was anticipated that Chhagan Bhujbal be retained as Dy CM, it was the internal support that saw Pawar become the front-runner and become the new deputy in the state. However, Pawar’s eyes were always on the big throne of the state and he would make desperate attempts to come into power. First attempt to be CM In the build-up to the 2014 Assembly elections in Maharashtra, Pawar advocated the idea of running for all 288 seats rather than forming an alliance with the Indian National Congress (INC). The decision was made officially on the same evening when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) broke its pre-election alliance with Shivsena. This was Pawar’s opportunity to become the kingmaker and if not the king in Maharashtra. However, the BJP’s success and their ideology to form a government with Shivsena saw Pawar and Co sit on the opposition bench despite having 41 seats. ALSO READ | Was Ajit Pawar’s body identified by his watch? What we know about tragic plane crash The near miss In the aftermath of the 2019 Assembly elections, a period of political turmoil saw the BJP split with Shivsena as the latter was set to form a government with Congress and the NCP. Ajit Pawar was elected as the leader of the house for NCP and was advocated as the CM candidate by party leaders. However, uncle Sharad’s preference to support Uddhav Thackeray to become CM saw Pawar take the back seat. As an act of rebellion against uncle Sharad, Ajit Pawar and his supporting MLAs would support the BJP and form a government, which lasted mere three days before Devendra Fadnavis resigned. The formation of the government with the BJP became a huge front-page story while Thackeray was chosen as the CM face by the new alliance of Shivsena, Congress and NCP. Pawar threatened to return unless he was promised the CM post. However, in the coming days after the turmoil, Pawar had to settle for a Deputy CM post in the Thackeray-led government. It was the closest he came to becoming the CM of Maharashtra and was never in the running thereafter with the BJP emerging as the powerhouse in the coming years. The admission In a political rally in 2025, Pawar openly admitted that had he been offered the CM post in 2019, he would have stayed with the BJP. Interestingly, this statement came after the BJP supported Eknath Shinde to become the CM of the state in 2022. Shinde had famously rebelled against Shivsena party leader Uddhav Thackeray and supported the BJP in government formation, a move similar to Pawar when he supported Devendra Fadnavis in the aftermath of the 2019 Assembly elections. Unfortunately for Pawar, he was never offered the CM post like Shinde and missed out on the throne. ALSO READ | Exact moment when Maharashtra Deputy CM Ajit Pawar's aircraft crashed: CCTV footage here The legacy Despite the near misses, Pawar goes down as one of the respected and legendary political figures in the state of Maharashtra. He served as the deputy CM of the state a record six times and worked under a record nine chief ministers during his tenure. As mentioned, he never lost any elections at the individual level and served for the state until his death on Jan 28. 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

Ajit Pawar goes down as one of the respected and legendary political figures in the state of Maharashtra. He served as the deputy CM of the state a record six times and worked under a record nine chief ministers during his tenure.

Ajit Pawar: The Chief Minister Maharashtra never got

This morning, Maharashtra woke up to heartbreaking news. Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, 66, died when his private jet crashed at Baramati airport. Five people lost their lives—Ajit Pawar himself, two pilots, and two security staff. The Learjet 45, flying from Mumbai to Baramati for election work, crashed during landing and burst into flames. Within minutes, a leader who had shaped Maharashtra politics for decades was gone.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-ajit-pawar-plane-crash-accident-during-landing-attempt-in-baramati-1769584882231/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-ajit-pawar-plane-crash-accident-during-landing-attempt-in-baramati-1769584882231/embed</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;As someone who has followed Indian politics and aviation safety, I believe this tragedy raises uncomfortable questions we cannot ignore. Could this have been prevented? The answer, I fear, is yes. Let me explain what happened in simple terms. The Learjet 45 is a business jet manufactured by Bombardier, a Canadian aerospace company. It's powered by twin turbofan jet engines—the same type of powerful engines you find on commercial airliners, just smaller. This is important to understand: a Learjet is a pure jet aircraft, not a turboprop. Turboprops have propellers driven by turbine engines and are much slower. The Learjet 45 is built for speed and luxury, capable of flying at over 800 kilometers per hour.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/from-baramati-to-milan-learjet-45-s-deadly-history-after-ajit-pawar-s-death-in-pics-1769579527651">From Baramati to Milan: Learjet 45's deadly history after Ajit Pawar's death | In pics</a>&nbsp;But here's the critical problem: these high-performance jets land very fast, touching down at nearly 250 kilometers per hour. That's almost as fast as a Formula 1 racing car. When you're moving that fast, you need a lot of runway space to stop safely. Think of it like this: imagine driving your car at 100 kilometers per hour and trying to stop it. Now imagine doing that at 250 kilometers per hour. You'd need much more road, better brakes, and perfect conditions. Even a small mistake—wet surface, delayed braking, or a mechanical problem—could be disastrous.&nbsp;Baramati airport is a small regional airfield. It was built for slower aircraft like turboprop planes, which land at around 150-180 kilometers per hour and can stop much quicker because their propellers can reverse thrust powerfully. The runway at Baramati is shorter than what a Learjet ideally needs. In perfect conditions, this might work. But when things go wrong—and reports suggest the plane had some technical trouble—there's no safety margin left. According to initial reports, the pilots attempted landing once, then had to circle back for a second try. This is called a "go-around," and it happens when the first landing attempt isn't safe. The second approach is always more stressful because pilots are under pressure, fuel might be running low, and everyone is tense. This is exactly when human errors can happen.Eyewitnesses say the plane came in too low, hit near the runway edge, skidded off, and exploded. The jet fuel—thousands of liters of highly flammable kerosene—ignited immediately. Nobody stood a chance.&nbsp;Here's what troubles me most: this was entirely avoidable. The Learjet 45, despite being an excellent aircraft in the right circumstances, was simply the wrong choice for Baramati airport. If Ajit Pawar had traveled in a turboprop aircraft instead—planes like the Beechcraft King Air or Pilatus PC-12—he would likely be alive today. Turboprops are slower, less glamorous, yes. But they're perfect for short distances and small airports. They land at lower speeds, have powerful propeller reverse thrust that helps them stop quickly, and are much more forgiving on shorter runways. But we Indians have a fascination with speed and luxury. Flying in a sleek Learjet, manufactured by a prestigious Canadian company, feels important, powerful. A turboprop seems old-fashioned, less impressive. This obsession with appearances may have cost five lives today.&nbsp;Bombardier stopped manufacturing new Learjets in 2021, but around 200 of these aircraft still operate worldwide, including in India's charter aviation sector. They're well-maintained and popular for VIP travel. The problem isn't the aircraft itself—it's using it in the wrong place. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has started its investigation. They'll recover the black box—a device that records everything the pilots said and did, plus all the aircraft systems' data. Within a month, we'll get a preliminary report with basic facts. The complete investigation, with root causes and recommendations, will take six months to a year.&nbsp;But I can tell you what they'll likely find: a combination of factors. Perhaps a mechanical failure that forced the emergency landing. Perhaps pilot error under pressure during the second approach. Perhaps inadequate runway length for a jet aircraft of this type. Perhaps insufficient safety protocols for VIP flights into small airports. What makes me angry is that this pattern repeats in India. We have a booming private aviation industry, with rich businesspeople and politicians zipping around in fast jets. But our safety regulations haven't kept pace. Small airports are being used for aircraft they weren't designed for. Pilots are sometimes fatigued or under pressure to complete flights in bad conditions. Maintenance standards vary wildly.&nbsp;Ajit Pawar was Maharashtra's longest-serving Deputy Chief Minister. He was a grassroots leader who understood rural Maharashtra deeply. Love him or hate him politically, everyone acknowledged his administrative skills and hard work. He spent his life serving people through the cooperative movement and politics. To die this way, so suddenly, so unnecessarily, is a terrible waste. For young people reading this, I want you to understand something important: technology is wonderful, but only when used wisely. Faster isn't always better. A Canadian-made jet isn't automatically safer than an Indian-operated turboprop if used incorrectly. Sometimes the old, boring, "slow" option is actually the smartest choice.&nbsp;Maharashtra has declared three days of mourning. The state has lost a towering political figure. But beyond the grief and tributes, we need action. The AAIB's recommendations must be implemented strictly. Airlines operating high-speed jets should be banned from using inadequate airports. VIPs should be educated about aviation safety, not just fed to their egos. Ajit Pawar's death should not be in vain. If this tragedy forces India to seriously reform private aviation safety, to choose prudence over prestige, to value lives over luxury—then perhaps something meaningful can emerge from this morning's horror. Until then, five families mourn. Maharashtra mourns. And we're left wondering: why does it always take a tragedy to wake us up? &nbsp;

A combination of factors: Perhaps a mechanical failure that forced the emergency landing. Perhaps pilot error under pressure during the second approach. 

This morning, Maharashtra woke up to heartbreaking news. Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, 66, died when his private jet crashed at Baramati airport. Five people lost their lives—Ajit Pawar himself, two pilots, and two security staff. The Learjet 45, flying from Mumbai to Baramati for election work, crashed during landing and burst into flames. Within minutes, a leader who had shaped Maharashtra politics for decades was gone. https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-ajit-pawar-plane-crash-accident-during-landing-attempt-in-baramati-1769584882231/embed As someone who has followed Indian politics and aviation safety, I believe this tragedy raises uncomfortable questions we cannot ignore. Could this have been prevented? The answer, I fear, is yes. Let me explain what happened in simple terms. The Learjet 45 is a business jet manufactured by Bombardier, a Canadian aerospace company. It's powered by twin turbofan jet engines—the same type of powerful engines you find on commercial airliners, just smaller. This is important to understand: a Learjet is a pure jet aircraft, not a turboprop. Turboprops have propellers driven by turbine engines and are much slower. The Learjet 45 is built for speed and luxury, capable of flying at over 800 kilometers per hour. Also read: From Baramati to Milan: Learjet 45's deadly history after Ajit Pawar's death | In pics But here's the critical problem: these high-performance jets land very fast, touching down at nearly 250 kilometers per hour. That's almost as fast as a Formula 1 racing car. When you're moving that fast, you need a lot of runway space to stop safely. Think of it like this: imagine driving your car at 100 kilometers per hour and trying to stop it. Now imagine doing that at 250 kilometers per hour. You'd need much more road, better brakes, and perfect conditions. Even a small mistake—wet surface, delayed braking, or a mechanical problem—could be disastrous. Baramati airport is a small regional airfield. It was built for slower aircraft like turboprop planes, which land at around 150-180 kilometers per hour and can stop much quicker because their propellers can reverse thrust powerfully. The runway at Baramati is shorter than what a Learjet ideally needs. In perfect conditions, this might work. But when things go wrong—and reports suggest the plane had some technical trouble—there's no safety margin left. According to initial reports, the pilots attempted landing once, then had to circle back for a second try. This is called a "go-around," and it happens when the first landing attempt isn't safe. The second approach is always more stressful because pilots are under pressure, fuel might be running low, and everyone is tense. This is exactly when human errors can happen. Eyewitnesses say the plane came in too low, hit near the runway edge, skidded off, and exploded. The jet fuel—thousands of liters of highly flammable kerosene—ignited immediately. Nobody stood a chance. Here's what troubles me most: this was entirely avoidable. The Learjet 45, despite being an excellent aircraft in the right circumstances, was simply the wrong choice for Baramati airport. If Ajit Pawar had traveled in a turboprop aircraft instead—planes like the Beechcraft King Air or Pilatus PC-12—he would likely be alive today. Turboprops are slower, less glamorous, yes. But they're perfect for short distances and small airports. They land at lower speeds, have powerful propeller reverse thrust that helps them stop quickly, and are much more forgiving on shorter runways. But we Indians have a fascination with speed and luxury. Flying in a sleek Learjet, manufactured by a prestigious Canadian company, feels important, powerful. A turboprop seems old-fashioned, less impressive. This obsession with appearances may have cost five lives today. Bombardier stopped manufacturing new Learjets in 2021, but around 200 of these aircraft still operate worldwide, including in India's charter aviation sector. They're well-maintained and popular for VIP travel. The problem isn't the aircraft itself—it's using it in the wrong place. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has started its investigation. They'll recover the black box—a device that records everything the pilots said and did, plus all the aircraft systems' data. Within a month, we'll get a preliminary report with basic facts. The complete investigation, with root causes and recommendations, will take six months to a year. But I can tell you what they'll likely find: a combination of factors. Perhaps a mechanical failure that forced the emergency landing. Perhaps pilot error under pressure during the second approach. Perhaps inadequate runway length for a jet aircraft of this type. Perhaps insufficient safety protocols for VIP flights into small airports. What makes me angry is that this pattern repeats in India. We have a booming private aviation industry, with rich businesspeople and politicians zipping around in fast jets. But our safety regulations haven't kept pace. Small airports are being used for aircraft they weren't designed for. Pilots are sometimes fatigued or under pressure to complete flights in bad conditions. Maintenance standards vary wildly. Ajit Pawar was Maharashtra's longest-serving Deputy Chief Minister. He was a grassroots leader who understood rural Maharashtra deeply. Love him or hate him politically, everyone acknowledged his administrative skills and hard work. He spent his life serving people through the cooperative movement and politics. To die this way, so suddenly, so unnecessarily, is a terrible waste. For young people reading this, I want you to understand something important: technology is wonderful, but only when used wisely. Faster isn't always better. A Canadian-made jet isn't automatically safer than an Indian-operated turboprop if used incorrectly. Sometimes the old, boring, "slow" option is actually the smartest choice. Maharashtra has declared three days of mourning. The state has lost a towering political figure. But beyond the grief and tributes, we need action. The AAIB's recommendations must be implemented strictly. Airlines operating high-speed jets should be banned from using inadequate airports. VIPs should be educated about aviation safety, not just fed to their egos. Ajit Pawar's death should not be in vain. If this tragedy forces India to seriously reform private aviation safety, to choose prudence over prestige, to value lives over luxury—then perhaps something meaningful can emerge from this morning's horror. Until then, five families mourn. Maharashtra mourns. And we're left wondering: why does it always take a tragedy to wake us up?

A combination of factors: Perhaps a mechanical failure that forced the emergency landing. Perhaps pilot error under pressure during the second approach.&nbsp;

Maharashtra loses Ajit Pawar: A tragedy that could have been prevented

opinions

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

opinions

Competing by exclusion: The return of economic containment

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

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

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

India powers Global South with green energy at Bharat Summit 2026

Beyond foreign templates: Roots of Indian strategic culture

Hormuz shock to Atmanirbhar energy: 5 major opportunities India must grab now

The new grammar of Corporate Crisis Communication: Lessons from conflict